Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Global Warming] Re: Sceptics article.

Expand Messages
  • Mark K
    ... From: lasallia To: Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:24 AM Subject: [Global Warming] Re:
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 31, 2005
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "lasallia" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <globalwarming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:24 AM
      Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Sceptics article.


      > > Where did you get this idea? And further, how, exactly, is it
      > relevant?
      > > And why the choice of 650,000 years? Because it's a lie at
      > 800,000 years?
      > > Or because that specific point in time was randomly chosen?
      > Well, what is it?
      >
      > Because that is what they had. It isn't a choice, it's availability
      > of data.
      >
      > > Quoting a 50 year "trend" as even evidence of soemthing, is like
      > specifiying a board of 8 feet long, plus or minus a margin of error
      > of 200 feet. It's a logical absurdity.
      >
      > Strangely enough a very short data set is exactly what is quoted to
      > show that hurricane incidence and intensity is not linked to global
      > climate change. I have to agree with you that fifty years of data
      > (and much of that unverifiable) is not enought to establish a 25
      > year cycle. But for other data it may be enough.

      But it's not 50 years that's quoted for hurricane cycle support. It's 150
      years. Usually, 50 years of data is quoted as a demonstration, but the
      data is much greater.

      >
      > > Sheesh. Listen to yourself. "Quite some time now" is hundreds of
      > > years!!!!!!!
      >
      > Histrionics.

      ( dodging facts is what you're doing here )

      >
      > > Of course not. I didn't say it was or wasn't. I said it wasn't
      > > particularly remarkable, as in "not seen before in history". The
      > fact that it landed in a populated area was chance, and the fact
      > that the LEVEES FAILED was the cause of the vast amount of the
      > destruction (loss in dollars) from Katrina. Almost no lives were
      > lost in the direct center of the storm, most were due to
      > technological and political planning failures. In other
      > > words, Katrina is no argument for global warming... OR ANYTHING
      > ELSE OTHER THAN POLICY CHANGES IN THE AREA OF OUR COASTLINE!!!!
      >
      > The levees were built to withstand a storm of lesser intensity, as
      > predicted.

      Actually, they were built and decisions made on the basis of PROBABILITY of
      a higher than Cat 3 storm. Not that it was predicted there would be none,
      but that the chance was small. In reality, the dikes failed, not because
      of a higher than class 3 storm, but due to construction defects. There was
      not much wind damage to New Orleans. The big issue was flooding.

      Policy is now going to change because the predictions
      > were wrong. I see you have no problem with policy changing because
      > weather events are changing, in this instance.

      Actually, the policies that need to change are not in response to weather
      changing, because it's not. It's policies that need changing because they
      were not proper to begin with. They are mostly political, and they have
      NOTHING to do with weather changing.

      >
      > > And if next summer is cooler than average, You'll start screaming
      > it's "global warming". There is no weather event which you will
      > not claim is caused by "global warming". Not even a LACK of
      > weather events will not you "blame" on "global warming".
      >
      > Histrionics.

      Wrong. I nailed it perfectly. You can't even rebut it, since to do so
      will result in you and others here attemting to contradict themselves in
      weeks or months.

      >
      >
      > > Oh, and those millimeters in depth change... You're going to tell
      > me that a satellite can measure the ocean's depth to the millimeter,
      > plus or minus a few meters... I have NO FREAKING IDEA why you
      > believe that the ocean's depth can be measured from space down to
      > the millimeter... But if they say it, I guess you'll just swallow
      > it without doubt, because it supports what you want to argue. The
      > notion is absurd.
      >
      > Histionics again, and irrational argument.

      I really wish you knew something about ANYTHING. You are fatally ignorant,
      not enlightened. I'm sorry, THEY CANNOT MEASURE OCEAN LEVEL FROM SPACE TO
      THE MILLIMETER!!!! When you figure this out, you're going to finally grasp
      just how political, and really NOT factual this stuff is.

      Data is collected and
      > averages calculated.

      Yes, they're measuring the 8 foot board plus or minus a 200 foot margin of
      error. When are you going grasp the technological truth to this???

      Figures like 2 millimetres come from averages
      > of actual measurements. I hate to mention lack of scientific
      > understanding Mark, but it fits your rantings exactly.

      This has nothing to do with science, this is a technological IMPOSSIBILITY.
      Understand? You're just pretending that because someone produces numbers,
      it must be fact. I"m telling you that these people are guessing, BIG TIME.
      And the reason they're guessing, is that THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN
      MEASURE OCEAN LEVELS TO THE MILLIMETER (not even to the meter) FROM SPACE.
      Got it? Or do I have to repeat 5 million times before you grasp the
      concept? First, ocean depth cannot be measured to the millimeter, because
      we cannot establish land subsidence to the millimeter. There is NO fixed
      reference point which is that accurate. Sorry. That's science. That's
      FACT. The stuff you're ranting is politics.

      >
      > > None. Zilch. Zip. They can't even determine where the
      > satellite is in space closer than a few kilometers!
      >
      > In the vastness of space I think that's pretty good. You have to
      > look at things in context.

      Context.... CONTEXT, FOR GOD"S SAKE LISTEN TO YOURSELF!!!! If we c an't
      even figure out where the satellites are closer than kilometers, how the
      bloodly blazes are they going to measure ocean level to the millimeter????
      The story you quoted, was using satellite data to determine the rate of
      oceans rising, and they were using MILLIMETERS OF CHANGE as the yardstick to
      measure rate. Are you catching this... at all, or are you just spouting
      more nonsense already? The most accurate measurement of ocean level is
      relative to fixed geographic points, and measuring it TERRESTRIALLY, not
      from space. And that is only somewhat accurate, because we cannot prove
      whether or not there is land subsidence going on. The continental drifts
      are likely to cause more ocean level change than is melting ice! But yet,
      there is no fixed, absolute to the fraction of a millimeter fixed refernce
      point to measure this. Thus, extrapolating and using that as the basis for
      prediction and comparison against historical data (which is very slim to
      non-existent) is an effort in complete futility. You cannot compute the
      following to 2 digits right of the decimal point: (30 +/- 20) * 2.002

      Sure, you can do hte math, but the level of confidence in the result is
      non-existent. Are sea levels rising? It appears so, and measurements
      and averages globally seem to indicate it, so it's assumed. But to try to
      measure year to year change, and with millimeter precision... Is a logical
      and mathematical absurdity that ANY high school graduate would laugh at as
      silly. But you're taking it seriously. Why?
      >
      >
      > > Wrong. It's how you LIE WITH STATISTICS, bucko. Assuming the
      > editor changed the fundamental meaning of what were the facts of a
      > story, and then proceeding on that assumption, with absolutely NO
      > evidence whatsoever....
      > > If the facts were that averages for 97 percent of australia's
      > weather recording sites were up, then THAT would have been the
      > story. Instead, the story was that 97 percent of the sites
      > recorded something above average.
      > > Which is a complete non-story, unless you're into influencing
      > people to do something, and are willing to lie to do it. There is
      > NO WAY an editor could be that stupid, and completely bungle the
      > story, changing it from a real news s tory into a statistically
      > generated lie.
      > >
      > > lasalia asked for the histrionics to stop.... But good grief, this
      > kind of nonsense? Passed off as a serious discussion of future
      > policy and scientific theory upon which that is based?
      > >
      >
      > I still ask for the histrionics and the insults to stop. I will be
      > moderating your posts and anything that is inflammatory, ie,
      > insulting language like 'bucko' will cause the post to be edited or
      > deleted. If you want a scientific discussion then it's time you
      > adhered to the standards.

      But you do not and ask no "warmer" to even remotely be scientific as
      demonstrated by the absurdity of some of the stuff posted. You are a
      hypocrite... Almost beyond belief.


      North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
      personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net
      sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net
      Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -

      >
      > Have a good one!
      >
      > Sal
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Mike Neuman
      ... Good point. The length of the data record that is appropriate in evaluating whether an occurrance is being caused by human changes to the environment may
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 2 7:58 PM
        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > ...
        > Strangely enough a very short data set is exactly what is quoted to
        > show that hurricane incidence and intensity is not linked to global
        > climate change. I have to agree with you that fifty years of data
        > (and much of that unverifiable) is not enought to establish a 25
        > year cycle. But for other data it may be enough.


        Good point. The length of the data record that is appropriate in
        evaluating whether an occurrance is being caused by human changes
        to the environment may vary depending on the variable and its presence
        of occurrance in the environment.

        The problem is that, due to atmospheric and other forms of human
        impact, some of the natural cycles have been highly influenced by
        human-generated impacts.

        For example, computer models predict that in 20 years' time, the
        average rise in global temperature could be anywhere between 0.5 to 1
        degree Celsius. In the previous 20 years, the rise was barely 0.4
        degrees Celsius.

        `Natural' disasters may already be occurring more frequently and
        with greater intensity, with some regions getting affected for the
        first time, but the cycle of their reoccurance may already have been
        short-circuited.

        We are on an entirely new playing field now with regard to determining
        if and when certain "natural" cycles will be repeated, the manner,
        force, and geographic extent at which they will be presented, as well
        as longevity of expression. This is inherent dangers involved to all
        who depend on or whom are at the mercy of those expressions cannot be
        denied.

        In "Our Affair with El Nino" (Princeton University Press, 2004),
        Geosciences (Meteorology) professor S. George Philander states that:
        "By increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide we are
        inducing global climate changes that soon will include an altered El
        Nino, and therefore does anyone here dare to quibble with his
        statement that: "Because we are now geologic agents capable of
        interfering with the processes that make this a habitable planet, we
        have become custodians of planet Earth"? (pgs. 7-8)

        By the summer of 2020, Arctic basin sea-ice may vanish altogether.
        Climate change could thaw the top 11 feet of permafrost in most areas
        of the northern hemisphere by 2100, altering ecosystems across
        Alaska, Canada and Russia. Huge amounts of methane gas could get
        released, adding substantially to the greenhouse effect.

        "This is too serious a matter to be left to specialists such as
        scientists and economists. It is the joint responsibility of all of
        us because the policies we adopt reflect our values.... El Nino is at
        present an intermittent phenonmenon, but in the geological records,
        there is evidence that, earlier than 3 million years ago
        approximately, El Nino conditions were perennial. In light of this
        empirical information, the return of permanent El Nino conditions in
        response to the current rapid rise in the atmospheric concentration of
        carbon dioxide is within the realm of possibilities." (S. George
        Philander, p. 232)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.