NATU Setting the climate record straight

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...1c56c97d6a7584



The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...1c56c97d6a7584


The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to respond,
on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

He doesn't admit there were mistakes, and It sounds like they are
politicians, not scientists.

Baron wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...1c56c97d6a7584


The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to respond,
on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

He doesn't admit there were mistakes, and It sounds like they are
politicians, not scientists.

You dont admit you are a mistake!

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...09a09f6cce 5b
381c56c97d6a7584



The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to
decide whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its
five-year assessments or being the source of information and being
able to respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.


IPCC
"We agree. We F------ up. We should all be fired."
Then, Wonder Woman removed the silver lasso and they went back to business
as usual.

On 2/20/10 12:04 AM, Rich wrote:
Sam wrote in
:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...09a09f6cce 5b
381c56c97d6a7584



The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to
decide whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its
five-year assessments or being the source of information and being
able to respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.


IPCC
"We agree. We F------ up. We should all be fired."
Then, Wonder Woman removed the silver lasso and they went back to business
as usual.

SAN DIEGO—Prominent climate researchers gathered here today at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (which publishes ScienceNOW) to discuss a barrage of recent
attacks on climate science and on climate researchers themselves.
Science reporter Eli Kintisch sat down with panelist and Texas A&M
climate scientist Gerald North to discuss the current atmosphere. Listen
to their conversation here (mp3).
http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_pod...st_100219a.mp3

On Feb 22, 8:34*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 2/22/2010 2:19 AM, Ace0f_5pades wrote:





On Feb 19, 12:45 pm, Sam *wrote:
NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...354e09a09f6cce....

The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Thats good news . *at least the science admits variable volume -- but
its still weak,& *u know it. *Entropy proves both ACC& *CC
anthropogenic climate change& *climate change.

entropy has a simple natural order; and it predicts by virtue of the
Greenhouse Gas Effect, mass transits the entropy difference out of the
atmosphere by virtue of mass and its internal energy thus to maintain
that greenhouse equilibrium(provable; and it shot down the
precipitation of carbonated rock balancing mechanism) * judging from
what u said in an earlier response to mass transit, *U know that
proximity irradiance is also increasing.

Please tell me this was written by a bot.



U know that an orbit depends upon its momentum.
U know that any detection of difference in radial lengths need a fixed
meter-datum
U know that any detection of time difference depends on a fixed time-
datum ...

and the following standard assume what?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...e/post.cfm?id=....
it assumes a non material exchanges of earths atmosphere with the
surroundings. *And this isn't the case! *NASA proved this is false.
BECAUSE SURE AS THERE IS GRAVITY, THERE IS RED SHIFT.

I'd be interested to find out how many physicists will acknowledge
there's a real problem here?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah, No bot,

and whats more

entropy has a simple natural order; and it predicts by virtue of the
Greenhouse Gas Effect, mass transits the entropy difference out of the
atmosphere by virtue of mass and its internal energy thus to maintain
that greenhouse equilibrium(provable; and it shot down the
precipitation of carbonated rock balancing mechanism)

If this were not true, the temperature in Canada would now be
rivalling the temperatures in Egypt.

If it weren't for the ice, earth specific heat capacity would change,
and that would affect global temperature.

If it weren't for the equilibrium, that global temperature change
would kill our planet sooner rather than later.

the ******* about the tropopause is that it has a constant temperature
and pressure (except at the fringes where excitation occurs)
sandwiched between two temperature zones (with a natural entropic
order stack (which gives radiant clues)), and therefore the tropopause
acts like a perfect heat engine (because an equilibrium is assumed
even though the process is irreversible), transporting mass which is
driven by the troposphere radiant factor, (which is volume variant due
to temperature and pressure changed)
V = nþR (where dimensionless coefficient þ: 0--þ --2 acts on the gas
constant due to volume variability of elements)
therefore in a simple model
W_out = Integral (F dx) = Integral (PA_(pi(rr)) dx)
=integral (P dV) = int( nþR/V dV) = nþR (int) dV/V
= nþR(ln V_n -ln V_0) = nþR V_n/V_0

So, as u can see Sam, u can't admit the volume without the changes in
entropy. since it is the mechanism that maintains equilibrium!

And I suspect that there should be some debate over the contention
that the mechanism should be treated like a perfect heat engine.

And I suspect it would be better to hypothesize a radiant factor, and
thereby a massflow rate.
To that end, Sam, do you know if water will transform into plasma due
when exposed to cosmic radiation?

On Feb 18, 3:45*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...354e09a09f6cce....

The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Perhaps green house gases will be man's way of preventing future ice
ages. After all who wants perpetual winter when we can have spring!

Mitch Raemsch

On Feb 23, 12:56*pm, BURT wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:45*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second
working group discusses recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d64...354e09a09f6cce....

The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Perhaps green house gases will be man's way of preventing future ice
ages. After all who wants perpetual winter when we can have spring!

Mitch Raemsch

perhaps you should understand there's no danger of an ice age ; that
is barring a suddenly increase of mass/momentum i.e. a very large
meteor smashing into Earth.

what the above predicts is the cumulative loss of of mass --
especially water

at the point where the perihelion has enough radiant energy to push
earths temperature to the Green House Gas equilibrium -- that is when
ACC will be significantly out done by natural CC -- thats the point of
no return.

......

anyway... I'm out of here.

I need to get my math and physics down, and put the proper focus into
my work.

Keep it real Sam. laterz