A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying globalwarming theory fabricated



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 16th 08, 10:30 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.misc,sci.skeptic,sci.environment.waste
Mike Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying globalwarming theory fabricated

On Aug 16, 9:44 am, Steve Wallis
wrote:
On 15 Aug, 01:17, "Mike Jr." wrote:


[snip]


http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-...al-warming.htm


That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments
to global warming theory.
Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy Spencer's arguments?


Yes. For example, see he
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/

I have read through this but I don't find their arguments persuasive.

The relative humidity of the atmosphere is not 100%. Yet the oceans
are a vast reservoir of water. Why isn't the atmosphere saturated?

Others have complained that the satellite record does show a warming
trend. But if you look at their data,
http://quikscat.com/data/msu/support...3_0_to_3_2.pdf

Temperature Middle Troposphere shows a trend of 0.116 K/decade
(warmer)

Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere shows a trend of -0.004 K/
decade (cooler)

Temperature Lower Stratosphere shows a trend of -0.345 K/decade
(cooler)

The trend lines span 1980-2008 (pub. July 2008). The data was
published by Carl Mears who is not a Spencer fan.

More common are ad hominem attacks on Spencer, a sure sign that they
are having problems attacking his analysis. I know for example that I
have won an argument when my opponent either starts cussing or calls
me a Nazi.

:-)

--Mike Jr

[snip]

  #12  
Old August 21st 08, 07:48 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.misc,sci.skeptic,sci.environment.waste
Steve Wallis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying globalwarming theory fabricated

On 16 Aug, 22:30, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:44 am, Steve wrote:
On 15 Aug, 01:17, "Mike Jr." wrote:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-...al-warming.htm


That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments
to global warming theory.


* Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy Spencer's arguments?

Yes. *For example, see hehttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/

I have read through this but I don't find their arguments persuasive.

The relative humidity of the atmosphere is not 100%. *Yet the oceans
are a vast reservoir of water. *Why isn't the atmosphere saturated?


I have to confess that I am out of my depth with all those equations.
Maybe I should bow out of this debate and leave the discussion to
those who understand the physics. On the other hand, scientists have
got to justify their arguments in ways that the general public can
understand. With last week's New Scientist main story being about
scientists predicting cooling over some if not all of the next ten
years (see http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net...p?topic=10244),
it is going to be particularly difficult for those who agree with
global warming theory to persuade the rest of us that massive action
on CO2 emissions is vital for the future of humanity. And without mass
pressure from the general public, politicians are likely to take
little if no action.

As I've stated in previous messages, I differ from most sceptics of
global warming theory in being a strong advocate of renewable forms of
energy - and would even welcome nuclear power if a cheap safe non-
polluting version was possible (as those using thorium may perhaps
be). The earth's resources are running out (including uranium) and, if
such forms of power can be used at a similar cost, it makes sense to
adopt them. I cannot be completely sure that catastrophic global
warming wouldn't happen, and even if I was sure, persuading most
fellow environmentalists and socialists of that would be well nigh
impossible.

I do have something to offer scientists on both sides of the global
warming debate, however. I was the main designer and sole developer of
an AI/simulation language SDML (which stands for Strictly Declarative
Modelling Language) based on logic - without exceptions that break the
logic, unlike with the main logic programming language Prolog. I
intend to publish a new version of it soon, as open source Smalltalk
code so others are more likely to trust it, on the website www.sdml.org.uk.
For more information in the meantime, visit www.socialiststeve.me.uk/sdml.htm.

As I've pointed out, there are conflicting graphs showing temperatures
between 1950 and the 1970s showing temperatures falling a lot, falling
moderately, staying much the same or rising. If the code used to
produce such graphs from the raw data was written in a logical
language and published so that others can have more faith in the
accuracy of such graphs, then it could help us come to some sort of
consensus. In an earlier message, Mike Jr said "Note that only the UAH
scientists calibrated their satellite data to data collected by
weather balloons." I'd like to set the ball rolling (which means "get
us started" for those who don't understand that English slang
phrase!), by comparing the data of those scientists (including Roy
Spencer) with the weather balloon data - if anybody can direct me to
it (if it can be explained to me in terms I understand). [Mike
directed me to a website with a lot of public data on (go to
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links) but weather balloon
data doesn't seem to be there]. It might be asking a lot to expect
climate modellers to recode their models (or develop new models) in
SDML, then that would be ideal (if my language is fast enough)...

--
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:

Blogs:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-...socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net....php?board=156
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net...x.php?board=89
For discussion of the environment, including global warming
scepticism, go to http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net....php?board=106
  #13  
Old November 5th 13, 08:04 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying globalwarming theory fabricated

The short answer to why the atmosphere is not saturated with water vapor is because the atmosphere and oceans cannot establish a thermodynamic equilibrium but are dynamic systems constantly interchanging energy and mass with each other.

The lowest level of the atmosphere in contact with the oceans is pretty well saturated, but to reach the rest of the atmosphere the water vapor has to move away, driven by convection or winds. As the vapor rises it cools because the higher you go in the atmosphere, the colder it is. And, of course, as the water vapor cools it will form clouds, and eventually precipitate, so the atmosphere away from the marine boundary layer will not be saturated except in isolated places and then it rains and it is no longer saturated.

You don't need equations.

And yes, lots of people have looked at Roy's arguments. . . . and giggled.

Eli Rabett

That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments
to global warming theory.
Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy Spencer's arguments?


Yes. For example, see he
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/

I have read through this but I don't find their arguments persuasive.

The relative humidity of the atmosphere is not 100%. Yet the oceans
are a vast reservoir of water. Why isn't the atmosphere saturated?

Others have complained that the satellite record does show a warming
trend. But if you look at their data,
http://quikscat.com/data/msu/support...3_0_to_3_2.pdf

Temperature Middle Troposphere shows a trend of 0.116 K/decade
(warmer)

Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere shows a trend of -0.004 K/
decade (cooler)

Temperature Lower Stratosphere shows a trend of -0.345 K/decade
(cooler)

The trend lines span 1980-2008 (pub. July 2008). The data was
published by Carl Mears who is not a Spencer fan.

More common are ad hominem attacks on Spencer, a sure sign that they
are having problems attacking his analysis. I know for example that I
have won an argument when my opponent either starts cussing or calls
me a Nazi.

:-)

--Mike Jr

[snip]


  #14  
Old November 5th 13, 08:35 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying globalwarming theory fabricated

Dear elir...:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:04:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Good work replying to a 5 year old thread, and posting off-topic in an astronomy newsgroup.

The lowest level of the atmosphere in contact
with the oceans is pretty well saturated, but
to reach the rest of the atmosphere the water
vapor has to move away, driven by convection
or winds. As the vapor rises it cools because
the higher you go in the atmosphere, the colder
it is. And, of course, as the water vapor
cools it will form clouds, and eventually
precipitate, so the atmosphere away from the
marine boundary layer will not be saturated
except in isolated places and then it rains
and it is no longer saturated.


Saturation not required, increases *only* required.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience...0_1280x960.png
.... see the red stripe around the equator? This is trade winds lofting water vapor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_stratospheric_cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
.... not seen until after the Industrial Revolution.

Moisture is not required to produce increased rainfall, if it is matched with increases in temperature.

David A. Smith
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Orion's airbag landing system DELETED gaetanomarano Policy 0 August 6th 07 02:16 PM
CNN Anderson Cooper Continue to Dumb Down Climate Change and GlobalWarming Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 39 May 20th 06 03:59 AM
BEWA GOOGLES CENSORSHIP: BEWARE (of censorship!) Bkiff Amateur Astronomy 5 December 12th 04 07:46 PM
Is it just my news server? why are posts being deleted? Atreju Amateur Astronomy 5 August 16th 03 03:54 AM
Notice of Alan Erskine Incarceration Paul Blay Policy 0 July 28th 03 09:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.