Connect with us

global tepid

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by RichD, Dec 21, 2012.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. RichD

    RichD Guest

    Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

    1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
    Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible

    Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
    due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
    and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
    and ego and emotional investment.

    PS Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
    record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
    with policy-based evidence-making..."
  2. Guest

    That sure roasts a lot of old chestnuts. Cool.
  3. Charles

    Charles Guest

    AGW is only one method by which the presumed most intelligent species of
    this lonely planet will succeed in destroying the habitat and themselves.

    Another worth your consideration is the strong resistance to liberal
    democracy among many mid-east folks.

    Yet another is the extreme polarization between economic classes in, the
    gold standard of social equity, the U.S.A.

    Does not look so hot ... should ameliorate warming :>)
  4. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
    propaganada, the epigram is a trifle commical - the Wall Street
    Journal publishes as piece of hobbyist speculation as if it trumps
    peer-reviewed science, presumably because somebody with lots of money
    has made them an offer they weren't game to refuse, and then has the
    nerve to complain about the IPCC's objectivity.
  5. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    More denialist propaganda, from one of the regular publishers of
    denialist propaganda. James Arthur lacks the wit to appreciate what is
    actually going on.

    He wont' read "Merchants of Doubt". It's too unkind about some of his
    favourite people.
  6. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It does take a Pollyanna level of optimistic ignorance to be that
    unrealistic , but John isn't short of incorrigible ignorance.

    More CO2, quite a bit warmer and wetter is places that didn't used to
    be wet before may be good for plants, but it's more likely to be good
    for weeds than for the crops which we've selected and bred to do well
    in the climate we've had for the past ten thousand years or so, in the
    places where those crops have always grown well up to now.

    But does he cite them correctly? Monkton published a plausible-looking
    piece in the US Institute of Physics "Physics Today" but a detailed
    follow-up found some 128 howlers (and I suspect that the critic lost
    interest at 2^7, rather than running out of mistakes to identify).
    Hilarious in the circumstances, but John Larkin doesn't know enough to
    Really? We could certainly engineer a population crash, and the
    survivors wouldn't be well placed to sustain a modern industrialised
    society, but extinction isn't all that likely. One argument is that
    language based cultural learning was our trick to adapt to the
    relatively rapid cycling between ice-ages and interglacials that has
    been going on since we split off from the chimpanzees, and it should
    leave us well placed to cope with a comparably abrupt warming.
  7. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Actually, Matt Ridley is a scientist, but a zoologist, and - like most
    of the "scientists" active in the denialist propaganda machine -
    rather prone to post total nonsense on anthropogenic global warming.

    This is just "The Wall Street Journal" doing it's usual service to the
    denialist propaganda machine.
  8. "global" warming is really nothing but a grotesque 100-year-old
    of glass "house" effects, as is seen by using spherical trig and
    Snell's law (for putative changes in albedo). Ahrrenius did not
    get teh first Nobel in chemistry for that ****.

    you will probably have to use "geometrical optics," that is to say,
    one normal "ray" to the wavefront from Sun, but
    that doesn't make Newton's "theory," a theory!
  9. actually, as far as I've seen,
    they publish just as much Confirmerist stuff, because
    that is just the nature of the market. in particular,
    although the so-called Republicans might aver that
    my Congressman's old ('91) cap-and-trade bill was
    just a "tax on SOx and NOx," it is really just "free-er trade;"
    perhaps that is why this mandatory program was passed
    unanimously by both houses.
  10. benj

    benj Guest

    Actually it is the science denier alarmists that are prone to total
    nonsense. They don't even bother to read their own links or examine their
    own data.

    This sure looks like Global Tepid to me:

    I keep waiting for that accelerating and dramatic temperature rise that
    we keep being told is going on, but so far for the past decade nada.

    So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might agree
    with you on that one...
  11. Unum

    Unum Guest

    Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;
  12. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    gives the story in rather more detail, and with a rather better grasp
    of physics.

    <snipped incoherent rubbish>
  13. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    As if you were equipped to know.
    It would. It's a twelve year sequence, and probably tells you more
    about what the Atlantic multidecadal osicillation is doing over the
    period than anything about global warming. Anthropogenic global
    warming is rapid - in geological terms - but it takes decades to show
    above the noise, and wandering ocean currents are definitely noise in
    this context.
    Patience is a virtue. Foresight is a bigger virtue, but it takes more
    knowledge than you seem to have yet acquired.
    I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
    it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,
  14. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
    propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

    <snipped irrelevant rubbish>
  15. benj

    benj Guest

    Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
    closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
    Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

    And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
    about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
    continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
    warming theory.

    We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
    warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be

    Just who do you guys think you are fooling?
  16. benj

    benj Guest

    Sure I have a newsreader and I have a brain. You only have one of those.
    It's a twelve year sequence in the face of DRAMATICALLY RISING CO2!

    If your "Radiative forcing" theory is correct, then this data is bullshit.

    So your idea is to just wait, for the next statistical up-tick and then
    start screaming GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! WE TOLD YOU SO!!

    You obviously not only have no knowledge nor education nor honesty nor
    ethics, so none of this means anything to you. All you know is lies and
    propaganda and faked data and massaged graphs and ways to fool the public
    into being scared into some kind of civilization-busting tax to be spread
    around the Third World. Sweet. You are evil. But then you are doubtless
    also an evolutionist and morality, ethics, honesty or legality mean
    nothing to you as they are "fairytales".
    No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
    for so long. Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all
    those predictions of the end of the world.
  17. benj

    benj Guest

    As is the propensity of the BBC, Scientific American, Physics Today, and
    most major media to simply repeat warmist lies as if they were true. I'd
    say nobody can be that stupid, but facts show otherwise.
  18. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    In fact these people are reporting a better-than-usually-well-
    established scientific consensus, but there do seem to be a few
    conspiracy theory nuts around that want to believe something
  19. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

    I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
    about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
    effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
    The crap about the "state-supplied SUV" wasn't mine, and that's what I
  20. Tunderbar

    Tunderbar Guest

    As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
    1.6C anytime.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day