@TMTisFree



Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: A decrease in airborne dust and volcanic emissions has contributed to warming the North Atlantic Ocean in the past three decades, a study showed. Link

Something perhaps related, in so far it has to do with particles in the sky, Effects of clearing smog . Skys in Europe are getting cleaner and China dirtier. Yet both areas are seen as warming. Another article talking about particles in the sky.

I'd like to see these both expanded so we can understand more of their impact. Certainly in the case of smog, dust, and volcanoes there are things we and cannot control.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2009 at 02:44 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A perfectly correct, true, accurate, relevant and objective statement: not a single word of CO² in this full paper

It is correct and true. It is not relevant nor objective. This paper looked at the effects of aresols not CO2. So searching for CO2 is not relevant. Nor is the statemenet objective. Instead it's a fallacy by using an unstated major premise -- All Global Warming evidence must discuss CO2.


Edit: taking out the sarcasm

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2009 at 03:12 PM.

@BrianK

Totally relevant because it was not 'CO²' that is relevant, but the 'absence of the word CO²'; effectively the paper is a refreshing one because it explains physical effect with another physical effect without taking for granted the CO² hypothesis.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Yesterday, between 20h30 and 21h30, local time, to celebrate a new star in the sky (the ISS has a new pair of long solar arrays) brighter than Venus, I switched on all the lights inside and outside the house:

As an astronomer who enjoys the night sky and loathes unnecessary light-pollution I must say that is the most stupid and selfish thing you could do.

What a *****, you say you are celebrating something in the sky yet do something so crass that is going to ensure anything in the sky is extremely difficult to see. DUH.

As you seem so against global warming could you please explain why the skys are now so cloud laden and we have far more cloud than 20 years ago. The obvious answer is heat evaporating more water which gets dumped over cooler wet areas.

Quote:

I also turned on the dishwasher, the laundry machine, the 2 driers and made sure my 2 cars will be ready for Monday, for good measure. All lights were OK.

MOD NOTE:
Edited out some not OK text.
Edit2: Oh, and this is an official warning. Don't say things like that on this board.

Last edited by zerohero on 30-Mar-2009 at 01:06 PM.
Last edited by zerohero on 30-Mar-2009 at 01:05 PM.

@BillE

You have just been reported.

Edit: you also lose a customer btw. Your arrogance has been rewarded.
Edit2: thanks to mod for prompt moderation.

Bye
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 30-Mar-2009 at 01:20 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 30-Mar-2009 at 08:38 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BillE

Now your post has been cleaned, I can reply to your sole interesting but incorrect claim:
Quote:

why the skys are now so cloud laden and we have far more cloud than 20 years ago

Data show no trend in cloud amount in the last few years:


or in past decades:


or per cloud's types, cumulus:

cirrus:

stratus:


Data from here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

it explains physical effect with another physical effect without taking for granted the CO² hypothesis.

Your arguement is a fallacy of ad ignoratiam. Ad ignoratiam is the statement that a belief is true (in this case CO2 is not a factor) because we don't know it isn't true (the physical effect here is dust and ash). The experiment was built to analyze dust and ash not CO². It's result should be a comment on what it was built to analyze 'dust and ash', and it is. Yours statement about CO² isn't answered in this experiment...

Quote:

Totally relevant because it was not 'CO²' that is relevant, but the 'absence of the word CO²

This is another fallacy that of an unstated premise. The requirement here from your statments is that all Global Warming evidence must discuss CO². Thus if anything is shown to not be CO², you believe it fully supports any case of CO². as completely wrong. If you understand Global Warming scientific consensus you will see CO² is the major factor but not the only factor. In this experiment we see one possible variable being discussed -- 'dust and ash'.

It's through your claim here that you commit another fallacy -- special pleading. Special pleading is the introduction of new arguements into the discuss to make them appear valid. CO² again was not part of this study so your introduction may be a type of special pleading. The study is about 'ash and dust' not about CO². Demanding a response on CO² leads the arguement into a type that simply was not factored into the experiment.

Overall I think the your fallacious statements about this experiment are again best summed up by Carl Sagan -- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "


The paper is fairly new, there's little alternative supporting or negating that's been done yet. I say let it live, let the scientists do their work to verify or negate. It certainly does not disprove, nor does it prove, the influence of CO² as you claim, nor was it meant to.


Now could CO² be factors in volcanic ash and dust? Certainly. (Again this experiment isn't meant to say yes or not.) CO² concentration is a change to the atmosphere. Dust and ash live in the atmosphere. To understand the effect of CO² perhaps someone could do an experiment to determine how increating CO² effects the rate of change of dust and ash within the atmosphere. Another experiment that might get you to your begging supposition would be to determine if and how CO² effects the dryness or wetness in the area. Perhaps changing CO² causes a change in precepitation, thereby soil moisture, and therefore a change of dust.

I hope you now understand your statement that this experiment disproves CO² is a false assumption. You are making the experiment something it was not meant to prove or disprove. I, hope, that an example of further work might be related to this experiment and could possibly help you prove no effects of CO².

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Mar-2009 at 09:35 PM.

@BrianK

Of course the paper does not deal with CO²: I said "Totally relevant because it was not 'CO²' that is relevant, but the 'absence of the word CO²" and "the paper is a refreshing one because it explains physical effect with another physical effect without taking for granted the CO² hypothesis".

A so long post to achieve nothing different of what I said

"The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse".

Btw I do not need any experiment to prove CO² has no additional GHE; Mother Nature is currently demonstrating it (if calculations I "regurgitated" in my previous posts had not convinced you yet).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I said "Totally relevant because it was not 'CO²' that is relevant

It's as equally relevant that it was not KITTENS!

A so long post to achieve nothing different of what I said

Quote:

Mother Nature is currently demonstrating it

You are right we have a cooling trend of 1 year in a row! If we take an equally myoptic look at climate in Minnesota we recently experienced 20 degrees hotter than average temps in MN for March. I guess this 1 year beats the last 1 year...

@BrianK

Quote:

It's as equally relevant that it was not KITTENS!

Yeah, kittens have not been hypothesised/correlated to climate change...oh wait, no, growing number of kitties correlate well with increasing temperatures, sure there is a causation here. And it is worse than that: there is a positive feedback: more bad kitties, more bad global warming. Serendipity BrianK, you are on something!



Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Yeah, kittens have not been hypothesised/correlated to climate change

And CO2 was not hypothesised in the experiment either. The experiment comments equally well on kittens or CO2 being alternative causes. That is not at all.

@BrianK

Quote:

And CO2 was not hypothesised in the experiment either.

So we are back to my initial and correct post:Quote:

Not a single word of CO².

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

So we are back to my initial and correct post:Quote: Not a single word of CO².

Which is based on a fallacy of unstated assumption (that CO2 is the only effect in Global Warming). Which is based on the fallacy of ad ignorantium ( the experiment has nothing to say about CO2 because it was not about CO2). Which combined end up with a fallacious case of special pleading.

BTW -- you might want to verify your clever cartoon support. Post #171 -- one example of where it's wrong is no net increase in the last 10 years was shown wrong by your included UAH data. It showed the net increase in January of 2000-2009. Perhaps your included graph is wrong? Can't have both a claimed no increase and a graph showing a net increase....

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2009 at 01:37 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Which is based on a fallacy of unstated assumption (that CO2 is the only effect in Global Warming). Which is based on the fallacy of ad ignorantium ( the experiment has nothing to say about CO2 because it was not about CO2). Which combined end up with a fallacious case of special pleading.

Which is a non sense, out of context and off topic. Btw when you use a Latin locution, make sure that it is correctly written:ad ignorantiam. For ex. the quote above is typically an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Remember not to use it ad nauseam incorrectly, it makes you look pompous.

Quote:

BTW -- you might want to verify your clever cartoon support. Post #171 -- one example of where it's wrong is no net increase in the last 10 years was shown wrong by your included UAH data. It showed the net increase in January of 2000-2009. Perhaps your included graph is wrong? Can't have both a claimed no increase and a graph showing a net increase....

Both are correct because the cartoon is dated 2007. The two show decreasing temperatures. Mixing apples and oranges. Having some degrees in Mathematics you said? I understand why you wrote it is not a Science for you...

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 01-Apr-2009 at 02:40 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Which is a non sense, out of context and off topic.

I agree trying to conclude anything about CO2 from a study that had nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 is nonsense, out of context and off topic.

Quote:

Both are correct because the cartoon is dated 2007.

I get it we were supposed to laugh now that the old anti-gw claims are wrong.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Quote:

Deep Solar Minimum April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

@Tomas

Interesting that the sun hasn't picked up it's activity. I don't think anyone knows what the world wide effects are. Looking at March in MN we were nearly 20 degrees above average for the month.


@Thread
On the anti-GW notion that 10 years of no net change disproves warming....

Quote:

Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, explained that claims about the pace of global warming require more than 10 years of data, "since natural variations always occur on this timescale." She continued, "1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record." According to the Met Office website, the WMO "requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years," which was chosen "as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations."

Quote:

Data collected over the past 150 years by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites lead to an unequivocal conclusion: The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years. It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record

WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud states...
Quote:

The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit. While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change.

@BrianK

thx for the links

Quote:

I'd like to see these both expanded so we can understand more of their impact. Certainly in the case of smog, dust, and volcanoes there are things we and cannot control.

agreed. I have interest in knowing the impact of Asia's development. For example CA. has the Strictly controlled EPA regulations, yet their air has smog. IMHO its not the auto's doing making the smog but comes from overseas.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Edit: you also lose a customer btw. Your arrogance has been rewarded.

deep breahing mode...

Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate you !

The Imperial Obama will fund my research into the matter...

Slashdot: "Something that I've been trying to get an answer to: Is alcohol killing our planet? Alcohol is a byproduct of yeast, but another is CO2. As we all know (unless you've been asleep for years), CO2 is helping to warm our planet, sending us into destruction. So how much is the manufacture and consumption of alcohol contributing to the total world CO2 level? And don't forget that bars and pubs force beer through to their pumps using large compressed cylinders of CO2. Does anyone know?"

We will fund the complete CO2 alcohol history from start to your farting finish.
Perhaps the removal of your drink will motivate you!

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker