Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS

This is a discussion on Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS ; On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote: [...] > Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing > to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the past. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

  1. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    [...]
    > Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    > to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the past.
    > Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at the
    > present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its climate
    > is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years ago
    > and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter Solstice
    > and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a scale
    > than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    > increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's, and
    > that
    > too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's
    > So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other perhaps
    > than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.


    Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    support their point:

    "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    that
    climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    are not
    reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    attached
    to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""

    [...]
    >
    > --
    > PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com


    AEF


  2. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Aug 22, 9:02 pm, Bob Willard
    wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.
    > --
    > Cheers, Bob



    Well, according to the recent Isaacson book (Einstein: His Life and
    Universe) he was much more of a physicist and actually enlisted the
    help of a mathematician for General Relativity (and also for his work
    in Unified Field Theories, IIRC). See the book for more about this.

    BTW, it's a great book. I highly recommend it.

    AEF


  3. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    In article , Dirk Munk writes:
    >
    > So yes, there are respectable scientists who do not believe the present
    > theories on the cause of global warming. However in the present
    > situation it is hardly possible to have a meaningful discussion on this
    > subject.


    The best evidence I've seen shows that much of our current warming
    is natural and some of it is man made. I still think we ought to
    take what action we can about the part we're contributing. The
    ratio of natural to man made seems to be shifting and we don't need
    to rush things.


  4. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:06:28 -0700, wrote:

    > In article , John Santos
    > writes:
    >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>> In article , Ron Johnson
    >>> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>>> [snip]
    >>>>
    >>>>> As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>>> believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still
    >>>>> believe
    >>>>> this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>>> way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>>> the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>>> disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>>> climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    >>>>
    >>>> The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>>> orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>>> orthodoxy.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was
    >>> worrying about
    >>> an imminent ice age.

    >>
    >> This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of
    >> climate
    >> scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".
    >>

    > The prevailing opinion at that time was that the average interglacial
    > lasted
    > about 11000 years and since the start of the current interglacial was
    > 11500
    > years ago we were rapidly approaching the onset of a new ice age.


    That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is 25,600
    years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    currently is
    January 4)

    >
    > Later evidence from ice cores showed that interglacials could last much
    > longer
    > and it has been argued that the current interglacial may be more
    > analagous to
    > a previous one which lasted around 30000 years.
    > see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...iceage_01.shtm
    >
    > http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...rs/iceage.html
    >
    > and
    >
    > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174246/
    >
    > So yes I think it is fair to say that the orthodoxy in the 1970s was that
    > the next ice age was due.
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >
    >> "Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something
    >> entirely
    >> different in science than it does in a religious context.
    >>
    >>
    >> Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    >>> relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the
    >>> *perfect*
    >>> guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and
    >>> only
    >>> changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    >>> position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >>>
    >>> David Webb
    >>> Security team leader
    >>> CCSS
    >>> Middlesex University
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>>> Jefferson LA USA
    >>>>
    >>>> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>>> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> John Santos
    >> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >> 781-861-0670 ext 539




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  5. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:15 -0700, AEF wrote:

    > On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > [...]
    >> Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    >> to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the past.
    >> Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at the
    >> present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its climate
    >> is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years
    >> ago
    >> and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter
    >> Solstice
    >> and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a scale
    >> than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    >> increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's, and
    >> that
    >> too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's
    >> So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other
    >> perhaps
    >> than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.

    >
    > Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    > support their point:
    >
    > "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    > that
    > climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    > are not
    > reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    > compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    > located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    > attached
    > to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""
    >

    I am not sure what point you are making here.

    > [...]
    >>
    >> --
    >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    > AEF
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  6. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:15 -0700, AEF wrote:
    > > On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > > [...]
    > >> Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    > >> to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the past.
    > >> Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at the
    > >> present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its climate
    > >> is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years
    > >> ago
    > >> and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter
    > >> Solstice
    > >> and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a scale
    > >> than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    > >> increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's, and
    > >> that
    > >> too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's
    > >> So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other
    > >> perhaps
    > >> than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.

    >
    > > Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    > > support their point:

    >
    > > "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    > > that
    > > climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    > > are not
    > > reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    > > compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    > > located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    > > attached
    > > to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""

    >
    > I am not sure what point you are making here.
    >
    > > [...]

    >
    > >> --
    > >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    > > AEF

    >
    > --
    > PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com


    You seem to be saying there is no man-made global warming. Right?

    So does Boob. That makes you and him naysayers, right?

    Boob quotes a reference saying the above nonsense about the weather
    service placing thermometers next to hot chimneys and what not, right?

    So why do the naysayers resort to such nonsense? Or is it just that
    they're right for other reasons?

    AEF


  7. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    >
    >In article , Bob Willard writes:
    >> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>
    >>> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >>
    >> Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    >> Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    >> teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    >> Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    >> Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    >> course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

    >
    > Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    > plumber without a crack.


    Einstein was a physicist. In fact, there is a story that his friend,
    a mathematician name Marcel Grossmann, helped Einstein to express his
    theory of relativity using tensor calculus and, in particular, with
    the application of Christoffel's curvature tensors and Live-Civita's
    coordinate free differential calculus.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

  8. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    On 08/22/07 20:02, Bob Willard wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a


    That was 1911.

    He worked in the Patent Office until 1908. /Annalen der Physik/
    published him 4 times while still a patent clerk.

    Unless the University system has changed a lot in the past 100
    years, that *undergraduate* Physics degree he received at ETH Zürich
    doesn't impress me much.

    Can anyone reading this thread *REALLY* believe with a straight face
    that in 2007 any of the /Physical Review X/ journals would publish a
    radical paper by a Patent Clerk (even one with an undergraduate
    physics degree)?

    > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.


    Sure. *After* he made a name for himself.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  9. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >
    >
    >In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>In article , Bob Willard writes:
    >>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.
    >>>
    >>> Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    >>> Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    >>> teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    >>> Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    >>> Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    >>> course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

    >>
    >> Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    >> plumber without a crack.

    >
    >Einstein was a physicist. In fact, there is a story that his friend,
    >a mathematician name Marcel Grossmann, helped Einstein to express his
    >theory of relativity using tensor calculus and, in particular, with
    >the application of Christoffel's curvature tensors and Live-Civita's
    >coordinate free differential calculus.


    Typo, that's Levi-Civita.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

  10. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:11:17 -0700, AEF wrote:

    > On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:15 -0700, AEF wrote:
    >> > On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    >> > [...]
    >> >> Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    >> >> to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the

    >> past.
    >> >> Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at

    >> the
    >> >> present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its

    >> climate
    >> >> is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years
    >> >> ago
    >> >> and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter
    >> >> Solstice
    >> >> and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a

    >> scale
    >> >> than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    >> >> increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's,

    >> and
    >> >> that
    >> >> too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's
    >> >> So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other
    >> >> perhaps
    >> >> than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.

    >>
    >> > Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    >> > support their point:

    >>
    >> > "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    >> > that
    >> > climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    >> > are not
    >> > reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    >> > compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    >> > located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    >> > attached
    >> > to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""

    >>
    >> I am not sure what point you are making here.
    >>
    >> > [...]

    >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >>
    >> > AEF

    >>
    >> --
    >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    > You seem to be saying there is no man-made global warming. Right?


    It is nore reliably measureable
    >
    > So does Boob. That makes you and him naysayers, right?

    The difference is that I am a physicist who has worked in the field.
    >
    > Boob quotes a reference saying the above nonsense about the weather
    > service placing thermometers next to hot chimneys and what not, right?
    >
    > So why do the naysayers resort to such nonsense? Or is it just that
    > they're right for other reasons?


    fallacious logic 101. I know nothing about those references nor do I read
    what he posts.
    >
    > AEF
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  11. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    In article <1187873115.275770.193450@r23g2000prd.googlegroups. com>, AEF writes:
    >On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    >[...]
    >> Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    >> to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the past.
    >> Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at the
    >> present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its climate
    >> is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years ago
    >> and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter Solstice
    >> and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a scale
    >> than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    >> increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's, and
    >> that
    >> too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's


    Sorry Solar activity has been ruled out by direct satellite measurement see

    Lockwood and Frohlich's results published in New Scientist on 11th July 2007

    http://environment.newscientist.com/...l-warming.html

    and the paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society

    http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf




    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University



    >> So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other perhaps
    >> than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.

    >
    >Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    >support their point:
    >
    >"However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    >that
    >climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    >are not
    >reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    >compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    >located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    >attached
    >to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""
    >
    >[...]
    >>
    >> --
    >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    >AEF
    >


  12. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:15:05 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:

    > In article ,
    > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>
    >>
    >> In article , Bob Willard
    >> writes:
    >>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.
    >>>
    >>> Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    >>> Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    >>> teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    >>> Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    >>> Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    >>> course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

    >>
    >> Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    >> plumber without a crack.

    >
    > Einstein was a physicist. In fact, there is a story that his friend,
    > a mathematician name Marcel Grossmann, helped Einstein to express his
    > theory of relativity using tensor calculus and, in particular, with
    > the application of Christoffel's curvature tensors and Live-Civita's
    > coordinate free differential calculus.
    >
    >

    Levi-Cevita



    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  13. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >
    >
    >On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:15:05 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> In article , Bob Willard
    >>> writes:
    >>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.
    >>>>
    >>>> Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    >>>> Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    >>>> teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    >>>> Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    >>>> Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    >>>> course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.
    >>>
    >>> Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    >>> plumber without a crack.

    >>
    >> Einstein was a physicist. In fact, there is a story that his friend,
    >> a mathematician name Marcel Grossmann, helped Einstein to express his
    >> theory of relativity using tensor calculus and, in particular, with
    >> the application of Christoffel's curvature tensors and Live-Civita's
    >> coordinate free differential calculus.
    >>
    >>

    >Levi-Cevita




    OK. I understand their mathematics; I'm just not good at spelling their
    names.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

  14. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 23, 9:46 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:11:17 -0700, AEF wrote:
    > > On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:15 -0700, AEF wrote:
    > >> > On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > >> > [...]
    > >> >> Let's be clear, we currently have global warming, but man had nothing
    > >> >> to do with it, but it will pass as it has countless times in the
    > >> past.
    > >> >> Indeed the earth was warmer, the seas were higher in 1250AD than at
    > >> the
    > >> >> present. We have the good fortune to live on the Earth when its
    > >> climate
    > >> >> is about as good as it can get. We turned the corner about 800 years
    > >> >> ago
    > >> >> and are slowly descending into the next Ice Age, when the winter
    > >> >> Solstice
    > >> >> and aphelion once again cross. Climatological change occurs on a
    > >> scale
    > >> >> than far exceeds human memory. Our current warming is largely due to
    > >> >> increased solar activity (sunspots) as also occurred in the 1930's,
    > >> and
    > >> >> that
    > >> >> too will pass and the 2020's will likely be cooler as was the 1960's
    > >> >> So humble yourself, we have but little effect on the earth, other
    > >> >> perhaps
    > >> >> than to pollute it to the detriment of our well being.

    >
    > >> > Then why do the Global Warming-naysayers resort to things like this to
    > >> > support their point:

    >
    > >> > "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded
    > >> > that
    > >> > climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so
    > >> > are not
    > >> > reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    > >> > compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    > >> > located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even
    > >> > attached
    > >> > to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""

    >
    > >> I am not sure what point you are making here.

    >
    > >> > [...]

    >
    > >> >> --
    > >> >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    > >> > AEF

    >
    > >> --
    > >> PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com

    >
    > > You seem to be saying there is no man-made global warming. Right?

    >
    > It is nore reliably measureable
    >
    > > So does Boob. That makes you and him naysayers, right?

    >
    > The difference is that I am a physicist who has worked in the field.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Boob quotes a reference saying the above nonsense about the weather
    > > service placing thermometers next to hot chimneys and what not, right?

    >
    > > So why do the naysayers resort to such nonsense? Or is it just that
    > > they're right for other reasons?

    >
    > fallacious logic 101. I know nothing about those references nor do I read
    > what he posts.


    I don't see people defending well-established facts with nonsense like
    thermometers next to chimneys or like those Web sites that Boob posted
    claiming evolution violates the Second Law.

    So why can't any naysayers come up with something better?

    I assume you're going with the "they're right for other reasons" I
    alluded to above, but this would be the first time I've seen nonsense
    used to defend a "reasonable position" (for lack of my ability to come
    up with a better phrase).

    >
    >
    >
    > > AEF

    >
    > --
    > PL/I for OpenVMSwww.kednos.com


    AEF


  15. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    On Aug 23, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article , Bob Willard writes:
    >
    > > Ron Johnson wrote:

    >
    > >> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

    >
    > Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    > plumber without a crack.


    Well, yes, a physicist certainly has to learn a lot of math. But
    physicists and mathematicians play different games and Einstein
    enlisted the help of a mathematician to help him with the fancy math
    need for his GR.

    Physicists are more into using math and the mathematicians are more
    into proving things (well, at least the theoretical mathematicians).
    Physicists use mathematics to try to model the physical universe
    whereas mathematicians start with some assumptions which may or may
    not have any direct bearing on the physical universe and try to prove
    theorems that follow from them. Einstein certainly played the former
    game.

    AEF


  16. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Aug 22, 8:02 pm, Bob Willard
    wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.
    > --


    On Aug 22, 11:58 pm, "dave weatherall"
    wrote:
    > Bob Willard wrote:
    > > Ron Johnson wrote:

    >
    > > > Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

    >
    > Aha! Peer Review in operation :-)
    >


    Maybe Ron Johnson was referring to Professor Ho'Ratio "Calculus"
    Einstein, Albert's third cousin twice removed. He lived and died in
    relative obscurity in Bezelburg, Wisconsin, a town once ridiculed by
    its neighbors because of its low per-capita consumption of beer and
    cheese. The Professor experienced three months of notoriety within the
    scientific community when he presented a paper claiming to
    mathematically prove Wisconsin to be the future source of global
    warming. His downfall came when peer review showed his logic to be
    recursive and he had actually proven the non-existence of both himself
    and Bezelburg. The peer revue claim that the sun also did not exist
    was later shown to be caused by a rounding error and correction of
    that error caused all memories of the event to vanish.


  17. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:06:28 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >> In article , John Santos
    >> writes:
    >>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>>> In article , Ron Johnson
    >>>> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>>>> [snip]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>>>> believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still
    >>>>>> believe
    >>>>>> this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>>>> way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>>>> the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>>>> disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>>>> climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>>>> orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>>>> orthodoxy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was
    >>>> worrying about
    >>>> an imminent ice age.
    >>>
    >>> This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of
    >>> climate
    >>> scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".
    >>>

    >> The prevailing opinion at that time was that the average interglacial
    >> lasted
    >> about 11000 years and since the start of the current interglacial was
    >> 11500
    >> years ago we were rapidly approaching the onset of a new ice age.

    >
    >That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is 25,600
    >years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    >currently is
    >January 4)
    >

    The predominant astronomical cycle affecting glaciation for the last
    800,000 years has been a 100,000 year cycle of ice ages punctuated by briefer
    usually 9000 - 12000 year long interglacials. There are a number of different
    astronomical cycles which acting together may explain this. I believe the
    interglacial can generally be thought of as lasting for about one half of the
    equinox precessional period (the exact length depending upon how all the
    cycles mesh together and probably also modulated by other non-astronomical
    factors). The variation caused by the precession of the equinoxes obviously
    occurs repeatedly during the 100,000 year period but only leads to interglacial
    conditions at the beginning/end of the 100,000 year cycle.

    However as indicated in some of the links below more recent findings from ice
    cores point to some interglacials having lasted much longer than half the
    equinox precessional period.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >>
    >> Later evidence from ice cores showed that interglacials could last much
    >> longer
    >> and it has been argued that the current interglacial may be more
    >> analagous to
    >> a previous one which lasted around 30000 years.
    >> see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...iceage_01.shtm
    >>
    >> http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...rs/iceage.html
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174246/
    >>
    >> So yes I think it is fair to say that the orthodoxy in the 1970s was that
    >> the next ice age was due.
    >>
    >> David Webb
    >> Security team leader
    >> CCSS
    >> Middlesex University
    >>
    >>
    >>> "Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something
    >>> entirely
    >>> different in science than it does in a religious context.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    >>>> relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the
    >>>> *perfect*
    >>>> guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and
    >>>> only
    >>>> changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    >>>> position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >>>>
    >>>> David Webb
    >>>> Security team leader
    >>>> CCSS
    >>>> Middlesex University
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>>>> Jefferson LA USA
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>>>> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> John Santos
    >>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >>> 781-861-0670 ext 539

    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >PL/I for OpenVMS
    >www.kednos.com


  18. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article , Dirk Munk writes:
    >> So yes, there are respectable scientists who do not believe the present
    >> theories on the cause of global warming. However in the present
    >> situation it is hardly possible to have a meaningful discussion on this
    >> subject.

    >
    > The best evidence I've seen shows that much of our current warming
    > is natural and some of it is man made. I still think we ought to
    > take what action we can about the part we're contributing. The
    > ratio of natural to man made seems to be shifting and we don't need
    > to rush things.
    >

    That is a very sensible point of view.

  19. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    On Aug 23, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article , Bob Willard writes:
    >
    > Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being
    > a plumber without a crack.
    >


    I'm still thinking about this one :-)

    NSR



  20. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:05 -0700, wrote:

    >> That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is
    >> 25,600
    >> years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    >> currently is
    >> January 4)
    >>

    > The predominant astronomical cycle affecting glaciation for the last
    > 800,000 years has been a 100,000 year cycle of ice ages punctuated by
    > briefer
    > usually 9000 - 12000 year long interglacials. There are a number of
    > different
    > astronomical cycles which acting together may explain this. I believe the
    > interglacial can generally be thought of as lasting for about one half
    > of the
    > equinox precessional period (the exact length depending upon how all the
    > cycles mesh together and probably also modulated by other
    > non-astronomical
    > factors). The variation caused by the precession of the equinoxes
    > obviously
    > occurs repeatedly during the 100,000 year period but only leads to
    > interglacial
    > conditions at the beginning/end of the 100,000 year cycle.
    > However as indicated in some of the links below more recent findings
    > from ice
    > cores point to some interglacials having lasted much longer than half the
    > equinox precessional period.




    Because there are a number of different repeating factors ( google
    Milankovitch)
    there is a beat phenomenon that can occur resulting in extremes.
    I copied the following article which I think is well put together
    http://www.kednos.com/physics/CLIMATOLOGY/ICEAGE.HTML

    Note the graph on insolation, the 100K period to which you refer is
    clearly significant,
    the 400K period is caused by perturbation of the earths orbit by planetary
    alignments
    resulting in the eccentricity becoming as high as 0.04 (currently almost
    circular, 0.01)
    but also not that the last ice age in which the ice was several km thick
    on northern Europe
    was maybe 12000 years ago and that is outside the 100KA cycle.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast