It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by centurion1211

And SO, your last question again completely ignores the issue of IF the warming trend turns out not to be caused by humans, is it not ridiculous to even talk about "stopping" it? Let me pose it this way. If it turns out that the warming was caused by a combination of natural forces - the sun, the internal heat of the earth, etc. - what effect would curbing carbon dioxide emmissions have on the problem? You know the answer to that is most likely no effect.

If we can have no effect, why argue over it, why do it? This looks like another one of those "feel good" solutions the left attempts to force on all of us. Where it doesn't matter if it actually works, or what the long term ramifications are, they "feel good" just because they did "something".

[edit on 2/6/2007 by centurion1211]


I really cannot believe that you are so ignorant.

Why should we do something? WHY?

We have been fouling our nest for too long as it is and if you haven't noticed... there is no place to go if we totally blow it here.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]


I'm ignorant?


Thanks for proving the point of my post that you just quoted. You and all the other global warming alarmists don't actually give a ratz azz about global warming. Your actual agenda is related to pollution ("fouling our nest" as you call it) and as I said, you're just using the global warming issue as a scare tactic (red herring) because it's "convenient" for your cause. If the link between human and global warming is tenuous, it is non-existant between global warming and "pollution" (definition please).

Consider your true agenda exposed and debunked.

Now please spare us all and have the integrity to go off and start a thread about your true "pollution" agenda. Of course, not many will read or post on it because it hasn't and won't have the built in scare tactic of GLOBAL WARMING - bwaaaaahaaaahaaaaa.

How pitiful it is for the likes of you faux alarmists to attempt to play on people's fears to further your bogus "pollution" agenda. But as I mentioned before, we've seen this tactic used over and over again to scare the elderly, etc. Must be in one of your handbooks (manifestos?) somewhere.




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Bore hole data isn't precise and heat diffusion prevents putting a specific year on the data. It can be also effected by snow, ice, ground cover, soil moisture, density variance, plus the signal to noise ratio makes borehole data virtually useless going back past 4-500 years. That's why we use climate proxy indicators that are calibrated against modern instrumentation data to yield a more accurate year to year picture.


Borehole temperature trends are a whole lot more precise than decadal, or even multi-centennial air/surface temperature trends. Yes, there are some problems with borehole temperature trends, but the fact is that borehole temperature trends are more reliable than air/surface temperature trends for the simple fact that Earth's strata has a better memory of temperature trends.

As an example is the fact that Mann's Hockey Stick Graph does not show either the Medieval warm period nor the little Ice Age that followed. Both events which have been confirmed time and again.

I also wonder why is it that you never say a thing about this discrepancy? You actually try to avoid it.


Introduction
For a decade geophysicists have studied global warming using borehole temperature logs. They have used them to estimate the timing of recent warming and its magnitude; to explain the discrepancy between observed air temperature rise and estimates from global climate models (GCMs); to examine temperature trends century by century during the last 500 years;
and, to establish a baseline temperature to compare to the observed 20th century warming .
These studies generally confirm the predictions of GCMs, including their expected latitudinalvariation, and present more precise long term estimates of temperature trends than do air temperature records. A significant finding is of some past period of stable climate.

www.kilty.com...


One of the discrepancies is that global stratospheric temperatures and lower tropospheric temperatures have been showing discrepancies when compared to each other. The warming in the troposphere should be at least as strong as that of the stratosphere, yet it isn't.



The two spikes in temperature in the above graph were caused by volcanic eruptions.


The figure above shows the monthly temperature deviations from a seasonally adjusted average for the lower stratosphere - Earth's atmosphere from 14 to 22 km (9 to 14 miles). Red is an increase in the temperature from the average, and blue is a decrease in temperature. The large increase in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. November 2000 was the coldest month on record for stratospheric temperatures. The long-term downward trend in lower stratospheric temperatures is believed to be the result of ozone depletion (primarily), and to a lesser extent the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations due to the burning of fossil fuels.






This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena, which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is now +0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004). Click on the charts to get the numerical data.
...............................
Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the satellite data shows a warming trend of about half of this. These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface.

www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...

You can find a lot more information in the above link.




Originally posted by Regenmacher
Yes, that is the case. The industrial era's surface temps have accelerated first, and sat data confirms more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space.


That data is for the past 10 years...and the sun has been going beserk only recently, for the past 10 years or so, meanwhile borehole data shows an increased in temperature since the 1600s.

You are really bringing a straw man fallacy now into the discussion. The fact remains that the borehole temperature data shows a long term increase in temperature since before the industrial era, and it has been increasing since then.


There is a NASA article from 2006, called "2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century", the part of that article that caught my eye is the following.


Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

That part of the article is found at the bottom of the link.

In the following link you can play around with a graph provided by NASA which shows Global Temperature anomoalies until 2002. I haven't found a similar site from 2002-2006 yet.

www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...

In that graph you can see that the most dramatic temperature anomalies do come from the northern and souther latittudes, away from mayor cities.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by centurion1211

And SO, your last question again completely ignores the issue of IF the warming trend turns out not to be caused by humans, is it not ridiculous to even talk about "stopping" it? Let me pose it this way. If it turns out that the warming was caused by a combination of natural forces - the sun, the internal heat of the earth, etc. - what effect would curbing carbon dioxide emmissions have on the problem? You know the answer to that is most likely no effect.

If we can have no effect, why argue over it, why do it? This looks like another one of those "feel good" solutions the left attempts to force on all of us. Where it doesn't matter if it actually works, or what the long term ramifications are, they "feel good" just because they did "something".

[edit on 2/6/2007 by centurion1211]


I really cannot believe that you are so ignorant.

Why should we do something? WHY?

We have been fouling our nest for too long as it is and if you haven't noticed... there is no place to go if we totally blow it here.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]


I'm ignorant?


Thanks for proving the point of my post that you just quoted. You and all the other global warming alarmists don't actually give a ratz azz about global warming. Your actual agenda is related to pollution ("fouling our nest" as you call it) and as I said, you're just using the global warming issue as a scare tactic (red herring) because it's "convenient" for your cause. If the link between human and global warming is tenuous, it is non-existant between global warming and "pollution" (definition please).

Consider your true agenda exposed and debunked.

Now please spare us all and have the integrity to go off and start a thread about your true "pollution" agenda. Of course, not many will read or post on it because it hasn't and won't have the built in scare tactic of GLOBAL WARMING - bwaaaaahaaaahaaaaa.

How pitiful it is for the likes of you faux alarmists to attempt to play on people's fears to further your bogus "pollution" agenda. But as I mentioned before, we've seen this tactic used over and over again to scare the elderly, etc. Must be in one of your handbooks (manifestos?) somewhere.


And pray tell me why being concerned about pollution is alarmist?

In case you haven't noticed the hydrocarbons being dumped into the atmosphere ARE pollutants as are the sulphuric emissions that cause acid rain and so many other things as well... the tailings from mines that poison streams down stream to the mercury in fish (very toxic in case you haven't noticed) to lead in drinking water... PCB's and dioxins... it is not wise to eat the fish from the James river near here because of those two alone.

To not concerned about it is most certainly ignorant and to live in a fantasy world. Your "rebuttal" proves my point about you quite clearly.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Muaddib I have gone and read many of the links you have posted in support of your hypothesis that Global Warming is caused by anything other than human activity and I guess you are banking on people just taking your word for it because those reports are talking about their subjects and not drawing any connections to global warming in and of themselves. YOU and YOU alone are connecting those dots, not the scientists that you claim are supporting your claims.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
..............
I am objecting to the notion that you push that you and your "data" are right and somehow the other scientists working specifically in this field are wrong. Considering the sheer number of scientists who have come out and said that global warming is caused (or aggravated) by human activity, i find that highly unlikely.


Really?...humm, could you tell me why is it that lately more and more prominent scientists are saying as of late that mankind is not the cause for global warming?... Appart from the other thousands of scientists who don't believe mankind caused, or is causing global warming.

Let me give you some examples.

Timothy Ball, the first Canadian to get a Phd in Climatology, and who used to believe mankind had a part in global warming now is saying the oposite.


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

www.canadafreepress.com...


Limited role for C02
The Deniers -- Part X
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.


Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

www.canada.com...

In fact Dr. Shariv explains more in that article, and do notice what his points are...


"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.


Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

Excerpted from above link.


What about the French geophysicist Claude Allegre?

He used to also think mankind was the cause of global warming, but after researching more the data.

Here is one of the original articles where Claude Allegre
It is a French article btw.

www.lexpress.fr...

Here is the translated link.

translate.google.com...

Or what about Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Observatory?


Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming
14:30 | 15/ 01/ 2007




ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

en.rian.ru...

More and more "real scientific research" keeps showing that the natural processes of the Solar Sytem, and the Universe, are the mayor drivers for Climate Change... Not mankind.

People don't realize that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas on Earth at 95%, all other gases are the other 5%, and human induced greenhouse gases is 0.28%....yet there are scientists who want to claim we are responsible for global warming?....

Here is a powerpoint presentation by Dr. Lee Gerhard of the Kansas Geological Society, do take a look at this information if you dare.

ff.org...

In 2006 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian prime minister questioning the scientific consensus on global warming..

Here is part of what they wrote, and their names can be found at the bottom of the following link.


Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

www.canada.com...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]
[mod edit: long links]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Couldn't post more relevant information from the last article, so here it is.


Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

www.canada.com...

Not one of the computer models based on proxies, shows any of the past Climate shifts, such as the Medieval warming period, the Little Ice Age nor the Roman Warming, the Roman warming event occurred more than 3,000 years ago, yet people want to claim these same computer models can predict the future?

If the UN, was as alarmed as they claim about global warming in their last assesment, why is it that China, and India among other countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocol, when we know that China is about to surpass the United States on greenhouse gass emissions?; or how about the fact that China has some of the most polluted cities and rivers in the world?.... Yet they are exempt?...Why?.....

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I have never said that I thought green houses were the sole cause of global warming... I too feel that there are other factors involved HOWEVER that does not mean that we can or should discount our contribution to it or to claim that it doesn't matter. If we can in some small part help ameloriate the problem then it is wise that we do so. To fail to do so would be foolhardy. AND, to say as you seem to, that since according to your experts, it is all caused by events outside our control, why do anything at all is even more so. After all what happens if it turns out that the proponents of man made global warming are right and the naysayers are wrong. We have wasted enough time as it is.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
and again you don't present one iota of data to contradict any of the excerpts and data I am providing....

Anyways, i just found another powerpoint link with a lot of revealing data. In this powerpoint presentation, there is even information from the July 7-8, 2004 International Seminar on Climate Change at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Part of the evidence presented in this seminar was that both the Medieval warming period, and the Roman event, which happened around 3,000 years ago, were warmer than today yet they had lower CO2 levels.

groups.iop.org...

The following is part of what the concensus of Russian scientists had to say about Global Warming and the Kyoto protocol.


If there is an insignificant increase in the temperature, it is not due to anthropogenic factors but to the natural factors related to the planet itself and solar activity. There is no evidence confirming a positive linkage between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. If there is such a linkage, it is [of] a reverse nature. In other words, it is not carbon dioxide that influences the temperature on Earth, but it is just the reverse: temperature fluctuations caused by solar activity influence the concentration of carbon dioxide.

The statistical data underpinning these documents and issued in millions of copies are often considerably distorted if not falsified. The most vivid example of this is the so-called "ice hockey stick," or the curve of temperature changes on the planet over the past 1,000 years. It is alleged that there were insignificant temperature fluctuations for 900 years but there was a sharp rise in temperature in the 20th century.

A number of scientific works published lately show that in order to produce this "ice hockey stick," nine intentional or unintentional mistakes were made that led to distortions in initial data and final results.


Anti-Human Agenda Was Evident

The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared, as Professor Reiter has done just now, with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism, and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories--misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense, and absurdity.


My last point is why it happens and how the whole thing can be described. When we see one of the biggest, if not the biggest, international adventures based on [a] man-hating, totalitarian ideology which, incidentally, manifests itself in totalitarian actions and concrete events, particularly academic discussions, and which tries to defend itself using disinformation and falsified facts, it's hard to think of any other word but "war" to describe this.

To our great regret, this is a war, and this is a war against the whole world. But in this particular case the first to happen to be on this path is our country. This is not a simple war. The main thing is that we now have obvious evidence that we have got over the past two days--although we had some hints before that time--[in] the approach to Russia practiced by some people attending the seminar, an approach to Russia as a kind of banana republic, an approach to a country that is not a colony yet but about to become it as soon as it ratifies the document.

During the discussion of the economic impact of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and of when Russia will achieve the 1990 emission level, one of the representatives of this official British team of scientists and government officials said quite bluntly: Russia cannot expect an increase in the population, on the contrary, the population will decrease. And as long as you reduce your population, you can meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements.

Thank you for your attention. The remaining small team is ready to answer your questions.

www.heartland.org...

Strong words from the Russian scientists...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
As an example is the fact that Mann's Hockey Stick Graph does not show either the Medieval warm period nor the little Ice Age that followed. Both events which have been confirmed time and again. I also wonder why is it that you never say a thing about this discrepancy? You actually try to avoid it.


I have no idea what your talking about, since the graph I posted clearly indicates the MWP and LIA. You have a vision problem?

Your hockey puck nonsense, tells me you still haven't read:
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"



This graph is even annotated with nice BIG text too:
en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by Muaddib
One of the discrepancies is that global stratospheric temperatures and lower tropospheric temperatures have been showing discrepancies when compared to each other. The warming in the troposphere should be at least as strong as that of the stratosphere, yet it isn't.


No it will not be as strong, cause volcanic sulphate aerosols are reflective and reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the troposhere.


Originally posted by Muaddib
You are really bringing a straw man fallacy now into the discussion. The fact remains that the borehole temperature data shows a long term increase in temperature since before the industrial era, and it has been increasing since then.


No fallacy, it's you that is disregarding data and cherry picking to fit your bizarre ideas on how science should work. Temps have accelerated beyond the normal trend/cycle. They can't be explained without including ghgs. This is where I keep asking you to submit a model that doesn't include anthropogenic factors and you haven't. So where is it? You had plenty of time to look.

You remember this right!?

Originally posted by Rgenmacher
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, if they aren't they're only a hypothesis at best. We can disprove the GW theory by finding a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the GW theory. If someone gives an alternate theory for these observations, they need to test it. They have to try and prove their theory false! So where is the alternate theory? Where is the alternate model? Where are these alternate forecasts?



Climate Change Attribution


Originally posted by Muaddib
In that graph you can see that the most dramatic temperature anomalies do come from the northern and souther latittudes, away from mayor cities.


Your observation is what has been dubbed in the 80's as polar amplification due to GHGs and other factors.


Polar Amplification

"Polar amplification'' usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.

The Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment (ACIA) summarized the evidence for amplification in Arctic surface warming with the statement, "Over the past 100 years, it is possible [33-66% confidence] that there has been polar amplification, however, over the past 50 years it is probable [66-90% confidence]'' (ACIA, 2005, p 22). This uncertainty in the evidence of polar amplification should not be confused with the evidence for significant warming in the Arctic. Arctic warming is both highly significant and substantial -- it is just not possible to say with very high confidence yet that the Arctic has warmed more than the rest of the hemisphere or globe. The purpose of this posting is to explain why there is sometimes an absence of evidence for polar amplification.

Manabe and Stouffer (1980) first popularized the phrase "polar amplification" to describe the amplified rate of surface warming at the poles compared to the rest of the globe in their climate model's response to increasing GHG levels. Their early climate model had a simple ocean component that only represented the mixed layer of the water. Their model had roughly symmetric poleward amplification in the two hemispheres, except over the Antarctic continent, where they argued the ice is too thick and cold to melt back (see Fig 1). Both poles warmed more at the surface than the midlatitudes or equatorial regions. Figure 1 also shows that polar amplification only occurs below about 300mb (ie, only in the troposphere). The vertical profile of warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the stratosphere from GHGs is well understood as a function of increased absorbtion and re-radiation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Polar amplification of global warming
International Arctic Research Center - IARC

Start researching your own questions that you don't know the answer too, rather than wasting my time and reader's time with common knowledge issues. Screwing around by posting kook ideas isn't going to disprove GW theory either. Yes, some people still think the world is flat too, but that isn't science or logical. Timothy Fraud Ball, Prof of Geography and the Russians? Really now


Write all these folks and ask them for an alternate theory or climate model:
List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
Category:Global warming skeptics - Wikipedia


Learn how to post long links, cause it screws up the page width in FF.
ATS: How to post a link by Asala
ATS: Problem with linking

/

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
................
I have no idea what your talking about, since the graph I posted clearly indicates the MWP and LIA. You have a vision problem?


I will respond to that by posting once again the scientific concensus of the Russian Academy of Science.



A number of scientific works published lately show that in order to produce this "ice hockey stick," nine intentional or unintentional mistakes were made that led to distortions in initial data and final results.

www.heartland.org...

I wonder why that graph you posted have so much room to work with?... It could show some of the events, yet it also couldn't show some of the event, they had to extrapolate several of their computer models to get that result....


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Your hockey puck nonsense, tells me you still haven't read either:
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"


I read that site...and i responded the nonsense from that site when they keep trying to proclaim that anyone who disproves the data they aprove of is a ..


Numerous myths regarding the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:


From that same link you gave.. And the owner of that site...whoever that is... continues to claim that anyone who even questions the data they support in that website come from " non-scientific venues"...when i have demonstrated the contrary time and again.

Also it is quite interesting that even though they claim there is more than the Hockey Stick Graph, all of that article in that website tries to defend the Hockey Stick Graph...wonder why?...



Originally posted by Regenmacher
No it will not be as strong, cause volcanic sulphate aerosols hang around in the troposphere for a long time compared to those that get quickly washed out in the stratosphere.


Oh, wow...so i guess you solved that when several scientists from NASA have stated...


These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface.




Originally posted by Regenmacher
No fallacy, it's you that is disregarding data. Temps have accelerated beyond the normal trend/cycle. They can't be explained without including ghgs. This is where I keep asking you to submit a model that doesn't include anthropogenic factors and you haven't. So where is it? You had plenty of time to look.


Actually, I did, and I gave several excerpted texts of scientists who disagree with this "scientific concensus"....

If you want to respond to anyone that is providing data which disagrees with your views, you should learn to read those links, or at the least the excerpts....



Originally posted by Regenmacher
"Polar amplification'' usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.


Yet you, and those scientist you quoted, apparently disregard the albedo effect of ice?

Take a look at that site i gave again.

www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...

And check the temperature trends at the North Pole during June and November.

The temperature trend shows that during the winter months, when there is supposedly more ice at the North Pole, hence a higher albedo effect from ice, the temperatures are warmer, while during the summer time, when the ice is supposed to recess, less albedo effect, there is cooler temperatures.

You can find the same trends for 1997, 1999, 2000, (in 1998 there were volcano eruptions which would affect the temperature trends) in December 2001 the temperature trend shows that the North Pole was at it's warmest on that year. The same happened in the coldest months of 2002.

So why this discrepancy?

BTW, you should follow your own advice and do your own research.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Oh btw, here is the link I gave earlier about the projections without CO2 forcing. There is a lot more data there, appart from the other links and excerpts I gave.

ff.org...

Sometimes you have to right click and hit next to go to the next slide.

---edited to correct statement---

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and again you don't present one iota of data to contradict any of the excerpts and data I am providing....
[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]


Read again what I wrote i wasn't even attempting to contradict you,,,I was stating my opinion on the subject...besides even if I found data to contradict your, what would it prove? Nothing except that I found data that contradicts yours just like your data contradicts other experts in the field.

Besides even if I did you wouldn't hear it.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I will respond to that by posting once again the scientific concensus of the Russian Academy of Science.

A 2 year old Russian's opinion in a news article isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal publication. I wouldn't cull my science from the Pravda either.


Originally posted by Muaddib
From that same link you gave.. And the owner of that site...whoever that is... continues to claim that anyone who even questions the data they support in that website come from " non-scientific venues"...when i have demonstrated the contrary time and again.

You haven't demonstrated or disproved anything, cept to your own head. Time and time again you have been proven absolutely wrong and have expressed bizarre ideas that are contrary to the US, EU, UN, Japan, NOAA, NASA, CPC, NWS, EPA, IPCC, WMO, etc Those institutions will not listen to anarchist renegade kooks, especially when they don't publish in peer reviewed journals.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Also it is quite interesting that even though they claim there is more than the Hockey Stick Graph, all of that article in that website tries to defend the Hockey Stick Graph...wonder why?...

Keep wondering and go build your own climate model to figure out why.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, wow...so i guess you solved that when several scientists from NASA have stated...


More like, oh wow you've discovered proof how volcanic sulphates reduce global warming and failed to read the follow up report:

Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences

They recently proposed using sulphates to offset GW:
ATSNN: US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors


Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually, I did, and I gave several excerpted texts of scientists who disagree with this "scientific concensus"....


No you didn't, and they have no working alternate theory, no climate model, no publish peer reviewed articles.... or they have been thoroughly debunked. Any scientist can disprove GW theory, but none have and kooks with old faulty data doing PR work won't either.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Yet you, and those scientist you quoted, apparently disregard the albedo effect of ice?

Who says they disregard albedo?

Amplified Arctic climate change: What does surface albedo feedback have to do with it?


So I take it you don't know about lapse rates and think polar ice forms instanteously too.



Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, you should follow your own advice and do your own research.

You need the research, because your lack of climatological knowledge and glibness is all over this thread. I am not trying to prove preposterious kookery and anarchist ideas that have no working model, you are.

Btw, the earth is still round....



[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
ff.org...

Sometimes you have to right click and hit next to go to the next slide.


This version is accessible to all who don't use powerpoint:
Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability


Lee Gerhard

Lee C. Gerhard is principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey. He received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government, and industry leadership with technical appointments. His history includes petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology, and environmental public policy. He was the state geologist of North Dakota. He has also led a marine laboratory. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company.


Humans are not altering the atmosphere ehh? Too bad no one can prove that horse crap without removing all the humans.



[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

A 2 year old Russian's opinion in a news article isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal publication. I wouldn't cull my science from the Pravda either.


I have tried to be civil enough, yet here you are making stupid comments.

First of all i did not "cull my science from Pravda", but you do cull your science from "wiki".... a site where anyone and everyone can post their "opinions".

You also "culled your science" from a website which you keep linking and claims there is "more evidence appart from the Hockey Stick Graph, yet the only thing they do in that link is defend the hockey stick Graph, which if you look at the people who post in that site you will find that no other than "Mann" is one of the members of the site, no wonder they keep defending the Hockey stick Graph.

They also call any research done by scientists who disagree with them

Numerous myths regarding the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:


Yet as i have excerpted data from several scientists it can be seen that their claims are not true at all.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
You haven't demonstrated or disproved anything, cept to your own head. Time and time again you have been proven absolutely wrong and have expressed bizarre ideas that are contrary to the US, EU, UN, Japan, NOAA, NASA, CPC, NWS, EPA, IPCC, WMO, etc Those institutions will not listen to anarchist renegade kooks, especially when they don't publish in peer reviewed journals.


Really? I have been proven wrong huh? So water vapor does not constitute 95% of greenhouse gases, and all other gases are 5% while human induced CO2 is not a mere 0.28% of all greenhouse gases?....

I guess you do think that the science from your "kooks" proves that 0.28% of CO2, causes a lot more Climate change than the rest of the 99.72% of gases most of which "occur naturally"......and that's not mentioning the fact that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does....

And then you want to name call every scientist I quote as "kooks"?....




Originally posted by Regenmacher
Keep wondering and go build your own climate model to figure out why.


I have done better, i discuss this topic as well as others with geologists and other engineers as i do my job...



Originally posted by Regenmacher
More like, oh wow you've discovered proof how volcanic sulphates reduce global warming and failed to read the follow up report:


Wow, you better get nominated for the science award of the year for "your discovery"...


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences


We were discussing "temperature trends in the northern hemisphere"...the albedo effect of ice plays an important role in "temperature trends", hence it has everything to do with that part of the discussion...

But i guess you think what you mentioned above proves that warming being predominantely away from large cities proves Global Warming is caused by mankind...


Originally posted by Regenmacher
They recently proposed using sulphates to offset GW:
ATSNN: US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors


Yeah your scientist friends also propose to use giant mirrors in space, or even to nudge the Earth off it's orbit by using passing meteors, which they will nudge close towards the Earth to offset the effects of the sun on Global warming....

Yeah, that's what you call common sense "according to the scientific concensus"..... that is, the concensus of a few old men, and a few not so old, but men with a god complex who think mankind has more power than the entire Universe....



Originally posted by Regenmacher
No you didn't, and they have no working alternate theory, no climate model, no publish peer reviewed articles.... or they have been thoroughly debunked. Any scientist can disprove GW theory, but none have and kooks with old faulty data doing PR work won't either.


Really? 2 year old data is unreliable?... well i gave excerpts of scientists from Canada, Russia, the UK, France and other countries who talked about the latest "UN assesment on Global Warming" and their responses and data is newer than that of the "UN assesment"; so if we follow your reasoning the UN assesment is "faulty old data" which should be discounted....

BTW, I never disputed GW, neither have the data in the excerpts and links from most of the scientists I gave... You should learn to differentiate between "Global Warming", and "human induced Global warming", you might learn a thing or two...



Originally posted by Regenmacher
So I take it you don't know about lapse rates and think polar ice forms instanteously too.


Not really, but i guess you do think that your buddies have proven that by warming being more predominant away from mayor cities means human activities are the cause for global warming?.....



Originally posted by Regenmacher
You need the research, because your lack of climatological knowledge and glibness is all over this thread. I am not trying to prove preposterious kookery and anarchist ideas that have no working model, you are.


No, you are trying to prove that 0.28%, which is the percentage of CO2 gases released by human activity, are the cause of Climate Change, despite the fact that water vapor constitutes 95% of natural greenhouse gases and retains twice the amount of heat that CO2 does.

Yep, "kookery in the making"....



Originally posted by Regenmacher
Btw, the earth is still round....


Actually, the Earth is "elliptical" genius.... No wonder your science is all screwed up...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   



"[Chicken Little and global warming

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 7, 2007

YOU KNOW that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page "Summary for Policymakers," a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists' conclusions, but it wouldn't be the first time if it doesn't.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers' summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming. This time around, the summary is even more confident: It declares it "unequivocal" that the Earth has warmed over the past century and "very likely" -- meaning more than 90 percent certain -- that human activity is the cause.

That climate change is taking place no one doubts; the Earth's climate is always in flux. But is it really so clear-cut that the current warming, which amounts to less than 1 degree Celsius over the past century, is anthropogenic? Or that continued warming will lead to the meteorological chaos and massive deaths that alarmists predict? It is to the media. By and large they relay only the apocalyptic view: Either we embark on a radical program to slash carbon-dioxide emissions -- that is, to arrest economic growth -- or we are doomed, as NBC's Matt Lauer put it last week, to "what literally could be the end of the world as we know it."

Perhaps the Chicken Littles are right and the sky really is falling, but that opinion is hardly unanimous. There are quite a few skeptical scientists, including eminent climatologists, who doubt the end-of-the-world scenario. Why don't journalists spend more time covering all sides of the debate instead of just parroting the scaremongers?

Only rarely do other views pierce the media's filter of environmental correctness. A recent series by Lawrence Solomon in Canada's National Post looked at some of the leading global-warming dissenters, none of whom fits the easy-to-dismiss stereotype of a flat-Earth yahoo. There is, for example, Richard S.J. Tol -- IPCC author, editor of Energy Economics, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Tol agrees that global warming is real, but he emphasizes its benefits as well as its harms -- and points out that in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced.

Another dissident is Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency's CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth's ice masses. The collapse of ice shelves off the northern Antarctic Peninsula is often highlighted as Exhibit A of global warming and its dangers, but Wingham's satellite data shows that the thinning of some Antarctic ice has been matched by thickening ice elsewhere on the continent. The evidence to date, Wingham says, is not "favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming."

Still other scientists profiled by Solomon contend that the sun, not man, plays the dominant role in planetary climate change.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, for instance,believes that changes in the sun's magnetic field, and the corresponding impact on cosmic rays, may be the key to global warming. Nigel Weiss, a past presidentof the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, correlates sunspot activity with changes in the Earth's climate. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who heads the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatoryin Russia, points out that Mars is also undergoing global warming -- despite having no greenhouse conditions and no activity by Martians. In his view, it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, that accounts for the recent rise in temperature.

Climate-change hyperbole makes for dramatic headlines, but the real story is both more complex and more interesting. Chicken Little may claim the sky is falling. A journalist's job is to check it out.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com. "]


To be fair to Muaddib (God knows why...must be my bleeding liberal heart)...I came across this today...of course now he is going to start quoting it as proof...but no matter.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
How many of you guys are familiar with the "Electric" theory of the universe? From what little I understand of it the anamolies you cite related to GW could well be explained by the theory. There used to be a posting on ATSNN with a link to a tutorial video on the theory, but I don't know if it is still around. In any case, you can access the video directly from Google if you are interested.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
BTW Rainmaker...you are trying to discredit Dr. Lee Gerhard by pointing his past involvement in oil exploration?... and you think that proves anything even though, first, it does not prove "he is being paid to speak in favour of oil companies, and 2nd that was an old job of his he has been teaching in schools after those jobs?...


It is obvious that you have no idea what people in the oilfield do...

For example, Field Engineers, such as myself can stop at any time operations at rigs if we find that the safety of anyone is at risk, or even if we see intentional or unintentional operations/actions that can affect the environment such as the improper discharge of chemicals, nomatter the loss to "oil companies"....

Normally Geologists, Field Engineers, Field Specialist, Mud Engineers, Directional Drillers and other crew at rigs do not work directly for "oil companies". They all work for other companies which have their own standards, and only provide experienced technical and professional services to oil companies.

Normally Company men, the men who do work for the clients , which are oil companies, will listen to the advice of Field Engineers, or Geologists if we think an operation needs to shut down due to safety or enviromental concerns, but sometimes the company men are just interested in making money for oil companies, and decide to go against the better judgement of Field engineers and geologists.

On one occassion I had to walk out of a rig because a company man didn't want to listen to my advice, a week later there was an accident and someone was hurt bad. The company I work for decided to turn down any other jobs from that specific rig, even when the client (oil company) was pissed for being shut down, because it was not the first time this has happened.

Of couse, in order to shut down an operation we need to have "reasonable doubt". We can't just stop an operation because we feel like it. We need a reason for doing so, but we can do it, and it has been done even if the oil companies weren't happy.

That is just an example to the truth that most of the people who work in the oilfield have no "vested interests in kissing oil companies behinds, or are getting paid to state their opinions instead of ours".... and there is at least one person, apart from me, in these forums who can testify to that; and I am sure you, and other members, would not be making these "hints" or even accusations of said person working for the "interests of oil companies"....

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually, the Earth is "elliptical" genius.... No wonder your science is all


Kookdom has no climate models

Still waiting to see this model that disproves GW theory that doesn't include anthropogenic factors. Oh where could it be? I don't need to prove anything, the supercomputer models at NASA and the NOAA are waiting for you to prove them all wrong.

As for Wikpedia's accuracy compared to your "I don't give a hoot, so let's pollute" kooks: Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts

As for your semantical illiterate nonsense, round is a noun that includes the subsets of ellipsoids and spheroids, where as elliptical is an adjective as in an elliptical orbit. You gonna spellcheck next? Earth is still round too...genius.

Who figured out the Earth is round? NASA
Hint: not Muaddib


As for the Lee "the kook" Gerhard, he seems to thing Crichton deserves an AAPG award for science fiction propaganda



Lee Gerhard wrote:
I commend the AAPG for awarding its journalism award to Michael Crichton.

Jim Evans wrote:

I don’t believe Mr. Gerhard needs to educate the Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) about the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles published about Quaternary geology and climate change. That is, in fact, their area of expertise and perhaps we should acknowledge it. After all, they do not claim to be petroleum geologists.

Mr. Gerhard is of course free to do as he wishes, in his own capacity. What AMQUA stated, that “crossed the line,” was AAPG as a professional scientific society endorsing a controversial work of science FICTION at the expense of science. I enjoy science fiction too, but it does not determine my research agenda.

Some of us are digging the trenches pretty deep right now, but I my opinion we collective look like a bunch of idiots. And Mr. Gerhard’s letter to EOS won’t help at all.


Maybe old kook Gerhard should just say Kyoto is crap, go back to the lab and work on a hypothesis, instead of doing bashcasting PR work for the oil industry. Maybe he's too senile though.


Light at the end of the tunnel Nature
A report released on 19 January by Citigroup, Climatic Consequences — the sort of eloquently written, big-picture stuff that the well-informed chief executive reads on a Sunday afternoon — states even more firmly than the IPCC that anthropogenic climate change is a fact that world governments are moving to confront. It leaves no question at all that large businesses need to get to grips with this situation — something that many of them are already doing.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.







[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually, the Earth is "elliptical" genius.... No wonder your science is all


Kookdom has no climate models

Still waiting to see this model that disproves GW theory that doesn't include anthropogenic factors. Oh where could it be? I don't need to prove anything, the supercomputer models at NASA and the NOAA are waiting for you to prove them all wrong.


The "supercomputers at NASA" can't even predict the weather precisely and have to pospone their flights due to "unexpected changes in weather patterns" and you think they can "precisely make models of future Climatic trends?.....

The computer models have even been off in their predictions of "present Climatic trends" yet you claim they are not wrong in other "Climatic models"?.....




"Forecasters know the models aren’t perfect," Uccellini says. "There should be some way to present alternate scenarios without creating a panic."

Jones adds, "My feeling is that most numerical models have gotten so good in the two- to three-day timeframe, most meteorologists thought the storm would move out to sea [having little impact on land]. But 12 or 24 hours before it hit, there may have been some indication from satellite imagery that the storm wasn’t behaving as the models were forecasting."
.......................
The fact remains, however, that predicting the weather days in advance is inherently prone to error. Uccellini notes that even with all their numerical models and all their measurements and satellite observations, meteorologists still cannot obtain data on every point in the atmosphere and ocean.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

If their "supercomputers" can't predict the weather, what makes you think they can predict more complex Climate Changes?...



Originally posted by Regenmacher
As for Wikpedia's accuracy compared to your kooks:


My "kooks"?... Those kooks happen to have science degrees and are experts in a field you obviously know nothing about... Apparently you are "jealous" because they are famous and you are not?....



Originally posted by Regenmacher
As for your semantical illiterate nonsense, round is a noun that includes the subsets of ellipsoids and spheroids, where as elliptical is an adjective as in an eliptical orbit. Earth is still round too...genius.


Oh, right, right... the Rainmaker wants to talk about "precision" yet he claims elliptical or oval is the same as round...wow....



new topics




 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join