Nope. I searched 20 minutes to find the paper and couldn't find it (for free). So I just read the abstract and found that was enough to disprove your [HASHTAG]#agenda[/HASHTAG]
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Nope. I searched 20 minutes to find the paper and couldn't find it (for free). So I just read the abstract and found that was enough to disprove your [HASHTAG]#agenda[/HASHTAG]
So no quotes on the claims no? Saying you two are having a meltdown is a meltdown?
Not from me mate, I haven't made a fool of myself.
Even with balancing the kids off creche on holidays and working on a java class library for a project I still made fools of ye.
I did make one concession, that there is science for both sides of the solar issue, and Astro had a meltdown rather than accept that there is science for both sides of the argument cos he thought he was winning, till I dropped the last bomb and he's back to his usual drivel.
So given all of that will still look at your claims once you post the quotes you say conflict
Strange that you only made this vital discovery about 10 am today like.
As you'd never previously posted anything about this supposed 'lag' in any of your posts about solar activity being responsible for the global temperature rise.
As for the Oceans storing heat, I distinctly remember you rubbishing the claim that the global temperature increase was being masked by the Oceans absorbing a large proportion of additional heat produced by mans impact.
[HASHTAG]#sortyourstoryout[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#flipflop[/HASHTAG]
Unsupported, I dont know what you are talking about but seeing as your arguments fell flat, you are now using Tobes's argument. Desperate. And if I did say contradict myself, that somehow refutes my whole argument? Are you really that stupid? Post numbers so I can read the posts, no out of context garbage
So it's not about whether CAGW is real or not any more it's about me, but I won't fall for it.
If I contradicted myself I'll be the first to say it, when I see the points, such things as being able to admit you are wrong, well the whole forum knows you both cannot do that, not that it matters, just pointing it out
So now he goes straight to claiming the 'win', and describing [HASHTAG]#meltdowns[/HASHTAG], that patently aren't occurring.
Brilliant.
Have a re-read of your posts today love. You'll see they're filled with ever increasing bile and a blatantly obvious increase in knobishness that's in total correlation with the owning you've ended up being on the receiving end of.
So now he goes straight to claiming the 'win', and describing [HASHTAG]#meltdowns[/HASHTAG], that patently aren't occurring.
Brilliant.
Have a re-read of your posts today love. You'll see they're filled with ever increasing bile and a blatantly obvious increase in knobishness that's in total correlation with the owning you've ended up being on the receiving end of.
"he"
This is CAGW mate, but of course, no science on your part, lowered it a notch to smiley faces now.
[HASHTAG]#soogettingtoyou[/HASHTAG]
I let data and science and history smash you, I didn't do it.
Now you claim you are smashing things, even though you have no clue about this topic. Oh sweet jesus
Now you claim you are smashing things, even though you have no clue about this topic. Oh sweet jesus
Tobes, why not go onto the forums where they actually debate this topic, and get into it with the science guys and let them see how you debate, you'd be banned in 10 seconds Astro 12 seconds.
Astro 12 seconds.
Sisu can you clarify which model, if any, you currently think supports your case about solar-driven heating?
The one which has no lag and was retracted by the author because it was based on a mathematical error,
or
The one which has a lag of several decades but which only applies to the 11,000 years [HASHTAG]#beforemodernindustry[/HASHTAG] and indicates a change in behaviour for the last 30 years?
The one which has no lag and was retracted by the author because it was based on a mathematical error,
or
The one which has a lag of several decades but which only applies to the 11,000 years [HASHTAG]#beforemodernindustry[/HASHTAG] and indicates a change in behaviour for the last 30 years?
So the solar energy has been stored in the Oceans for 40 years creating the supposed solar 'lag'
Not quite your view on it last September....
Ocean warming 0.09C over the past 55 years Levitus et al
So claims the extra heat is hiding in the oceans when explaining no global warming for 18 years, is nothing but cack.
http://www.not606.com/threads/dark-...onomy-information.251273/page-95#post-8377301
So by the same 'logic' the Solar heat can't be 'hiding in the Oceans' either can it.....
[HASHTAG]#ouch[/HASHTAG]
What is important is that .3c a decade which is steady does not support the assertions that global warming has stopped because the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, being logical one might ask why the temp wasn't hiding in the oceans pre 1998? but conveniently does when the measurements show no global warming for 18 years.
http://www.not606.com/threads/dark-...onomy-information.251273/page-95#post-8377407
Amazingly, we're now informed that it's been hiding solar heat for the last 40 years though as there's a 'lag'
A lag that only became 'science' in Sisu World at about 10 am today, when the solar activity to temperature argument was shot down with [HASHTAG]#fackhts[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#beforemodernindustry[/HASHTAG]
Has the solar heat got a better hiding place then?
Hoisted by your own petard
[HASHTAG]#flipflop[/HASHTAG]
http://www.not606.com/threads/dark-...onomy-information.251273/page-95#post-8377407
Amazingly, we're now informed that it's been hiding solar heat for the last 40 years though as there's a 'lag'
A lag that only became 'science' in Sisu World at about 10 am today, when the solar activity to temperature argument was shot down with [HASHTAG]#fackhts[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#beforemodernindustry[/HASHTAG]
Has the solar heat got a better hiding place then?
Hoisted by your own petard
[HASHTAG]#flipflop[/HASHTAG]
Last edited:
This is ground hog day, ignore posts about ocean temps, then throw a link you've not read 2 months later. Rinse and repeat.
I know the argo data is on the money, the guardian dont block you for posting lies, because lies can be torn apart by the other readers and their resident "experts" who no doubt haunt the pages.
Argo's actual measurements are not acceptable to the gurardian because they are measurement, after they "calibrate" sensors we get a different measurement,
Ocean rises are triple what tide gauges were measuring now. Plus ^^^ Ocean temps have tripled from .03 to .09
This does not back your argument
Neither does this
It's funny that every single alteration to data always leans towards what that are spending billions to prove.. fancy that.
I know the argo data is on the money, the guardian dont block you for posting lies, because lies can be torn apart by the other readers and their resident "experts" who no doubt haunt the pages.
Argo's actual measurements are not acceptable to the gurardian because they are measurement, after they "calibrate" sensors we get a different measurement,
Ocean rises are triple what tide gauges were measuring now. Plus ^^^ Ocean temps have tripled from .03 to .09
This does not back your argument
You must log in or register to see images
Neither does this
You must log in or register to see images
It's funny that every single alteration to data always leans towards what that are spending billions to prove.. fancy that.
Last edited:
@donga kloppo
Dont listen to me, listen to someone else.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
__________________________________
Now do you see how there is no widespread conspiracy. Its only the few in authority, everyone else is 1 protecting their careers (sensibly but dishonestly) and others want those money and kudos and don't care if it's fraud, I was surprised reading this because it's nails everything I've been saying about the start of science today.
We all know the first bit of Eisenhower's speech about the military complex, but he continued to warn of money and politics taking over science.
Dont listen to me, listen to someone else.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
__________________________________
Now do you see how there is no widespread conspiracy. Its only the few in authority, everyone else is 1 protecting their careers (sensibly but dishonestly) and others want those money and kudos and don't care if it's fraud, I was surprised reading this because it's nails everything I've been saying about the start of science today.
We all know the first bit of Eisenhower's speech about the military complex, but he continued to warn of money and politics taking over science.
You dont even know what you are talking about, the ocean can gain or lose heat to cause changes hundreds of year later you mad thing. There are shorter and longer effects and I dont even know what you are referring to because ypou never quoted my post, so you are having a debate with ytyour self with "40 years"
You are using [HASHTAG]#ouch[/HASHTAG] over measurements.
That paper does not change what our measurements are observing. No change of note between 2007 and 2012
Measurement, have you actually watched them through? Show me the warming in the data, there is almost none, 0.03 per decade, is what measurement says. I suspect you don't even know what the paper says
Hmmmm? Measurement vs unread paper?
You are an embarrassment. The last time I showed you the data, 0.03 per decade, you liked the post. Now you are back with teh same flaccid argument and links again you dont read
- Status