Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago

On Mar 12, 8:05 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde





<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE :-)

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong:)

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

AGW is a faith-based social society.

Jim and Rich Grise both seem to have received this same revelation.
If they had the wit, or the skills to dig into the scientifc case for
anthropogenic global warming, they'd have a different opinion, but
they have the sort of faith in their opinions that can ignore ice-core
data.

You have to keep science out of it.

Raving cherry-picks his scientific "facts". He doesn't seem to notice
that the temperature rise over the last century hasn't been smooth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

and includes a number of episodes of short term cooling that look very
like the current example, and consequently feels free to claim
"Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change
as
claimed. Check." Since no climatologist was ever silly enough to claim
that CO2 did overide other causes of (short term) temperature change
he's actually just set up a straw man.

Fortunately for the AGW followers our educational system is so
fucked-over that getting converts is a trivial exercise :-(

And Jim is a prize example of an MIT graduate who can't understand the
simple physics behind AGW.

Anyone noticed the latest fill-your-tires-with-nitrogen scam going
around?  Even the high school kids don't know about Boyle's Law :-(

The only valid argument for filling you tires with nitrogen is that
the rubber in the tires will last longer.
Polybutadiene includes carbon-carbon double bonds, and if these react
with oxygen, the polymer falls apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybutadiene

Ozone does the same job a lot faster. Even if you fill the inside of
the tyre with nitrogen, the outside is still exposed to both oxygen
and (at a much lower concentration) ozone, so you won't win much.

Fortunately the BDS-stricken crowd are the most likely ones to get
taken "for the ride" ;-)

Ironic, considering how reliably Jim fall for right-wing political
lies, like weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Quantcast