Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:07 am

wintler2 wrote:
slimmouse wrote:Nice thread here on the successful testing of the Rossi E-Cat, which of course illustrates one of the many areas where our collective minds should perhaps be focusing, instead of the usual out of context bickering we all too often indulge in (even here) ;

http://www.overunity.com/11404/first-fr ... -here/165/


Mystery blue box sank 'cold fusion' for Dick Smith

THE engineer charged by entrepreneur Dick Smith with examining the plausibility of "cold fusion" technology being spruiked by a NSW retiree has detailed a string of reasons why he believes the mooted invention is flawed.

Aerospace engineer Ian Bryce said sloppy procedures, shoddy set up and a mysterious power supply to the contraption developed by an Italian inventor all pointed towards it almost certainly not working as hyped.

Italian scientist Andrea Rossi claims to have invented "cold fusion" technology, which could solve the world's energy problems by producing almost limitless power.

The claims and the contraptions -- of which Mr Rossi claims to have sold several for about $2 million each -- have been met with deep cynicism from the scientific community.

Mr Smith, a self-described long-time sceptic of outlandish technological claims, has offered $200,000 to NSW north coast man Sol Millin -- who is spruiking the technology locally -- if he can prove it actually works.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6248815868


Noone has managed to collect the 200k just by proving it works. But you can buy one for 2mil. Get in early, 10% off! :lol:


Perhaps you should read the thread properly and work things out for yourself

Who is the customer who paid 2 mill for 12 such things ?

You really need to stop indulging people in this waste of bandwidth argument about energy consumption and global warming and get with the programme. This is very real, and its coming your way sopn, whether your ego can deal with it or not.

We have a long history here dont we ? I always suspected you were full of it, and soon enough its gonna be proven.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Sounder » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:21 am

Who is the customer who paid 2 mill for 12 such things ?


How can you say that you 'know' this?
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 pm

Sounder wrote:
Who is the customer who paid 2 mill for 12 such things ?


How can you say that you 'know' this?


I cant, and I didnt. The inventors comments should make that patently clear. Ive got to take his word for it that someone has purchased.

A hint might be in Obamas SOTU address, though, I would readily accept that any hints of truth in that are few and far between.

Semantics aside, just about everything that RI is about would strongly suggest that this LERN energy is very real.

Just about everything Ive learned of importance would strongly suggest that there are 0.00001% of people who will do anything and everything to convince you and I that that LERN(as one for instance) isnt real , through their control of politics, media, finance, and thus by and large public perception.

Oh, I missed one of the things that the 0.00001 % also control......energy.

I assume you can understand therefore why the 0.00001 % would not want this stuff in the public domain ?

If you truly believe that any number of claims, patents and ongoing research are all a waste of time, or hoaxes or whatever, then I cant believe youve been paying enough attention.

Better in that case to focus our collective intellect on pointless threads such as this, where the 0.00001% have you by the short and curlies whichever way you turn. Right ?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Sounder » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:41 pm

slim, I am a person that is quite comfortable with ideas that point to greater potentials of physics. You may even say that I am a Rossi booster. But what you asserted is hearsay, especially to people that are skeptical to begin with. It would add more to the conversation if you could find some informed opinion from others in the field or qualified points of endorsement as well as technical opinions about possible setup shortcomings.

Anyway I regret that folk sometimes jump on your shit but alot of times we set ourselves up for that sort of thing. I will try to not do that partly because we are in a general way on the same side on things, but I'm just saying as a friend, sometimes your words have more triggers in them than they have useful perspective.

Besides which slim, I have been around long enough and you ought to know me better than what you show.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:56 pm

Sounder wrote:slim, I am a person that is quite comfortable with ideas that point to greater potentials of physics. You may even say that I am a Rossi booster. But what you asserted is hearsay, especially to people that are skeptical to begin with. It would add more to the conversation if you could find some informed opinion from others in the field or qualified points of endorsement as well as technical opinions about possible setup shortcomings.

Anyway I regret that folk sometimes jump on your shit but alot of times we set ourselves up for that sort of thing. I will try to not do that partly because we are in a general way on the same side on things, but I'm just saying as a friend, sometimes your words have more triggers in them than they have useful perspective.

Besides which slim, I have been around long enough and you ought to know me better than what you show.


Thanks for all the above Sounder.

But to be perfectly honest with you Im done with semantics. I cant say I was ever big on them if the truth be known and thats for sure my own ego playing tricks on me.

But seriously, what is this entire bullshit debate all about to anyone with half an understanding of the way things currently work on this planet ?- and I include 95% of the people on here - which is actually quite scary when you think about it
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:06 pm

For those interested in topic of thread, rather than diversionary personal attacks:

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

"We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH).

All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data.

The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:08 pm

Neat Wintler2, a bit dodgy yes? I don't suppose that this readjustment of the temperature data is meant to obfuscate the fact that 1998 was clearly the hottest year on record according to the majority of measurements, UAH, RSS. and CRU, and about equal with 2010 with NCDC.

Image

Now after the adjustment, viola...what on earth are you deniers on about, warming has not missed a beat! :yay

Image

:whistling:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby druff » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:40 pm

I've never paid much attention to the data or science on global warming, and I think my life is richer for it.

However, I think a lot of very relevant evidence for the reality of this scientific phenomenon (if any) can be found in a very non-scientific realm. That is, politics. My little theory came to me, I seem to recall, after seeing this on TV years ago:



And I thought, UH OHHHH! :ohwh When you see a congressional bipartisan consensus form around a cause, it's a good time to think about running the other way. I mean, I guess it's possible to see something like that and think "oh, that's nice, they're 'reaching across the aisle' for the benefit of our nation and planet because they can see that this issue is too important to play politics with, and only for that reason." Making that, what, the first and last time that's EVER happened?

Of course support for things like war and any and every other domestic freedom-snuffing measure in general is wildly popular among politicians on a bipartisan basis, while things that might make sense like legalizing marijuana get almost no support. Where do you really want to see AGW fall on this spectrum if you believe in it? Do you want it to be as popular in congress as the Afghan or Iraq wars as they were being launched? Or should you start worrying when the political mainstreaming of this issue starts to hit critical mass? Wouldn't it be more encouraging if the levels of congressional support for AGW were more in line with, e.g., the support for a new investigation of 9/11?

Because I think there's a predictive possibility here too: I propose that the more bipartisan congressional support an idea gets, the more likely it is to turn out wrong or idiotic. How much opposing evidence is there to this hypothesis? Well, say in the last several decades at least.

Now I know that AGW does not have a bipartisan consensus right now, but it's been trending in that direction for a while. (Maybe the email scandal has counteracted this trend a bit.) I wonder how close the bipartisan congressional consensus on AGW is to the bipartisan congressional consensus would be for attacking Iran, for whatever reason ends up being cooked up. Pretty close maybe? (Yes, the D/R vote count might flip in this example.)

Or I guess it could be genuine political concern about a real problem but with an eye towards a diabolical and unhelpful solution. But even that seems pretty generous, no?
User avatar
druff
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:00 am

druff wrote:When you see a congressional bipartisan consensus form around a cause, it's a good time to think about running the other way.

It might be, if the "two" parties were actually in opposition as they take some pains to appear to be.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:45 am

Ben D wrote:Neat Wintler2, a bit dodgy yes? I don't suppose that this readjustment of the temperature data is meant to obfuscate the fact that 1998 was clearly the hottest year on record according to the majority of measurements, UAH, RSS. and CRU, and about equal with 2010 with NCDC...


Still with obsession on just one year, what part of Trend do you not get?

"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:50 am

Simulist wrote:
druff wrote:When you see a congressional bipartisan consensus form around a cause, it's a good time to think about running the other way.

It might be, if the "two" parties were actually in opposition as they take some pains to appear to be.


Both major parties in all anglo nations have been united in inaction for decades. In the last decade there has been alot of lip service, and some minor programs that got up cos they benefited private capital AND reduced pollution, but nothing that remotely challenges the status quo.
Why does that unified selfish irresponsibility not move you, Druff?
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:06 am

wintler2 wrote:For those interested in topic of thread, rather than diversionary personal attacks:
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH).


Fair enough, below is what they start with,..1998 is clearly the hottest year between 1997 - 2010.

Image

When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data.


This is what they get when they remove estimated impacts of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability).

Image

So now you post this in response...
wintler2 wrote:
Still with obsession on just one year, what part of Trend do you not get?

[youtube]Trend Line]


Nice try Wintler2, it is not that scientific skeptics are obsessed with 1998, but it is the CAGW and AGW people who, to have any credibility going forward, must try to make it go away by massaging the raw data to make it appear as 2010 being the warmest.

What's more, fyi adjusting the data by subtracting 'estimated' impacts on factors that affect temperature readings to recreate the adjusted graph is not the same thing as creating a trend line, it's just massaging the figures to hide the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and thus impacts very much on the discussion taking place about there not being any warming for the last 14 years, and thus keep the CAGW/AGW scam going a little longer.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:09 am

You, know Bendy, you're inflexible... and incorrigible. You have no understanding of the sound reasoning for eliminating those statistics, do you? So, instead of understanding or asking for a rationalization for that which confuses your argument, you spew your paranoid toxic smokescreen to hide your ignorance.

Try reading that report or any of the hundreds available on the topic at the link wintler2 provided for you.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:36 am

Or why don't you read some of the hundreds of papers from your own source, the IOP, (Obviously bought and paid for by the Koch Bros. crowd, or some nefarious dark dominatrix in control of the minds of thousands of scientists around the world just so they can get more funding from your pocket.)

The first result returned when searching "Climate Change":

Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem

"This paper, produced on behalf of the Institute of Physics by Professor Alan J. Thorpe, explains how predictions of future climate change are made using climate models. It is hoped that the paper will increase believability in these models and be persuasive that anthropogenic activity is likely to be causing global warming. It aims to convince policy-makers, the general public and the scientific community that the threats posed by global climate change are real."

http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/page_52088.html
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:25 am

Iamwhomiam wrote:You, know Bendy, you're inflexible... and incorrigible. You have no understanding of the sound reasoning for eliminating those statistics, do you? So, instead of understanding or asking for a rationalization for that which confuses your argument, you spew your paranoid toxic smokescreen to hide your ignorance.

Try reading that report or any of the hundreds available on the topic at the link wintler2 provided for you.

Iamwhomiam wrote:Or why don't you read some of the hundreds of papers from your own source, the IOP, (Obviously bought and paid for by the Koch Bros. crowd, or some nefarious dark dominatrix in control of the minds of thousands of scientists around the world just so they can get more funding from your pocket.)

The first result returned when searching "Climate Change":

Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem

"This paper, produced on behalf of the Institute of Physics by Professor Alan J. Thorpe, explains how predictions of future climate change are made using climate models. It is hoped that the paper will increase believability in these models and be persuasive that anthropogenic activity is likely to be causing global warming. It aims to convince policy-makers, the general public and the scientific community that the threats posed by global climate change are real."

http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/page_52088.html

Look here Iamwhomiam, flattery will get you nowhere with me. :lovehearts:

I note that you have not been specific in where you think my understanding of the 1979 - 2010 temperature trend analysis was lacking so what can I say?

Btw, from the text above...
It is hoped that the paper will increase believability in these models and be persuasive that anthropogenic activity is likely to be causing global warming.

Does not 'hope' and 'persuasion' to increase 'believability' in AGW models, and that anthropogenic activity is only 'likely' to cause global warming, an indication that this is not pure science, but a public relations effort.

However on the suggested reading material, are you serious? You must live a sheltered life, have you not familiarized yourself with the expose of Climategate 1 and 2?

The so called principal scientists pushing CAGW and AGW were shown to be far from upholding the principles of science. They were downright unethical in deluding not only the public, but they compounded their dishonesty by trying to prevent honest scientists who were wanting to verify their methodologies and data, from gaining access to it. The only reason they haven't been drummed out of their respective scientific disciplines, is that they were only doing what was asked of them by the PTB behind the plan to to carbon tax the world (and whatever else a one world government gets up to), and who created the whitewash concerning the investigations into their unlawful and unscientific behavior.

I thank you for your attention Iamwhomiam, and please don't worry, the meme that the CAGW tipping point is nigh is just a mental construct that is meant to create fear in believers,.. free yourself, it's easier then you think... :thumbsup
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests