My Californey experience taught me there is NOTHING more intolerant, bigoted and hate filled than a liberal's agenda of "multiculturalism and diversity".
When an uptrend is broken, it is a short, the way most play.
there is some reason to think the same way for other things ... for some reason it is not going up at the same rate it was ... what has caused the break? El Nino? a volcano?
If you are in a car and flooring it from 0 to 60 ... if you let off the gas, you may not slow down, but the uptrend will be broken ... I'll let RR give you the calculus ... I thought you were a math whiz .. :)
Aloof Rhino? That is quite that insult when I simply said I was not interested in the political charge on this site. It is most interesting to me that no one is allowed to stay neutral here without reaping insults whether the topic be climate or sexual orientation.
I'll drop off of this thread now - no need for your kind of responses
"Aloof" is not an insult at all. I don't see how you even took it that way.
reserved and remote: stood apart with aloof dignity.
adv.
At a distance but within view; apart.
It is how you defined your position as I saw it. Anyway, besides noting my charts were misleading, you could probably have offered how the recent trend fits in with the longer trend, and CO2, and some other insight. Since you seem to hold that info, and noted your participation, it seems odd you would not offer what you know, yet still participate here partially.
On this topic you yourself said you would not participate ... that seems aloof. I see now one definition has "haughty", but I never use it that way. Still you did drop the credentials but didn't offer a better answer than the chart I saw. I'm curious about how significant this change in increase really is. I didn't think El Nino lasted a decade.
Anyway, it was not an insult, nor did I intend it as one. As a scientist, you could offer an opinion on the Jupiter significance, or the recent cooler data ... you are here, but only give hints. Isn't that "aloof"?
, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.
It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.
The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C
brrr ... it really has been a cool spring .. as David noted ... I feel a cold wind blowing ....
Horribly bad "science" on your part. First of all, just because it is a cool spring in your area doesn't mean that is the case everywhere. Here in Texas we've had a hotter than normal spring. Second of all, what you are doing by looking at as short a time period of one month to another is about as bad as trying to determine the long term direction of a stock by measuring the stock price one millisecond to the next. Still, you do this all the time, and are silent every time there is a heat wave, then whenever it's cold try to use a low temperature and faulty science to push your political views on climate science.
On this topic you yourself said you would not participate ... that seems aloof.
The operative word here is "seems"...and that is merely your own perspective. I believe that Rumrunner communicated that he did not enjoy the polarizing political climate and the us versus them mentality on this forum...(at least, that is MY perspective on what he said in his post)...
Knowing Rumrunner as I do, I would submit that a more appropriate "forum" for a discussion on this particular topic would be better served if we were all sitting in students chairs and Rumrunner was standing with his back to the blackboard, holding a pointer...
Horribly bad "science" on your part. First of all, just because it is a cool spring in your area doesn't mean that is the case everywhere.
The chart and the text said it was significantly colder GLOBALLY. It just mentioned the anecdotal evidence anecdotally. Horribly bad reading on your part.
Second of all, what you are doing by looking at as short a time period of one month to another is about as bad as trying to determine the long term direction of a stock by measuring the stock price one millisecond to the next.
Nobody trades on milliseconds ... some do on minute charts or 5 minute charts. Few try to determine a long term direction from chart alone, unless they are buying long term ... in which case they look at fundamentals more often, and a chart for an entry point.
But stocks aside, it is noteworthy to look at shorter term changes to try to determine cause and effect, perhaps. Still, the chart I gave goes back to 1979, so I'm not sure why you think I'm only looking at one or three months. Your insightful rebuttal is not based on what I said nor on the chart. I was not looking at one location or one month, as you claimed. I was looking globally over 30 years. (with a glance at Jupiter)
But that said, I don't know the significance of sounder units of the lower troposphere. I will try to follow RR's hints, and see what he is getting at. The chart I had showed a very large drop over the last 15 months. It looks to me like Hap's chart shows the same thing, but his goes back to 1880.
From Hap's chart, we are (globally) now 0.3o C warmer now than 128 years ago. This last 15 month global 0.75oC drop is significant ... exactly how significant? I don't know. Are those old temps really that accurate? Are the new temps influenced by the urban settings of the weather stations?
Still, you do this all the time, and are silent every time there is a heat wave, then whenever it's cold try to use a low temperature and faulty science to push your political views on climate science.
you are making up things all through your response ... heat wave or a cold wave ... I don't think I've ever discussed global warming in those terms. There seem to be a lot of people lately, paraphrasing me to say something that I never came close to saying.
I guess it is easier to win an argument if you just change what the other guy said. As long as the other guy can't reply. I look at a 30 year chart of global temps (and at Hap's 130 year chart), and you claim I am looking locally at one month.
The operative word here is "seems"...and that is merely your own perspective. I believe that Rumrunner communicated that he did not enjoy the polarizing political climate and the us versus them mentality on this forum...(at least, that is MY perspective on what he said in his post)...
Knowing Rumrunner as I do, I would submit that a more appropriate "forum" for a discussion on this particular topic would be better served if we were all sitting in students chairs and Rumrunner was standing with his back to the blackboard, holding a pointer...
True Groucho .. I would like to sit in that class ... but I have hints. :) I really meant nothing bad by "aloof".
Anyway, I will try to to follow those hints ... so this is good motivation for me. I am sorry RumRunner was offended. Even using Hap's chart I see the same thing. WE have time and global temps ... how many other dimensions are needed? We won't have altitudes for very many years ... so I'm left to guess why it is misleading ...
"I'll give you a hint" can be more derogatory than "aloof" .. but I assumed it was not meant that way.
Thank you for your explanation of "aloof" Rhino - I stand corrected and apologize for considering that you were insulting me.
With regard to what you refer to as my participating here partially - I probably would not have said anything until I saw that the chart was from one of the AMSU instruments - as stated earlier I a CO-PI on those suites of instruments.
If you would like to know more about El Nino (which does not last 10 years) look up Pacific Decadal Oscillation, of which El Nino years are only a part. There is plenty of good information on line so you don't need a long oration from me here.
"Aloof" is not an insult at all. I don't see how you even took it that way.
reserved and remote: stood apart with aloof dignity.
adv.
At a distance but within view; apart.
It is how you defined your position as I saw it. Anyway, besides noting my charts were misleading, you could probably have offered how the recent trend fits in with the longer trend, and CO2, and some other insight. Since you seem to hold that info, and noted your participation, it seems odd you would not offer what you know, yet still participate here partially.
On this topic you yourself said you would not participate ... that seems aloof. I see now one definition has "haughty", but I never use it that way. Still you did drop the credentials but didn't offer a better answer than the chart I saw. I'm curious about how significant this change in increase really is. I didn't think El Nino lasted a decade.
Anyway, it was not an insult, nor did I intend it as one. As a scientist, you could offer an opinion on the Jupiter significance, or the recent cooler data ... you are here, but only give hints. Isn't that "aloof"?
The operative word here is "seems"...and that is merely your own perspective. I believe that Rumrunner communicated that he did not enjoy the polarizing political climate and the us versus them mentality on this forum...(at least, that is MY perspective on what he said in his post)...
Knowing Rumrunner as I do, I would submit that a more appropriate "forum" for a discussion on this particular topic would be better served if we were all sitting in students chairs and Rumrunner was standing with his back to the blackboard, holding a pointer...
Thanks for noting that Groucho - yes indeed that is why I rarely participate in these conversations. Thanks also for the comment about a more appropriate forum. If I go back to the university then indeed I'll be right back in that teaching position - something I've always enjoyed - teaching science that is - not teaching in general (wheeewwwww that could've come close to sounding like TWI speak).
Actually I think a forum on the topic of climate variability might be interesting but only if a) religion was not interjected by one word b) politics where not interjected by one word and c) people who can't act with manners go away.
Debate is different than the baiting, name-calling, innuendo, etc that seems all too common on GSC when a controversial issue comes up.
Thanks RR ... CO-PI is lost on me ... I found Co Principal Investigator ... is that right? Anyway, cool you were directly involved. I'm just trying to pry info out of you ... :)
Back to Jupiter ... well, here is a stop off at Mars ...
Mars's southern polar ice cap, seen here in true color, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming—similar to what's happening on Earth.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview:
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
National Geographic fast facts says man is causing all or most of the warming ... I don't see how they caused glaciers to recede ... and much of their claims of settled science is unsettled to me ... but they have a right to their opinion, and to publish what sells best. :)
Yes RR, it is too easy to stray from talking of the science ... to me Gore's movie misrepresented the science, and the Global Warming topic is rarely really about the science. I think Gore said a 20 foot rise by the end of the century. The UN report "guesses" ...
• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects"
But I find some statements from National Geographic simply not true, or not known ... they quote from the IPCC (UN) report
... humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.
But your previous comments and background make me think you present the science side ... so a science only forum could be good. Of course there would be a lot of learning for most of us ... and I guess most of this is available somewhere on the internet.
NP Rhino - yes a CO-PI is a co-principal investigator. Feel free to pry - but understand that I will not bias myself with politics or religion - as Jack Webb used to say in the 60's TV show "Dragnet" - "Just the facts ma'am."
National Geographic is a moot point - I don't know any serious scientist who has had a good experience with them - 'nuff said on that topic.
Note the polarized wording in the quoted paragraph? "have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause" Why not word it more accurately and still leave room for research - how about "have a significant naturally induced cause both terrestrial and solar" By using that wording you show that you are bending over backwards to be completely honest - observations show that there are "natural" causes - but it is not possible to rule out human induced causes.
The fact is that right now we are still trying to understand the many cycles, both terrestrial and solar, and how they interact simultaneously over time - the cycles don't run on the same schedules - thus the times that all conditions in all cycles are repeated is longer than a single human lifetime in many cases. So perhaps that tells you a little bit about how hard it is to narrow these things down in any one direction.
Thanks RR ... CO-PI is lost on me ... I found Co Principal Investigator ... is that right? Anyway, cool you were directly involved. I'm just trying to pry info out of you ... :)
Mars's southern polar ice cap, seen here in true color, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming—similar to what's happening on Earth.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview:
But I find some statements from National Geographic simply not true, or not known ... they quote from the IPCC (UN) report
... humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.
But your previous comments and background make me think you present the science side ... so a science only forum could be good. Of course there would be a lot of learning for most of us ... and I guess most of this is available somewhere on the internet.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
15
7
Popular Days
Jun 4
20
Jun 5
14
Jun 2
12
Jun 3
10
Top Posters In This Topic
HAPe4me 6 posts
jen-o 6 posts
rhino 15 posts
RumRunner 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2008
20 posts
Jun 5 2008
14 posts
Jun 2 2008
12 posts
Jun 3 2008
10 posts
Bumpy
Bravo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
you are the one that quoted the stock question.
When an uptrend is broken, it is a short, the way most play.
there is some reason to think the same way for other things ... for some reason it is not going up at the same rate it was ... what has caused the break? El Nino? a volcano?
If you are in a car and flooring it from 0 to 60 ... if you let off the gas, you may not slow down, but the uptrend will be broken ... I'll let RR give you the calculus ... I thought you were a math whiz .. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
"Aloof" is not an insult at all. I don't see how you even took it that way.
It is how you defined your position as I saw it. Anyway, besides noting my charts were misleading, you could probably have offered how the recent trend fits in with the longer trend, and CO2, and some other insight. Since you seem to hold that info, and noted your participation, it seems odd you would not offer what you know, yet still participate here partially.
On this topic you yourself said you would not participate ... that seems aloof. I see now one definition has "haughty", but I never use it that way. Still you did drop the credentials but didn't offer a better answer than the chart I saw. I'm curious about how significant this change in increase really is. I didn't think El Nino lasted a decade.
Anyway, it was not an insult, nor did I intend it as one. As a scientist, you could offer an opinion on the Jupiter significance, or the recent cooler data ... you are here, but only give hints. Isn't that "aloof"?
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Horribly bad "science" on your part. First of all, just because it is a cool spring in your area doesn't mean that is the case everywhere. Here in Texas we've had a hotter than normal spring. Second of all, what you are doing by looking at as short a time period of one month to another is about as bad as trying to determine the long term direction of a stock by measuring the stock price one millisecond to the next. Still, you do this all the time, and are silent every time there is a heat wave, then whenever it's cold try to use a low temperature and faulty science to push your political views on climate science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The operative word here is "seems"...and that is merely your own perspective. I believe that Rumrunner communicated that he did not enjoy the polarizing political climate and the us versus them mentality on this forum...(at least, that is MY perspective on what he said in his post)...
Knowing Rumrunner as I do, I would submit that a more appropriate "forum" for a discussion on this particular topic would be better served if we were all sitting in students chairs and Rumrunner was standing with his back to the blackboard, holding a pointer...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The chart and the text said it was significantly colder GLOBALLY. It just mentioned the anecdotal evidence anecdotally. Horribly bad reading on your part.
Nobody trades on milliseconds ... some do on minute charts or 5 minute charts. Few try to determine a long term direction from chart alone, unless they are buying long term ... in which case they look at fundamentals more often, and a chart for an entry point.But stocks aside, it is noteworthy to look at shorter term changes to try to determine cause and effect, perhaps. Still, the chart I gave goes back to 1979, so I'm not sure why you think I'm only looking at one or three months. Your insightful rebuttal is not based on what I said nor on the chart. I was not looking at one location or one month, as you claimed. I was looking globally over 30 years. (with a glance at Jupiter)
But that said, I don't know the significance of sounder units of the lower troposphere. I will try to follow RR's hints, and see what he is getting at. The chart I had showed a very large drop over the last 15 months. It looks to me like Hap's chart shows the same thing, but his goes back to 1880.
From Hap's chart, we are (globally) now 0.3o C warmer now than 128 years ago. This last 15 month global 0.75oC drop is significant ... exactly how significant? I don't know. Are those old temps really that accurate? Are the new temps influenced by the urban settings of the weather stations?
you are making up things all through your response ... heat wave or a cold wave ... I don't think I've ever discussed global warming in those terms. There seem to be a lot of people lately, paraphrasing me to say something that I never came close to saying.
I guess it is easier to win an argument if you just change what the other guy said. As long as the other guy can't reply. I look at a 30 year chart of global temps (and at Hap's 130 year chart), and you claim I am looking locally at one month.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
True Groucho .. I would like to sit in that class ... but I have hints. :) I really meant nothing bad by "aloof".
Anyway, I will try to to follow those hints ... so this is good motivation for me. I am sorry RumRunner was offended. Even using Hap's chart I see the same thing. WE have time and global temps ... how many other dimensions are needed? We won't have altitudes for very many years ... so I'm left to guess why it is misleading ...
"I'll give you a hint" can be more derogatory than "aloof" .. but I assumed it was not meant that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Thank you for your explanation of "aloof" Rhino - I stand corrected and apologize for considering that you were insulting me.
With regard to what you refer to as my participating here partially - I probably would not have said anything until I saw that the chart was from one of the AMSU instruments - as stated earlier I a CO-PI on those suites of instruments.
If you would like to know more about El Nino (which does not last 10 years) look up Pacific Decadal Oscillation, of which El Nino years are only a part. There is plenty of good information on line so you don't need a long oration from me here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Thanks for noting that Groucho - yes indeed that is why I rarely participate in these conversations. Thanks also for the comment about a more appropriate forum. If I go back to the university then indeed I'll be right back in that teaching position - something I've always enjoyed - teaching science that is - not teaching in general (wheeewwwww that could've come close to sounding like TWI speak).
Actually I think a forum on the topic of climate variability might be interesting but only if a) religion was not interjected by one word b) politics where not interjected by one word and c) people who can't act with manners go away.
Debate is different than the baiting, name-calling, innuendo, etc that seems all too common on GSC when a controversial issue comes up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Thanks RR ... CO-PI is lost on me ... I found Co Principal Investigator ... is that right? Anyway, cool you were directly involved. I'm just trying to pry info out of you ... :)
Back to Jupiter ... well, here is a stop off at Mars ...
Mars's southern polar ice cap, seen here in true color, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming—similar to what's happening on Earth.
National Geographic fast facts says man is causing all or most of the warming ... I don't see how they caused glaciers to recede ... and much of their claims of settled science is unsettled to me ... but they have a right to their opinion, and to publish what sells best. :)
Yes RR, it is too easy to stray from talking of the science ... to me Gore's movie misrepresented the science, and the Global Warming topic is rarely really about the science. I think Gore said a 20 foot rise by the end of the century. The UN report "guesses" ...
But I find some statements from National Geographic simply not true, or not known ... they quote from the IPCC (UN) report
But your previous comments and background make me think you present the science side ... so a science only forum could be good. Of course there would be a lot of learning for most of us ... and I guess most of this is available somewhere on the internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
NP Rhino - yes a CO-PI is a co-principal investigator. Feel free to pry - but understand that I will not bias myself with politics or religion - as Jack Webb used to say in the 60's TV show "Dragnet" - "Just the facts ma'am."
National Geographic is a moot point - I don't know any serious scientist who has had a good experience with them - 'nuff said on that topic.
Note the polarized wording in the quoted paragraph? "have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause" Why not word it more accurately and still leave room for research - how about "have a significant naturally induced cause both terrestrial and solar" By using that wording you show that you are bending over backwards to be completely honest - observations show that there are "natural" causes - but it is not possible to rule out human induced causes.
The fact is that right now we are still trying to understand the many cycles, both terrestrial and solar, and how they interact simultaneously over time - the cycles don't run on the same schedules - thus the times that all conditions in all cycles are repeated is longer than a single human lifetime in many cases. So perhaps that tells you a little bit about how hard it is to narrow these things down in any one direction.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.