Are you now trying to tell us that, like watts being the same as joules, "material" is the same as "minute"?
yup close enough.
Homeopathy Explained
He discovered that many of the most effective medicines could cause similar symptoms in the healthy to the same pattern of symptoms that they could treat in the sick. This was the first principle of homeopathy: the Law of Similars. (The name homoeopathy comes from the Greek, homoeo meaning similar and pathos meaning suffering.) In homeopathy, we give a minute but energised dose of a substance which in a normal, material dose can cause a similar pattern of symptoms in a healthy individual.
Blimey, you really don't understand anything, do you. Another definition clearly showing you are wrong and that "minute" and "material" quite clearly mean two very different and contrasting things and you infer completely the opposite meaning.
Blimey, you really don't understand anything, do you. Another definition clearly showing you are wrong and that "minute" and "material" quite clearly mean two very different and contrasting things and you infer completely the opposite meaning.
As Abewest would say were he even handed, "Wow!".
it would depend on what "material" measure ment was. it could be minute as well.
however I do understand what njp was getting at.
New paper contradicts a tenet of global warming theory
A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that clouds located in the stratosphere over the poles act to cool the stratosphere by adiabatic cooling, which is the cooling of air parcels as they rise and expand, rather than by 'trapping heat' below the clouds resulting in 'radiative cooling' of the stratosphere above. This finding contradicts a tenet of AGW theory, which predicts that infrared radiation from greenhouse gases will 'trap heat' to create a 'hot spot' in the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. This study finds that cooling of the stratosphere is instead due to rising air parcels rather than a decrease in radiation due to heat 'trapped by greenhouse gases'.
The findings of this study corroborate the climate theories of Chilingar, Jelbring, van Andel, and several others.
our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatic cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling.
New paper says ocean warming since 1984 is due to natural variability, not climate change
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate concludes
Abstract
Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air-sea heat flux, Q, decreases. Over the period 1984-2006 the global changes are 0.28°C in SST and -9.1 W/m2 in Q, giving an effective air-sea coupling coefficient of -32 W/m2/°C. The global response in Q expected from SST alone is determined to be -12.9 W/m2, and the global distribution of the associated coupling coefficient is shown. Typically, about one-half (6.8 W/m2) of this SST effect on heat flux is compensated by changes in the overlying near surface atmosphere. Slab Ocean Models (SOMs) assume that ocean heating processes do not change from year to year, so that a constant annual heat flux would maintain a linear trend in annual SST. However, the necessary 6.1 W/m2 increase is not found in the downwelling longwave and shortwave fluxes, which combined show a -3 W/m2 decrease. The SOM assumptions are revisited to determine the most likely source of the inconsistency with observations. The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes [ocean oscillations] played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux. A similar situation is found in the individual basins, though magnitudes differ. A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period. On shorter time scales the relationship between SST and heat flux exhibits a variety of behaviors.
wonder if AGW will get into the final paper. :D:D:D:D
Is this the best job in Britain? University academic gets £7,700 grant to spend time in PUBS
His £7,700 grant from the British Academy, the national body for the humanities and social sciences, will help him to study the rural pub’s role in the community’s social and economic life.
Your problem seems to be that the paper relies on rising surface temps that you say aren't rising. Only one of you can be right.
No, it relies on this-
The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes [ocean oscillations] played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux.
Since we both have a copy of the paper, perhaps it would be best if you quote directly the bit that you think runs counter to the IPCC case, and supports Lovelock's now-recanted "Revenge of Gaia" case.
I'm not saying it runs counter to the IPCC case. Given it's published by the IPCC's sponsor, it's supportive of the IPCC position, ie Thermageddon. Like the IPCC, it's self-referential, ie Nick includes his Stern Review as the supposed greenprint for civil society. Even though it was bollocks. Amusingly, it also calls for REDD+ to be implemented urgently. I guess that was a WWF request given they borrowed $150m or so to buy a large chunk of Amazon forest in the expectation of making a couple of billion out of REDD
But you wanted a Gaia quote, so here you go-
Quantifying and understanding the inputs and outputs of individual ecosystems are the functional connection among all ecosystems, constituting the “pulse” of the planet, and when measured quantitatively have major management relevance for understanding and resolving environmental problems.
Gaia's pulse is fading, so build more windmills so we can apply CPR, stat!
We'll add history to the vast list of things you don't understand. Lovelock was elected as a Fellow in 1974. Paul Nurse became president in 2010. Can you see how that first date is many years (and many presidents) before the second date?
Add reading to the list of things you are incapable of. I was referring to the super-kook Ehrlich, famous for his population equation Temp=(P x A)/I or something. Oh, and we've all turned into blue steam. Recently made a Felow of the RS, helping Nursey transform them further into an advocacy group. Demonstrated by the publication referenced here-
Platinum is one metal for which absolute scarcity is likely (Bloodworth pers comm), because of its unique catalytic properties (eg car exhaust cleaning and process chemistry). The related metals palladium, rhenium and osmium may also become limiting.
Rhenium is not a platinum group metal. Rhodium is, and it is rhodium that might become in limited supply.
Easy mistake for a bunch of Fellows to make I guess.
I see. So if I had looked at the earlier reports, post-1971 work of Lovelock's would have appeared that was subsequently dropped?
Dunno, but you seem to think Lovelock and Gaia had zero impact on framing the climate debate. If that were true, Avatar may have had an original story.
And Susan Solomon (aged 55) is supposed to somehow be a proxy for James Lovelock (aged 92)?
No need for her to be a proxy. She's in a position to shape IPCC output as co-chair of WG1, and ensure a consistent message.
Is there no limit to the derangement of logic to which you are prepared to stoop in pursuit of your agenda?
Well, your rearangement of quotes does appear to support your derangement, and logic has never been your strong point.
Luckily Lovelock is a better scientist. He published his Gaia books when it looked like Thermageddon may be a problem. Now, after a long period of evidence showing it is not, he has re-evaluated his position. Real scientists do that, Real Climate scientists never admit their mistakes.
Of course I did. But you never understand anything, which is why you are where you are in relation to mainstream science.
I'm not saying it runs counter to the IPCC case.
Oh, right. So in that case it isn't supportive of Lovelock's extreme position, as espoused in his recent books, and which he has now apparently recanted, just as I told you. I win, as usual.
But you wanted a Gaia quote, so here you go-
Quantifying and understanding the inputs and outputs of individual ecosystems are the functional connection among all ecosystems, constituting the “pulse” of the planet, and when measured quantitatively have major management relevance for understanding and resolving environmental problems.
Of course I did. But you never understand anything, which is why you are where you are in relation to mainstream science.
I love mainstream science. I even like some non-mainstream science, like solar physics. I absolutely love fringe 'science' like climatology. If it weren't costing us so much it'd be the best comedy around.
Oh, right. So in that case it isn't supportive of Lovelock's extreme position, as espoused in his recent books, and which he has now apparently recanted, just as I told you. I win, as usual.
Ah, here we see nlp performing his typical reality inversion trick. First he says-
]The sudden interest is that the 92-year-old has apparently repented (in a telephone interview) from his distinctly non-IPCC belief in an impending climate apocalypse, as expounded in 2 or 3 popular books, but no published papers
So I cite a paper published by the UNEP, sponsor of the IPCC where Lovelock contributes along with a bunch of other IPCC faithful to a document that's very much in line with the IPCC consensus. If it were 'extreme', somehow I doubt the UNEP would publish it, or his collaborators collaborate.
The ecological collapse in the UNEP paper is entirely in line with Lovelock's previous Gaia books and the IPCC's doom-mongering.
Then again, Lovelock has never been an easy fellow traveller for many greens given he's pro-nuclear and has pointed out how bad most 'green' anti-nuclear PR has been.
He's also quite capable of doing the calculations Andykn and you can't do to show extreme statistically significant warming. But then he's had a long career as an empiricist.
Can you point out the apocalyptic bit of that?
Start with page 1, read till the end. Usual we're all doomed rubbish unless we buy everyone climate indulgences.
yes I can see thousands flocking to buy one of these. :D:D
Ford brings contrasts of electric and gas cars into sharper focus
The electric Focus has a sticker price of $39,995 with destination fees. That compares with about $25,000 for a similarly equipped gasoline model. But shoppers will also have to make adjustments for incentives, such as the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles, and regional inducements such as California’s $2,500 rebate. Then they must add the cost of a home-charging station: about $2,000.
The Tesla electric car's batteries will cost $40,000 to replace when they run out of juice - how appealing are those electric car advantages at resale time?
why did "The Yale Project" have the question of hurricanes in its questionnaire, when they know there were non. ???
The Yale Project on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication have released a joint survey about Americans’ impressions of recent extreme weather events. Much like the phenomenon where millions of people claim and apparently believe they were actually at the 1969 Woodstock music festival, a ridiculously high percentage of people claim in the Yale/George Mason survey to have personally experienced severe weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes during the past year.
Twenty-one percent of survey respondents say they personally experienced a tornado last year. This is astonishing. Unless the survey was conducted almost exclusively in Joplin, Missouri, or Tuscaloosa, Alabama, I am guessing the Woodstock effect is occurring here.
Even more remarkably, 16 percent say they personally experienced a hurricane last year. Not a single hurricane struck the United States last year. Tropical Storm Irene, often mislabeled as a hurricane, came the closest, with 70 mph winds striking small portions of the minimally populated North Carolina Outer Banks. So how did 16 percent of Americans personally experience a hurricane last year? Perhaps they were all together on a cruise ship off the Mexican coast in October when Hurricane Rina spun around in the Caribbean Sea for a few days.
You love what you think it says, which is seldom if ever what it actually says. Take your hilarious failure to understand anything at all about cosmic rays, for example. While I was ploughing through HalfWatt's comedy of Stupid the other day, I noticed Leif Svalgaard (one of the few voices of sanity there) trying to explain to the HalfWatters exactly the same points I tried to explain to you. Needless to say, they didn't like it either!
Ah, here we see nlp performing his typical reality inversion trick. First he says-
"The sudden interest is that the 92-year-old has apparently repented (in a telephone interview) from his distinctly non-IPCC belief in an impending climate apocalypse, as expounded in 2 or 3 popular books, but no published papers"
So I cite a paper published by the UNEP, sponsor of the IPCC where Lovelock contributes along with a bunch of other IPCC faithful to a document that's very much in line with the IPCC consensus.
No, what we see there is your typical inability to understand the meaning of anything. The unpublished (except in books and interviews) views to which I referred are clearly those of an impending climate apocalypse. That is why I used those words. And that is what is notably absent from that paper. Where is the stuff about it being too late to do anything, and the claim that the last few breeding pairs of humans will be living in the Artic by the end of the Century? These are the claims Lovelock has made.
He's also quite capable of doing the calculations
Which calculations did you have in mind, and where can I find them? I'll accept answers for either his previous apocalyptic vision, or his post-recantation vision, once you've managed to discover what that is.
While I was ploughing through HalfWatt's comedy of Stupid the other day, I noticed Leif Svalgaard (one of the few voices of sanity there) trying to explain to the HalfWatters exactly the same points I tried to explain to you.
Nope, that was just you usual reality inversion. First you doubted directional information could be gleaned by neutrino detectors, then you finally realised there was a point to having a 3d sensing array. You never did get around to demonstrating the 'no trends' claim you made though.
No, what we see there is your typical inability to understand the meaning of anything. The unpublished (except in books and interviews) views to which I referred are clearly those of an impending climate apocalypse. That is why I used those words. And that is what is notably absent from that paper.
No it isn't. It's the usual call to action, much like other UNEP tripe like this-
which lead to the usual calls to action, cries of 'act now' and demands for yet more cash to fund NGO's luxurious lifestyles.
Which calculations did you have in mind, and where can I find them?
The lack of statistically significant warming over the last decade or more. The empirical evidence that convinced Lovelock that many of the cAGW claims are just alarmist, rent-seeking bollocks.
I won't take lessons in reality inversion from a man who finds himself disagreeing with every major scientific institution on the planet. According to you, they are all inverting reality too. One day, you may come to realise that the man wearing the special prism glasses is you, and that in fact reality is the other way up.
First you doubted directional information could be gleaned by neutrino detectors, then you finally realised there was a point to having a 3d sensing array. You never did get around to demonstrating the 'no trends' claim you made though.
And off you go again, with your usual anti-science distortions. Of course I didn't doubt that directional information could be gleaned from neutrino detectors.
The argument, which you lost, concerned whether directional information could be gleaned about the origin of galactic cosmic rays, by looking at their interaction with the atmosphere. Along the way, you managed to think that protons decay in the atmosphere, and that primary cosmic rays are neutrons, and that neutrinos or ultra high energy cosmic rays might be affecting the climate (and that there might be a trend in either or both!).
The lack of statistically significant warming over the last decade or more.
I'll let andykn continue his Sisyphean quest to teach you and bmillam about that.
The empirical evidence that convinced Lovelock that many of the cAGW claims are just alarmist, rent-seeking bollocks.
Nice. So where did he do the calculations that persuaded him that the last few breeding pairs of humans would be confined to the Arctic by the end of the century, and where are his new calculations, and what do they say about the future climate?
Now, if we accept for a moment the water vapour positive feedback which is critical to the CO2 hypothesis then this cooling trend should cause the positive feedback from water vapour to force further cooling.
If it doesn't then there is insufficient positive feedback in the system to account for the warming trend over the past 150 years.
Comments
Homeopathy Explained http://www.cottnat.com.au/homeopathy-explained.asp
what that you know a better definition than anyone else for Homeopathy please enlighten us all :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Blimey, you really don't understand anything, do you. Another definition clearly showing you are wrong and that "minute" and "material" quite clearly mean two very different and contrasting things and you infer completely the opposite meaning.
As Abewest would say were he even handed, "Wow!".
it would depend on what "material" measure ment was. it could be minute as well.
however I do understand what njp was getting at.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/new-paper-contradicts-tenet-of-global.html
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate concludes http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/new-paper-says-ocean-warming-since-1984.html
Is this the best job in Britain? University academic gets £7,700 grant to spend time in PUBS
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135468/Is-best-job-Britain-University-academic-gets-7-700-grant-spend-time-PUBS.html#ixzz1tBR7d5xL
yes to both above papers.
Thanks.
Your problem seems to be that the paper relies on rising surface temps that you say aren't rising. Only one of you can be right.
The link to the paper is right at the top of the blog article. Very little wading required.
No, it relies on this-
The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes [ocean oscillations] played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux.
Oh no you didn't..
I'm not saying it runs counter to the IPCC case. Given it's published by the IPCC's sponsor, it's supportive of the IPCC position, ie Thermageddon. Like the IPCC, it's self-referential, ie Nick includes his Stern Review as the supposed greenprint for civil society. Even though it was bollocks. Amusingly, it also calls for REDD+ to be implemented urgently. I guess that was a WWF request given they borrowed $150m or so to buy a large chunk of Amazon forest in the expectation of making a couple of billion out of REDD
But you wanted a Gaia quote, so here you go-
Quantifying and understanding the inputs and outputs of individual ecosystems are the functional connection among all ecosystems, constituting the “pulse” of the planet, and when measured quantitatively have major management relevance for understanding and resolving environmental problems.
Gaia's pulse is fading, so build more windmills so we can apply CPR, stat!
Add reading to the list of things you are incapable of. I was referring to the super-kook Ehrlich, famous for his population equation Temp=(P x A)/I or something. Oh, and we've all turned into blue steam. Recently made a Felow of the RS, helping Nursey transform them further into an advocacy group. Demonstrated by the publication referenced here-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100016684/the-royal-societys-appallingly-bad-report-on-population-and-consumption/
Platinum is one metal for which absolute scarcity is likely (Bloodworth pers comm), because of its unique catalytic properties (eg car exhaust cleaning and process chemistry). The related metals palladium, rhenium and osmium may also become limiting.
Rhenium is not a platinum group metal. Rhodium is, and it is rhodium that might become in limited supply.
Easy mistake for a bunch of Fellows to make I guess.
Dunno, but you seem to think Lovelock and Gaia had zero impact on framing the climate debate. If that were true, Avatar may have had an original story.
No need for her to be a proxy. She's in a position to shape IPCC output as co-chair of WG1, and ensure a consistent message.
Well, your rearangement of quotes does appear to support your derangement, and logic has never been your strong point.
Luckily Lovelock is a better scientist. He published his Gaia books when it looked like Thermageddon may be a problem. Now, after a long period of evidence showing it is not, he has re-evaluated his position. Real scientists do that, Real Climate scientists never admit their mistakes.
Oh, right. So in that case it isn't supportive of Lovelock's extreme position, as espoused in his recent books, and which he has now apparently recanted, just as I told you. I win, as usual.
Can you point out the apocalyptic bit of that?
[Further irrelevant Eelian drivel - snipped]
I love mainstream science. I even like some non-mainstream science, like solar physics. I absolutely love fringe 'science' like climatology. If it weren't costing us so much it'd be the best comedy around.
Ah, here we see nlp performing his typical reality inversion trick. First he says-
So I cite a paper published by the UNEP, sponsor of the IPCC where Lovelock contributes along with a bunch of other IPCC faithful to a document that's very much in line with the IPCC consensus. If it were 'extreme', somehow I doubt the UNEP would publish it, or his collaborators collaborate.
The ecological collapse in the UNEP paper is entirely in line with Lovelock's previous Gaia books and the IPCC's doom-mongering.
Then again, Lovelock has never been an easy fellow traveller for many greens given he's pro-nuclear and has pointed out how bad most 'green' anti-nuclear PR has been.
He's also quite capable of doing the calculations Andykn and you can't do to show extreme statistically significant warming. But then he's had a long career as an empiricist.
Start with page 1, read till the end. Usual we're all doomed rubbish unless we buy everyone climate indulgences.
Ford brings contrasts of electric and gas cars into sharper focus http://junkscience.com/2012/04/27/ford-brings-contrasts-of-electric-and-gas-cars-into-sharper-focus/
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/04/electric-car-advantages-how-does-paying-40000-for-a-tesla-ev-replacement-battery-sound.html
No, what we see there is your typical inability to understand the meaning of anything. The unpublished (except in books and interviews) views to which I referred are clearly those of an impending climate apocalypse. That is why I used those words. And that is what is notably absent from that paper. Where is the stuff about it being too late to do anything, and the claim that the last few breeding pairs of humans will be living in the Artic by the end of the Century? These are the claims Lovelock has made.
Which calculations did you have in mind, and where can I find them? I'll accept answers for either his previous apocalyptic vision, or his post-recantation vision, once you've managed to discover what that is.
Nope, that was just you usual reality inversion. First you doubted directional information could be gleaned by neutrino detectors, then you finally realised there was a point to having a 3d sensing array. You never did get around to demonstrating the 'no trends' claim you made though.
No it isn't. It's the usual call to action, much like other UNEP tripe like this-
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/IPCC_Press_Release_SREX.pdf
which lead to the usual calls to action, cries of 'act now' and demands for yet more cash to fund NGO's luxurious lifestyles.
The lack of statistically significant warming over the last decade or more. The empirical evidence that convinced Lovelock that many of the cAGW claims are just alarmist, rent-seeking bollocks.
And off you go again, with your usual anti-science distortions. Of course I didn't doubt that directional information could be gleaned from neutrino detectors.
The argument, which you lost, concerned whether directional information could be gleaned about the origin of galactic cosmic rays, by looking at their interaction with the atmosphere. Along the way, you managed to think that protons decay in the atmosphere, and that primary cosmic rays are neutrons, and that neutrinos or ultra high energy cosmic rays might be affecting the climate (and that there might be a trend in either or both!).
I'll let andykn continue his Sisyphean quest to teach you and bmillam about that.
Nice. So where did he do the calculations that persuaded him that the last few breeding pairs of humans would be confined to the Arctic by the end of the century, and where are his new calculations, and what do they say about the future climate?
Has he done any at all, or were Connolley, Annan and others right about him in 2006?
And I don't know why you think njp and I can't do those calculations; you're the only person here who's asked someone else to do them for you.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Now, if we accept for a moment the water vapour positive feedback which is critical to the CO2 hypothesis then this cooling trend should cause the positive feedback from water vapour to force further cooling.
If it doesn't then there is insufficient positive feedback in the system to account for the warming trend over the past 150 years.