contrails

On Dec 24, 1:17*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:16*am, gander wrote:

The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or


He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the
climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is:
- the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary
- the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof

Proof traditionally requires:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the
prediction" requirement.

The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that
will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably
changed.

Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud!

And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! And Chappaquidick! And
whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about
today.

Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly
a glider.

On Dec 24, 8:05*am, Liam wrote:
Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud!

And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! *And Chappaquidick! *And
whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about
today.

Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly
a glider.

Ah Liam, we've missed you. Welcome back!

Brad

Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method, which is of course
what needs to be followed if we are to arrive at the true explanation.
All other approaches are simply "belief", which even though
passionately held can be wrong (cf, flat earth, earth centered
universe, no moon landings, etc.)

I think cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction"
requirement is because it means work - which they don't want to do
simply to make a political point.

-John

Tom Gardner wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:17 pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:16 am, gander wrote:

The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or


He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the
climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is:
- the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary
- the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof

Proof traditionally requires:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the
prediction" requirement.

The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that
will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably
changed.

On Dec 23, 6:44*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.

Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
West Coast airports.

--

In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
(PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!

So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

The daily maximum temperature did rise the 3-day hiatus which any
meteorologist would have expected. The size of that rise was much
larger than anyone expected. The reason is that high altitude jets
leave contrails that are sometimes nearly invisible but still reflect
substantial solar energy back into space. At night, the same
contrails reflect heat back to the earth resulting in warmer daily
minimum temperatures. The days got hotter and the nights got colder.
Contrails tend to dissipate during the day so the net effect is
warming. This complexity is typical of the climate debate.

Climate change 'skeptics' are throwing the word "temperature" around
without really knowing what it means. For example, just what
temperature are we talking about? Minimums, maximums or just the
average. For that matter, exactly how is temperature measured? Just
walking outside with a thermometer won't do it. Finally, what are you
actually measuring?

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) publishes an extensive
manual on how to measure surface temperature. It specifies standard
equipment and methods. It's not easy to do.

The effects of global warming are also different from what most
people expect. Currently, the largest effects are on minimum
temperatures in northern latitudes. Even if daily maximums don't
increase noticeably, warmer daily minimums are having substantial
effects - particularly on ice.

On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method,

No, he hasn't.

The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
information that others can reproduce your results and check your
reasoning, end to end.

This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Dec 24, 5:17*am, T8 wrote:
Btw, wasn't the climate disaster foretold in the 70's just a bit
different?

Do a little research and you'll find that "disaster" was choreographed
by the confused media, not climatologists.

I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring,
you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto
some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it.

And today, with 25 hour news and everything having to be LIVE! and
BREAKING NEWS! that mundane things like needing to provide several
hours (days, weeks) of background material to make the viewer
understand is just not going to happen.

-Tom

On Dec 24, 4:58*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle wrote:

Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method,

No, he hasn't.

The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
information that others can reproduce your results and check your
reasoning, end to end.

It isn't quite as simple as that, of course. The most
interesting/revolutionary predictions are made in advance of
it being possible to prove them. A classic example is
that general relativity was stated in 1915 and only
experimentally proven in 1919.


This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

Not true: they do publish and they do release information.

Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
*imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

*If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

Wrong, T8 - as Tom G stated, you just need to:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

Of course it makes it easier if you publish and provide your data, but
it's not strictly necessary, as a quick perusal of history shows. If
you have problems with the theory, it's incumbent upon you to do the
work to disprove it.

-John

T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:38 am, jcarlyle wrote:
Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method,

No, he hasn't.

The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
information that others can reproduce your results and check your
reasoning, end to end.

This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

5Z wrote:
I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring,
you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto
some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it.

It's always fascinating that usually the same people who think the
journalists are ignorants rely on those same journalists when their
writing is convenient.

It's also fascinating when people who use such really difficult and
esotheric and counter-intuitive stuff like the relativity theory (used
by GPS) or quantum mechanics (used in computers or more generally in
every transistor) and bet their lives on thermodynamic theories (by
flying airplanes) don't believe those same scientists when their
findings are less convenient.