Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For Pete schumacher really off topic

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For Pete schumacher really off topic

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/201006...larstormsahead


    well here is your chance to prove your global warming theory . this spring has been hot in the northeast.

  • #2
    Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

    Originally posted by philiparcario View Post
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/201006...larstormsahead


    well here is your chance to prove your global warming theory . this spring has been hot in the northeast.
    Not my theory . . .

    The sun drives climate, we're just along for the ride.

    Back to speaker building!!!
    R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio
    Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51

    95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
    "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

      Well, GW is a hoax... on Mars 'n' Pluto that is!!
      :D

      Remember 2003 when the ConRight was demanding we pay attention to their claims of GW on Mars?? Naturally, they forgot to mention Mars has an elliptical orbit, and passed closest to the Sun in 2003!!
      Same for Pluto... but an even more [extreme] elliptical orbit!!

      But, they keep tryin'.............
      :rolleyes:

      http://www.astromax.org/activities/2003/mars2003.htm

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

        Originally posted by gc1 View Post
        Well, GW is a hoax... on Mars 'n' Pluto that is!!
        :D

        Remember 2003 when the ConRight was demanding we pay attention to their claims of GW on Mars?? Naturally, they forgot to mention Mars has an elliptical orbit, and passed closest to the Sun in 2003!!
        Same for Pluto... but an even more [extreme] elliptical orbit!!

        But, they keep tryin'.............
        :rolleyes:

        http://www.astromax.org/activities/2003/mars2003.htm
        Except for Pluto is no longer "officially" classified as a planet. It now called a dwarf planet, because only dwarves live there.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

          See any "hockey sticks?"

          R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio
          Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51

          95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
          "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

            See any "hockey sticks?"
            Wow, that is the flattest frequency response I've ever seen. What loudspeaker is that? :rolleyes:

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

              See any "hockey sticks?"

              That only shows 100hz... I'll bet the rest is really ragged!
              Pretty colors though.
              :rolleyes:

              Forgot my pretty little chart:

              http://mars8.jpl.nasa.gov/extreme/im...rsOrbitTop.jpg

              and another goodie (note the date):

              http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=22220

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                Originally posted by gc1 View Post
                That only shows 100hz... I'll bet the rest is really ragged!
                Pretty colors though.
                :rolleyes:
                Yeah, who wants to see all that inconvenient NOAA data that looks flat as a board. It just doesn't fit the disaster narrative. :p
                R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio
                Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51

                95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                  Originally posted by philiparcario View Post
                  http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/201006...larstormsahead

                  well here is your chance to prove your global warming theory . this spring has been hot in the northeast.
                  Darn it Philip, you had to get him going didn't you. :D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                    Ok I've been lurking here for a longtime and learned an awful lot about "on topic" subjects but I have to comment on that graph.

                    As a graph of expressing a change in "frequency response" I'm seeing that it has a slightly depressed low end, a fairly flat middle and a significant rising response in the higher end. If it was a frequency graph I'd say maybe a 5db rising response. It all depends on the "smoothing"

                    If it was really a frequency response for a loudspeaker Pete would probably make some type of comment to the same.

                    I don't know about you but I don't like a rising response, it's a little too "Hot" or sibilant to me.

                    Of course it doesn't reflect the really low end (pre 1900) and perhaps it's hiding the fact that there wasn't a lot of "punch in the gut bass" before.

                    When looking at frequency response graphs from a lot of "manufacturers" I see a lot of smoothing or sometimes even downright fabrication. "they" are all selling something so just like people who use spurious graphs and selective quotation it is all an egotistical advancement of agenda rather than an exploration of the truth.

                    One thing i like about the on topic discussions here is most of it comes from an educated and informed viewpoint. Of course there are reactionaries in all walks of life who are really offering their beliefs behind a wall of quasi or psuedo science.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                      Originally posted by nigelb View Post
                      Ok I've been lurking here for a longtime and learned an awful lot about "on topic" subjects but I have to comment on that graph.

                      As a graph of expressing a change in "frequency response" I'm seeing that it has a slightly depressed low end, a fairly flat middle and a significant rising response in the higher end. If it was a frequency graph I'd say maybe a 5db rising response. It all depends on the "smoothing"

                      If it was really a frequency response for a loudspeaker Pete would probably make some type of comment to the same.

                      I don't know about you but I don't like a rising response, it's a little too "Hot" or sibilant to me.

                      Of course it doesn't reflect the really low end (pre 1900) and perhaps it's hiding the fact that there wasn't a lot of "punch in the gut bass" before.

                      When looking at frequency response graphs from a lot of "manufacturers" I see a lot of smoothing or sometimes even downright fabrication. "they" are all selling something so just like people who use spurious graphs and selective quotation it is all an egotistical advancement of agenda rather than an exploration of the truth.

                      One thing i like about the on topic discussions here is most of it comes from an educated and informed viewpoint. Of course there are reactionaries in all walks of life who are really offering their beliefs behind a wall of quasi or psuedo science.
                      One thing that chart does do is completely dispel the CO2 myth. If you were to plot CO2 levels against that chart, you'd see no correlation what so ever. CO2 levels are higher now than 10 years ago, but temperatures sure aren't. The alarmist predictions were ALL wrong, every single one of them. Not only are we not warming, we've cooled some, as you can see at the end of the data. The point being, they were wrong and continue to be wrong.

                      Besides, who's to say that the current temperatures are the ideal? The Roman warm period, and the Period before the Maunder minimum were times of plenty. Warmer means longer growing seasons, a historical fact, and times of improved standards of living. And what hubris to think we can control the climate . . .

                      Hide the decline . . .
                      R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio
                      Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51

                      95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                      "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                        One thing that chart does do is completely dispel the CO2 myth. If you were to plot CO2 levels against that chart, you'd see no correlation what so ever. CO2 levels are higher now than 10 years ago, but temperatures sure aren't. The alarmist predictions were ALL wrong, every single one of them. Not only are we not warming, we've cooled some, as you can see at the end of the data. The point being, they were wrong and continue to be wrong.

                        Besides, who's to say that the current temperatures are the ideal? The Roman warm period, and the Period before the Maunder minimum were times of plenty. Warmer means longer growing seasons, a historical fact, and times of improved standards of living. And what hubris to think we can control the climate . . .

                        Hide the decline . . .
                        Pete, that hole you're digging is surely responsible for the cooler air you're noticing... is that dirt or sand??

                        :p

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                          Originally posted by gc1 View Post
                          Pete, that hole you're digging is surely responsible for the cooler air you're noticing... is that dirt or sand??

                          :p
                          R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio
                          Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51

                          95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                          "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                            :(

                            Why would you use a plot with such an extended vertical axis to examine a trend of less than 1 degree Celsius? Perhaps you were joking.

                            If one looks dispassionately at the research one will come to the same conclusion that everyone working in the field does. By now, computer simulations of climate are good enough to track the warming trend. What is compelling about the simulations is that when the anthropogenic forcing is removed (that is, man-made pollutants are removed from the simulation), the warming trend disappears.

                            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...stick/#figures
                            Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often. -- Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: For Pete schumacher really off topic

                              http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24087

                              http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3731
                              If people want to listen to wiggles, that up to them....

                              I prefer music.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X