Climate Skeptic Arguments and their Scientific Background (Dec 2009)

On 2/7/10 2:43 AM, oriel36 wrote:


The earth rotates 360° in one sidereal day, Gerald. People have
known and measured this for centuries. Where have you been?

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:43:34 -0800 (PST), oriel36
<[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:



Do you accept that a gyro, as in an inertial
guidance unit, will show when the Earth rotates
360 degrees?

If not, see a shrink.

-

You still have not explained how the apparent motion of the
constellations around the poles is so regular.
Try the thought experiment again. If the sun were to disappear how
would you judge the rotation of the Earth.?What would it be?

I know you have little ability to visualise but try to concentrate.

I await your explanation of the first question.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:30:41 -0800 (PST), oriel36
<[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:



Apparently you know no physics, all motion
has to be measured relative to something, and
the more stationary that something is, the better.

The sun is moving around the galaxy, and
probably is countering other objects in the
y axis of that motion, and that makes the sun
not stationary for relative motion reference.

I give up, everybody gives up, you can
stop now.

On Feb 6, 8:28*pm, "I M @ good guy" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

Of course not, I'm only saying that a sidereal day is 23:56:04 or so...

On Feb 5, 5:59*pm, "I M @ good guy" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

In UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT Case No.
2:05-cv-302 on page 49 line #3 quoting

"Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and
primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the
radiated balance of
the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature
toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10."

on page 49 line #12
" He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on
radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions
reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at
least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate."


From the Judges ruling

"There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie
Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with
the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking
into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming
over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase
in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4,
2007)."