Global Warming is Just a Hoax

Hi, the links in the comments for the oil company quotes are all expired or do not link to documents containing the quotes.

Thanks for noticing, Lewis.

I will have to update that, but I can't find a link anymore, so will need a rewrite...

URLs for oil industry stances:

BP...
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021744&contentId…

Shell...
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climat…

Chevron...
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

Exxon (very reluctantly, it seems)...
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx

Thank you for the excellent information available at this site!

It would appear that the "skeptic community" is beginning a new assault on the reputable agencies and organizations listed above, recently NASA/GISS ("they're fudging and lying about the temperature measurememt stations") and IPCC ("what about that Himalayan Glaciers in 2035 thing in the report?").

How do we address these newer, and ever more pernicious, claims?

About a decade ago I got a piece of propaganda for Exxon shareholders that said that not only was there no evidence for global warming, what the world needed was a six fold increase in petroleum consumption.

Your oil company links seem to have snapped again, except for Chevron.

You might want to add this link to a recent PNAS paper
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf), which says in its abstract:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that

1) 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the ï¬eld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and

2) the relative climate expertise and scientiï¬c prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

One argument not dealt with on your fine blog, and that I keep hearing from those who believe human-caused warming is a hoax is basically this: "it's a financial and tax dodge, perpetrated by scientists, universities and scientific organizations, so they will keep getting grant money from foundations and governments. In other words, it keeps them employed."

If you'd debunk this argument among your list of answers, that would be most helpful.

Keep up the good work, Dan

Point well taken, Dan. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that its unfalsifiable. How can you *disprove* sinister motive?

Having argued with all kinds of conspiracy theorists (creationists, 911 "truthers", JFK buffs) I've learned that any disproof is simply regarded as an extension of the conspiracy:

E.g., "Of course CRU has been 'cleared' by 'independent' panels--they're all in on it too!"

A fractal view of CO2:
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2010/11/breaking-carbon-climate-spell-with…

Despite all the scientific endorsements, I will stick to my guns that global warming is just a hoax. History has shown us that any theory that increases authority and control of government over people and destroys freedom and wealth, quickly goes viral, and it is held as a self-evident truth. Some of these examples are Marxism and Keynesian theory of economics. Despite its terrible history, Marxism is overwhelmingly accepted as a âprogressive politicalâ ideology in academia and scientific community. Moreover, never in the history, Keynesian theory of economics has helped a nation to get out of recession. However, its skeptics are assumed to be out of touch. Despite utter failures of socialism and Keynesianism, there is overwhelming consensus in academia and scientific community about infallibility of socialism and Keynesianism. I will put global warming in the same category. I have a question that no global warming supporting scientist can answer: If carbon dioxide drives temperature, why does carbon dioxide lags behind temperature by 800 years in ice core records?

Despite all these scientific endorsements, I will stick to my guns that global warming is just a hoax. History has shown us that any theory that increases authority and control of government over people and destroys freedom and wealth, quickly goes viral, and it is held as a self-evident truth. Some of these examples are Marxism and Keynesian theory of economics. Despite its terrible history, Marxism is overwhelmingly accepted as a âprogressive politicalâ ideology in academia and scientific community. Moreover, never in the history, Keynesian theory of economics has helped a nation to get out of recession. However, its skeptics are assumed to be out of touch. Despite utter failures of socialism and Keynesianism, there is an overwhelming consensus in academia and scientific community about infallibility of socialism and Keynesianism. I will put global warming in the same category. I have a question that no global warming supporting scientist can answer: if carbon dioxide drives temperature, why does carbon dioxide lags behind temperature by 800 years in ice core records?

Meghal

Really? Comparing a scientific theory to economic and political views? I am flabbergasted.

And are you serious about your question re CO2 lagging not leading? Because if you had done even a scintilla of reading, you would know that this question has been answered over and over again. There is even a thread dedicated to it on this site, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

Now a suggestion for you. Do some reading before forming an opinion.

You are, of course, quite right Meghal Jani, but I am afraid you are bound to be disappointed if you think you can encourage some sanity here. There is simply no arguing with the true believers. They will endlessly quote scientific 'studies' at you, overlooking looking the fact that almost all scientific papers, on any subject, are totally forgotten within five years. They will argue over hair-splitting details, while remaining quite unable to see the obvious. Like Grand Inquisitors detecting pacts with the devil, they see signs of global warming everywhere. In recent years this has reached comic proportions: all weather outcomes - hotter, colder, drier, wetter, are 'consistent with anthropogenic climate change'.

You are also right to identify the political dimension. Mandas (a goat herder by profession) tells us he is not a lefty. If so, his position is rare, verging on the unprecedented. I have never met a warmist who is not left wing (and goodness knows I have endured the society of many).

But take heart. His Goatship can huff and puff all he likes (and I daily worry about the neglected animals he is paid to look after) but he can't change reality. We can all see that there has been no warming in over a decade. We can all see that none of the apocalyptic predictions have come to pass.

Across the world, belief in AGM is collapsing, with only a few die-hards remaining. Eventually, even they will be forced to concede defeat, and will slink away like the Canadian Liberal Party. But it will take a little time before their humiliation is complete, and I suppose we must simply learn to be patient. Meanwhile, we can take comfort from the knowledge that patience, or so we are told, is a virtue.

Snowman huffed and puffed:

Meanwhile, we can take comfort from the knowledge that patience, or so we are told, is a virtue.

So is honesty, so snowman must be living in a very uncomfortable place. If we continue to act in the manner the despicable AGW deniers say we should (ignore AGW, continue with BAU) then unfortunately, this will put us all in an uncomfortable position. Just ask all those poor people in the southern US if they think that climate disruption has made them uncomfortable or not.

Hello Ian, long time no see. I thought you were off hunting heretics somewhere. What brings you back?

Across the world, belief in AGM is collapsing . . .

As proven by the Mike Tyson of climate science, Richard Wakefield, and the agenda-setting fop, Anthony Watts.

Identify a single climate study that has been "forgotten", Snowman.

You have never read a single scientific study in your life, and never will, so you will never have to worry about forgetting. This is an ironic benefit of your scientific illiteracy.

But keep me laughing, homeboy.

"Identify a single climate study that has been "forgotten", Snowman."

huh?, is that possible?
If you could identify it, it's not forgotten.

So by virtue of his ignorance Snowman is relieved of having yet anther of his stupid statements held against him?

Paul, I just now *identified* the starting quarterback for the Wolverines for the 1983 season, even though I'm sure you had *forgotten* it was Steve Smith.

Its Snowman's dumbass claim so take it up with him.

Snowman

I know from your on-going interactions with skip that you are woefully poor at answering questions, but I wonder if you could have a go at answering just one minor question of mine.

At post #14, you said: "...You are, of course, quite right Meghal Jani..."

Could you please let us all know what aspect of Meghal's post was right? If you are referring to the failures of Marxism and Keynesian economics, then I don't really care. But of course, they are not and never were theories - they are ideologies. And there is not nor has there ever been 'overwhelming consensus in academia and scientific community about infallibility of socialism and Keynesianism..". You aren't so stupid as to think that is correct do you?

And surely you aren't suggesting Meghal is correct with his assertion that no climate scientist can answer his question about CO2 lagging / leading etc. You could not possibly be that deluded.

So go on. Do some different for a change. Contribute some science, rather than just providing your usual dross of personal attacks on the likes of skip and myself. You seem relatively intelligent for someone who likes to pretend that evidence doesn't exist if it inconvenient to his ideological worldview.

Snowman,

You always brighten up my day.

Keep up the good work.

Crakar

"If you could identify it, it's not forgotten."

If it's forgotten and unidentifiable, how can he says it exists?

I forgot where I put my Rembrandt. Guess I'd better claim on the insurance.

these guys are SCIENTISTS are they not? who are you to disagree with creditable SCIENTISTS whose job is to study these types of patterns. SCIENTISTS from multiple organizations from multiple countries on many different continents. but no i guess these SCIENTISTS have to be wrong because...(i fail to see your argument) if you have research on this subject that proves that these SCIENTISTS are wrong please share. until then please stfu.

oh did i mention that these SCIENTIFIC organizations probably know more than you?

tell that to Crakar.

Bottom line,

Its funny because there are many scientists whoms opinions you would disagree with.....but yet a denier is the only one that needs to stfu?

If you want to know why people are losing faith in your little church it is because of stories like this.

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wi-fi-quality-under-threat-from-…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=wi+fi

In case anyone doubted that Crakar has been to *his* church to bring us this latest idiotic argument, which is apparently along the lines of: "I'ts silly that climate change would affect wi fi (right?) These guys are saying it would. Therefore climate change must not be real."

Crakar, you worship at Watts's feet because like you, he is uneducated, scientifically illiterate and accepts unquestioningly even the dumbest arguments. This is your permanent legacy (that and a series of xenophobic tirades against "abos"). You obviously don't care. But keep posting as the exemplar of denier buffoonery.

Look Skip i took your bait (post 24)and as usual your response is the same gibberish it has always been. Your delusional attempts to link a bullshit report from a UK government department that claims WIFI wont work in a post AGW catastrophe with WATTS is a perfect example.

The reason why the report is crap is that WIFI works in temp ranges from 0C or less up to 60C or more so how could temp fluctuations caused by your beliefs stop it from working and how the hell could plant growth affect the propogation of radio waves through the atmosphere?

You swollow this shit hook line and sinker.

Thus it is a religion.

I note the link to xenophobic tirades against "abos, is this anything like xenophobic tirades against muslims? or is it OK for the land of the free and home of the brave to blow women and children apart from 30,000 feet. Is it OK to illegally enter a foreign country to assinate someone without a trial?

Is it OK to use depleted uranium weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan to the point that children born today have grotesque deformaties?

But no lets not point out your short comings Skip after all you are an American (grovel, grovel).

By the way did you here that only after 3 years they think solar cycle 24 has reached solar maximum, well they dont really know because there are hardly any sunspots, oh thats right AGW caused the reduction in snow and mild winters just like it is causing the increased snow and bitterly cold winters ah the omni potent force of AGW.

And you deny it is a religion what a joke.

Oh one more thing Skip Chelsea lost and along with it its title hopes, something you can rag Snowman about as you cannot compete with him on any other footing.

crakar

I have a little present for you.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

A H W P T

Just a few commas and capital letter for you. Feel free to use them.

"Its funny because there are many scientists whoms opinions you would disagree with."

Because those scientists cannot show their hypothesis has any evidence supporting them.

Since 97% of working scientists in climatology agree with the IPCC synthesis, the remaining few disagreeing have an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

Come on, let us know what opinion those "many scientists" have on climate science and how they prove their case.

Your delusional attempts to link a bullshit report from a UK

Wow. Who's really deluded, Crakar? You were the illiterate that posted the link, not I. I just pointed out where *you* got it: From witless Watts. *That* is mindless, craven belief, Crakar.

In Nowra at the moment (cold as a witches tit)

AHWPT WTF

I did not get the story from watts you simpleton but why do i bother..........

97%...... wow stands for wanker of (the) week.

I did not get the story from watts you simpleton but why do i bother.........

The same day Watts publishes the story you try to drive-by it here. What am I supposed to believe, Crakar--my own eyes, or a proven plagiarist and bigot who functions below the 7th grade level of literacy, as demonstrated by his Neanderthal spelling and editing skills?

Skip

What is really amusing about this latest offering from crakar is how perfectly it encapsulates the deluded mind of the denier.

Crakar links to an article in an obscure British magazine on â coincidently he would have us believe - the same day that wattsupmybutt publishes one of his usual diatribes with a link to the very same obscure magazine.

Of course, watts is all over this like a cheap suit, with comments such as â...DEFRA sounds the alarm about the incredible impacts of climate change upon UK: Wi-Fi signal range and strength will be greatly affected because of warmer temperatures...â. He is, of course, referring to articles in a number of UK newspapers which reported it exactly as he and crakar have described. One thing I will give to watts though, he does actually provide a link to the original Government report. It is here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/climate-resilient-infrastruc…

Of course, neither crakar, watts or any of his readers did the one thing that anyone with any science training or any credibility would have done (including a credible journalist). They would have checked to see if the newspaper reports were accurate by actually reading the original report. I did â and guess what? The media reports were total bullshit â as were the views of watts and crakar et al. But why would this be a surprise to anyone?

The report is about adapting infrastructure to climate change - you know, roads and railway lines etc. It does not mention wi-fi at all â not once! It does refer to wireless infrastructure on a couple of occasions â on page 15 and (briefly) on page 20. Hereâs what it actually has to say:

Wireless Infrastructure â Possible implications based on no adaption action: Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as wireless transmission is dependent on temperature. Reduced stability of foundations and tower structures. Increased damage to above ground transmission infrastructure. Possible reduced quality of wireless networks.

Yep â thatâs it! No mention of wi-fi at all (do these people even know the difference between wi-fi and a wireless network?), and only a brief mention of wireless tower infrastructure and propagation effects. And from that their deluded minds then extrapolate the usual bullshit to try and justify why they have chosen to adopt an ideological position rather than an evidentiary one.

Crakar â you are an idiot. Why do you continually refuse to do even the most basic level of reading before forming an opinion on an issue? Could it be because you are so illiterate that you canât read, and must rely on others to give you your opinion? If thatâs the case â and it appears to be a valid hypothesis â then how about you rely on people who have an IQ greater than their shoe size, rather than deluded morons like watts.

97%...... is the figure cracker-ass cannot handle. He's the lunatic fringe. Outside the 95% confidence limit, he wants to paint himself as the norm but that 97% shows he's on the extreme tail of normalcy into the abnormal.

And he hates knowing he's in the lunatic fringe of the population curve.

You know right now he's googling the shit out of "Wi-fi" and "wireless" to try for some lame ass save.

This ought to be good.

Whilst I find mandas' takedown rathe amusing I am more struck by this:

"I note the link to xenophobic tirades against "abos, is this anything like xenophobic tirades against muslims? or is it OK for the land of the free and home of the brave to blow women and children apart from 30,000 feet. Is it OK to illegally enter a foreign country to assinate someone without a trial?"

Is he reacting to skip's reminder about crakar's own unforgivably racist postings by attacking Americans because, well, skip is American? Does this not strike anyone as incredibly desperate?

I also like assinate, which is what I think mandas did at #33.

Skip said "You know right now he's googling the shit out of "Wi-fi" and "wireless" to try for some lame ass save.

This ought to be good."

Whilst i may not be an expert on goat shit with a hankering for climate science or indeed employed by some no name university in the back blocks of nowhere i have built and maintained mobile phone and internet networks (yes wifi and wireless) throughout Australia, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand i also have extensive experience in the atmospheric loses (RF propagation) of radio waves and for the life of me i cannot remember seeing a value in the path loss formula to calculate temp affects.

In other words Skip i dont need to "google" to see if Mandas is full of shit i already know he is.

Oh and Chris i like to remind Skip of the brutality of his country men abroad every chance i get thats all.

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about radio wave propagation in the atmosphere, so it looks as though I will have to bow to crakar's obvious expertise on this issue.

But, as per usual, since I don't know much about the subject, I thought I would do some reading before forming an opinion. So I 'googled' (actually I used google scholar, but hey, I'm a scientist) "radio wave propagation temperature", and I found a whole bunch of papers. Here are just three (I removed the http:// from the link so the post wouldn't go into moderation).

ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4051437

www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/journal_articles/liebe_journ_infrared_milli_wav…

www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/journal_articles/liebe_radio_science_1985/liebe…

Interestingly enough, all three papers suggest that one of the variables in the propagation equation is temperature. Another is moisture content (humidity), which is affected by temperature.

Now, as I said, I don't know much about the subject, so I won't try to suggest that an obvious expert such as crakar is wrong. Only an idiot would suggest that they know more about a subject they haven't studied than someone who has. So please crakar, I am asking nicely here. Educate me on this issue. Obviously I have misread those papers, because you say temperature does not affect radio wave propagation in the atmosphere. Where do the papers go wrong?

Thanks!

"Oh and Chris i like to remind Skip of the brutality of his country men abroad every chance i get thats all."

A more benign form of racism than you displayed against your own countrymen I suppose...

skip I have to take you up on one issue - you mentioned, and I quote "xenophobic tirades against 'abos'" - can you actually call it xenophobia when the one doling out the abuse is the alien?

"I freely admit to not knowing a lot about radio wave propagation in the atmosphere, so it looks as though I will have to bow to crakar's obvious expertise on this issue."

It would, however, be a mistake.

The original report goes into this and not only does such an equation exist, this is not the only problem.

Drying ground causes subsidence. Masts then no longer point where they did.

Just one example of how cracker-ass has no compunction about lying.

He may well be as he says he is, but he's willing to lie like a bastard to fool people.

Remember Monckton asking whether any other people knew some value to three decimals? Then proceeded to get the wrong number.

But Monkcton, like cracker-ass has no cares about lying. Anything done to remove any green or anti-randian thoughts is not only acceptable but MANDATORY.

Go to the BBC where the original report is linked.

It's done the rounds at WTFUWT where they've shown no understanding, just evil glee at something new to denigrate that nobody will understand (therefore making them safe in their lies).

It seemed appropriate for this thread that I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich's *Brightsided*, about the dysfunctional effects of hyper-positive thinking as a cult in American culture.

She almost never touches the issue of global warming, but it makes me wonder if its part of the reason so many of us in the States can't accept the simple science is our visceral Yankee aversion to anything "negative". Read Wattsup on a regular basis and you see this: anything indicating risks associated with AGW is dismissed as "alarmist".

Toward the end she quotes a psychologist who talks about the value of "defensive pessimism"--something which would also serve us well in addressing the problems of climate change. I would say Snowman should read the book but of course Snowman doesn't read. There might be more hope for Paul in MI.

Wow you are a bigger know it all than Mandas.

Now is not the time and place to educate you both on the properties of radio communications but i will say this.

The RF spectrum is quite large and is divided into bands starting from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass) all the way up to extremely high frequency (EHF) used in sat coms.

Each band has particular properties HF is used by over the horizon radars and amateur radio operators as the HF cannot go beyond the ionosphere and is bent back down to Earth.

Some frequencies are absorbed by rain droplets and some are not, why do you think weather radars work so well?

Wireless is different to wifi even though Mandas thinks it is the same. Wifi operates around 2.4Ghz, this frequency does not care too much about water/water vapour/humidity.

Both wireless and wifi are not directional so if we do get biblical flooding or a 20 year drought this will have no affect unless the tower falls over of course.

If they use micro wave links then this may cause a problem however the tower would need to be leaning quite a bit before the link drops out.

Modern day copper wire is designed to be submerged for periods of time the days of paper wrapping as an insulator are all but gone.

Fibre will be fine under all conditions as the fibre may only be a few millimeters in diameter the cable itself is almost 2 inches (50 millimeters thick due to its armour plating.

This study is crap and nothing more than government propoganda you people need to star applying some critical thinking.

The illiterate plagiarizing bigot lies again:

Wireless is different to wifi even though Mandas thinks it is the same. --Crakar above

No mention of wi-fi at all [in the adaptation report] (do these people even know the difference between wi-fi and a wireless network?) --what Mandas really said

You never read the report. You just read Watts, drooled, mindlessly believed, and stormed onto Coby's blog with great deliberation.

Give up Crakar. You have no capacity for rational though.

crakar you prove with every post that you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in:

Some frequencies are absorbed by rain droplets and some are not, why do you think weather radars work so well?

I suggest you go and read some elementary texts on weather radar. It is obvious that you know nothing about how radar is used in meteorology.

crakar @42:

The RF spectrum is quite large and is divided into bands starting from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass)

You generate radio waves when you tap on glass? I always thought it was pressure waves (commonly called 'sound').

Skip i suggest you put your crystal ball in for a service as i never read this article you speak of at WATTS, of course you will never accept this as you need to keep your fantasy alive.

RS you are just as big an idiot as the rest, we are talking about low frequencies travelling through water.

Once again IPF shows his lak of knowledge in all this important.

Stick to....what branch of science do you delve in Ian, you have never said do you work along side Mandas sniffing goat shit?

his lak[sic] of knowledge in all this[that is?] important.--Crakar

eddittingg mmusst knott bee impourtnt

It is plain that there is a lack of understanding about RF and free space loss in the atmosphere. First, the temperature of the air has nothing to due with the free space loss. Second, all RF will propagate into space (HF) and tapping on a fish tank totally misses the point as an example of ELF. A more to the point example would be how you can hear the bass from your neighbors speaker system when you cannot hear the mid or high frequency.

But back to the point in contention. Temperature alone has no effect on the free space loss of cell and wireless frequencies within the atmosphere. The two gases that absorb RF are oxygen and water - which is why microwave ovens work - are responsible for free space loss. Both cell and wireless operate in a range where there is good line of sight (LOS) but little ground or sky wave and little is absorbed.

The only way temperature can affect RF at these frequencies is for there to be an temperature inversion, that is a stratification of the atmosphere density where the denser atmosphere is above the less dense atmosphere, generally reported as a temperature inversion, which refracts part of the signal and reduces the signal strength. The example of mirages from heat on visible light does not apply in this case. The frequency difference between RF and light is why. So unless you can show that global warming will lead to temperature inversions, then no, global warming is not going to impact the cell phones or wireless.

OMFG!!!

I didnât think it was possible for crakar to do or say anything stupider than he has in the past, but post #42 would just about have to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. Well done crakar, you have exceeded yourself this time.

I wonât go into the point well made by Richard about tapping on the glass in a Chinese restaurant (seriously crakar!!??), but your statements about EHF (satellite communications? seriously? no, and for obvious reasons); HF waves being âbentâ (no again â they are reflected and refracted by the atmosphere and ionosphere and have a minimal ground effect); and wireless and wifi not being directional (no RF wave is directional â it depends upon the shape of the antenna â and all radio waves can be directional if you have an appropriate antenna, even HF); are all just plain nonsense. And you claim to be an expert at this?

And as skip pointed out, it wasnât me who thought wifi and wireless were the same thing, it was you, wattsupmybutt and the British media who canât tell the difference.

And you â once again â have completely failed to grasp the point of ANYTHING!!! The whole point of this is that you and watts have gone off on a rant about a British Government report into adapting infrastructure to climate change, based solely on the reports in a couple of newspapers, WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ THE REPORTS (which of course, is your usual modus operandi).

You made such idiotic and ignorant remarks as:

â...The reason why the report is crap is that WIFI works in temp ranges from 0C or less up to 60C or more so how could temp fluctuations caused by your beliefs stop it from working and how the hell could plant growth affect the propogation of radio waves through the atmosphere?...â

â....This study is crap and nothing more than government propoganda you people need to star applying some critical thinking....â

Get this straight crakar â THE REPORT NEVER MENTIONS WI-FI. It is 70 pages long, and the only reference to wireless infrastructure at all is a single line is a small table on one page. You, watts and all your denialist compatriots NEVER READ THE REPORT YOU ARE CRITICISING. And that is so typical for your ilk. You are an ignorant fool, and you will remain ignorant as long as you continue in your current manner.

You have made one true remark in this whole issue â âyou people need to star (sic) applying some critical thinking.â The problem is, you havenât followed your own advice â which is exactly the same advice we have been giving you for years. Do some critical thinking crakar â but before doing so, you need to collect the facts. And the only way you are going to do that, is to go back to school and finish grade 4 so you can read.

Mandas,

Is there any subject you are not an expert on? You do a little reading and think you understand something, thats your problem.

So Mandas maybe you can answer some questions for me.

How do over the horizon radars work and no not the wiki answer but a detailed explanation would do fine.

One more can you tell me why the front door of a micro wave has a peice of metal with tiny holes in it (why not just have a window?) oh and why is there a little ridge that runs around the the door where it meets the chassis, why not have a rubber seal like on a fridge?

Remember google is your friend.

Vernon,

Micro wave ovens work by heating up the water content of the food which is why your pies come out all soggy but to say "RF" operates this why is not accurate but you are right in a basic level.

Yes you can get inversion layers for sure, did you know this also happens under the ocean. You would have seen subs pinging to try and find another sub etc in movies but if a sub sits in a cooler or hotter current the ping will go over or under them and they will not be seen.

However as i am not employed by the government as a goat shit inspector you should probably google this statement to confirm.

Cheers

Crakar

How long does it take to do a google search mandas?

Well crakar, I was both an acoustic and electronic warfare officer in the Air Force for a few years - albiet 25 years ago. So that answers part of your question. And don't try and talk to me about how submarines 'hide' under temperature layers etc, you have no freekin idea. Subs don't hunt other subs by 'pinging'. They use passive sonar almost exclusively - but maybe you didn't get that from your reading of Tom Clancy novels.

And do you really want a primer on how OTHR work? Really? Do you need me to explain how HF waves propagate, and how they are reflected by the ionosphere? Do you really want a detailed explanation on multi-path effects? The night-time terminator?

How about you stick to the subject - which is your woeful inability to read anything before commenting.

RS you are just as big an idiot as the rest, we are talking about low frequencies travelling through water.

So enlighten me. When you referred to "The RF spectrum is quite large and is divided into bands starting from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass)" are the waves generated when you tap on the glass radio waves or not, and if not, why did you bring them up? Are sound waves propagated in the same manner as sound waves?

Acoustic and electronic warfare officer 25 years ago so you were a "scope dope" and therefore have no formal qualifications in this area no wonder you bypassed the OTHR question with bluff and bravado and ignored the simple microwave oven question because you have no idea but yet you still feel as though you know more than anybody else on this subject. My you have a big ego Mandas.

Its hard to stay on subject when talking to you because you intentionally go off on a tangent.

I started by saying the gov report is crap because temps dont have an effect on the frequency that wireless runs i then said fibre is bullet proof, copper cables will do just fine and the towers will not fall over anytime soon.

You who has absolutely no more knowledge than a layperson on this subject then read a study that mentions humidity etc and suddenly i am wrong and you know more then the rest.

So let me ask you some simple questions Mandas, temperature did indeed have an affect on wireless networks then why does your mobile phone work just as good at night as it does in the day even though the temp differential can be up to 20 degrees C.

Just for laughs in regards to OTHR how can you tell what you are looking at, boat/plane/ground and what have you.

Oh and you have not answered the very simple microwave questions yet.

Now dont dodge these questions Mandas because you claim this report is accurate and have belittled me in the process based on your supposed superior knowledge of radio frequency propagation so it is very important that we establish your credentials in this field. I have already established mine so know lets put you to the test.

RS,

The example was supposed to illuminate the fact that low frequency sound waves travel through water with very little loss however they cannot be used as sat communications because of their high loses as they travel through the atmosphere.

If my analogy was poor and meant you misinterpreted what i meant then sorry about that. The crucial point here is that the UK gov study is nothing but a load of tripe, Mandas feels that i am wrong and i just want him to establish his credentials on this subject.

Why dont you have a crack at answering the (once again) very simple microwave oven questions so we can establish your credentials on this subject rather than just sniping from the bleaches.

crakar

I didn't belittle you, you did that yourself with your - I can't say it any kinder - delusional rant.

You have made mistake after idiotic mistake on this issue. One of the better gems is the production of VLF radio waves by tapping on a fish tank in a Chinese restaurant. Hilarious!!

Now once again you go on about how the report is 'nothing but a load of tripe', when you still haven't read it and still have no idea what it says about anything.

crakar, you are the very model of a modern climate change denier (apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan). You form opinions on subjects from newspaper reports, and you fail to correct errors when they are pointed out to you. Did you know the magazine that you originally linked to at post #25 has issued a retraction about their original story - they admitted that wi-fi was never mentioned in the Government report and revised their story accordingly? Obviously they have far more integrity than you.

You epitomise everything wrong with the climate change debate. On one side are scientists and people who actually read the source documentation and examine the evidence before forming an opinion, and there is every reputable scientific organisation and every university in the world.

On the other side is you. You have no science education, you are marginally illiterate, and you never ever read anything other than newspaper reports before going off on an ideological rant. You troll websites like Jo Nova, the SPPI and wattsupmybutt - people with the same science credentials as yourself - in order to have your delusions confirmed. Every single time you have posted your trolled idiocy it has shown to be wrong - EVERY SINGLE TIME!. Not one of your delusions has stacked up to scrutiny. And yet you persist to trust these same people over and over again, no matter how many times they let you down.

Give it up crakar. Your heroes are idiots, and your opinions are based on nothing more than ideology, completely unsupported by any evidence. Are you a creationist, because you adopt exactly the same approach to science and opinion.

Ok, I admit it. I was wrong.

At post #49 I thought crakar's post #42 was the pinnacle of stupidity from crakar. But he has excelled himself yet again!!

I just read post #55 (it appeared after my post #54), and I am staggered by this sentence:

"....The example was supposed to illuminate the fact that low frequency sound waves travel through water with very little loss however they cannot be used as sat communications because of their high loses as they travel through the atmosphere...."

You are correct in your assertion that low frequency sound waves are not used for satellite communications, but it ISN'T because of attenuation through the atmosphere. See if you can work out what the real reasons are.

So in other words you have no idea about RF and you dont have the qualifications and or experience to tell me i am wrong about the ITC aspect of the report which i have in fact read.

So now rather than admit that you are full of shit you go off on a tangent ignoring the questions posed and give a sermon so great the reverend Lovejoy would be proud of it and you also claim i am illiterate. Well done dickhead.

To answer my own questions because you have no idea.

The reason why there is a screen (you know the one with little holes) on a microwave oven is because the frequency or should i say wave length generated by the magnatron (yes i know this word is unfamiliar to you) sees this as a high impedance. Likewise the grooves around the door where it meets the chassis are seen as high impedance.

This stops the ionising radiation from frying your balls and brain and by the sounds of it yours is leaking.

It would appear that google failed you on the OTHR issue, yes it does use HF which is refracted by the ionosphere but the OTHR can tell if something is moving, how fast it is going and in what direction, you can even tell if is a two or 4 rotor chopper it is done by doppler (maybe you forgot after 25 years).

And thirdly why does your mobile phone and by logical extension wireless work just as good at night time as in the day BECAUSE TEMP HAS NO AFFECT ON WIRELESS YOU MORON.

Oh by the way WIFI even though not mentioned in the report operates at a slightly higher frequency than wireless so it is safe to say that if god forbid AGW did destroy wireless it would also destroy wifi, seeing how the government propagander machine are illiterate when it comes to ITC just like you are they failed to montion it.

What about all the FM radio stations? They operate in the same band as wireless and wifi why are they not mentioned as being stopped in their tracks by the relentless ongoing march of destruction at the hands of AGW?

What about my remote control for my roller door on my garage? Dont tell me a temp increase is going to stop that from working also, and my kids remote control car, my wireless mouse..........my blackberry (well actually i dont have one) my god what is to come of us?

You simple minded fools read reports like this and just lap it up. No wonder you lot crap on the way you do.

Mandas in 57,

Why dont you tell me what your google search told you.

crakar is delusional once again. Delusional in the sense he thinks he is a science wonder when in fact he knows nothing at all about science:

This stops the ionising radiation from frying your balls

Do you know what ions are? Do you know what ionizing radiation is? Here is a hint, it is not found in a micro-wave oven though many scientifically illiterates such as yourself talk about "nuking" food in a microwave.

Have you also read up on weather radar and found out why once again you show an amazing lack of scientific literacy? Hint, do you know what "Doppler effect" is all about?

I wish i was as smart as you are Ian, by the way you never mentioned what branch of science you work in, everyone else has given a few hints about themselves how about you.

Well Ian a micro wave oven does not produce frequencies high enough to produce ionised radiation, that is true but if you stood in front of it with the door open to warm up your balls it will cause molecular damage much the same way or do you think the screen is their to stop the glass window from breaking when you over cook and egg?

I have not read up on weather radars ian because i dont need to, however i am sure you have been googling to your hearts content. Mandas has been entertaining me while i sit in Nowra waiting for the stupid helicopter to be fixed so please join in and tell me all about weather radars one can from a simple google search.

In fact this is perfect for the original issue. Please Ian tell me why weather radars work so good and at what frequencies they work so good.

Still waiting for the results of your google search Mandas..............................

Have you suddenly realised that the lower frequencies are unable to penetrate the atmosphere to space? When you think about it it all makes sense the lower the frequency the bigger the ground plane therefore the bigger the loss, the higher the frequency the less. Therefore if you go up to SHF and EHF there is not much thus they are used in sat coms.

There is another advantage, the higher the freq the shorter the wave thus reducing the size of the wave guide and dish etc. Of course there still is attenuation, in fact the sats use super cooled low noise amplifiers because the signal level is so low and the colder the amplifier the less noise it generates (bet you did not know that).

So by the time Ian comes back with the info that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UK study you believe in is crap i should have some work to do.

Its all about timing as they say.

Crakar

Not only do you not read any science, you also do not read (understand?) anything that anyone says on this blog before going off on your delusional rants.

You keep demanding that I establish my credentials on the subject of RF propagation etc. At post #52 I admitted that my experience was limited to being an acoustic and electronic warfare officer in the Air Force 25 years ago, so I probably know more than a layperson (despite your assertion at post #54), but less than an 'expert'. Of course, if you had actually read previous posts, you would know at post #38 I said (very clearly):

â....I freely admit to not knowing a lot about radio wave propagation in the atmosphere...... But, as per usual, since I don't know much about the subject, I thought I would do some reading before forming an opinion....â

I also asked you, very nicely, to educate us all on the subject, since you DO claim to be an expert (post #37).

Unfortunately, in educating us you have made mistake after mistake, and one would not need to be an expert to see how glaring and stupid your mistakes have been. Most of them have been gone over several times, so I wonât belabour the point again. But when they were pointed out to you, the best you could do was to bluff and change the subject and try to redirect the discussion onto me.

But it wonât wash. The issue at hand here is your failure to read a document â the UK Government report into adapting infrastructure to cope with climate change - that you have criticised on multiple occasions, as per usual. How about you go away, have a read of it, then come back and tell us whatâs wrong with it. Until then, your opinion â the one that was given to you by the media and wattsupmybutt â is worthless.

And I'm still waiting for you to read the report and to tell us why they don't use low frequency sound waves to communicate with satellites.

Have you got shit in your ears Mandas?

Post 62

OK for the last time i read the report and i say it is crap at least the ITC aspect.

But you dont need me to tell you, i have asked this question before and will again but first lets recap.

The report claims the wireless networks may fail now to a layman this would not include wifi because wifi is not mentioned specifically but that is an incorrect assumption. I suggest the term wireless in this report includes wifi, wireless internet and must therefore include mobile phones, sat coms could also be considered "wireless".

Be that as it may lets just focus on "wireless" and i will ask again. If wireless fails due to a temperature increase and dont forget we are talking about mobile towers here how can your phone or "wireless" work when it is 2 degrees c at night and 25 degrees C during the day?

With such a temp swing way beyond what is expected from AGW as the report states then they should not be working now, agreed?

As for asking for my advice etc i know this was just a rouse so you could have an argument i know you have no interest in listening to what i have to say, but as i said i am sitting here in Nowra bored with nothing to do so i must thankyou for filling in the last couple of days for me.

The only 'shit in my ears' are the sounds that come out of your mouth crakar.

"...The report claims the wireless networks may fail..."

No it doesn't. Go read the report.

And still waiting for an answer to my question about low frequency sound waves and satellite communication.

64,

Read it, see post above.

See post 63, for why we dont use LF for sat comms

Still waiting for Ian so i will start without him,

weather radars work around 10 Ghz as at this frequency it sees rain drops as high impedance and we get some energy reflected back this affect is all but gone in the lower few Ghz wireless operates normally below 2Ghz (mobile phone stuff) wifi which apparently is not mentioned in the report operates at 2.4Ghz so as you can see Mandas/Ian/Rs/whoever else wants to take a cheap shot rain does not have any affect on this frequency range.

So there you have the report is crap.

Remind what the exact wording is Mandas because if you now claim they wont fail then why do you persist with this stupid (but highly entertaining) argument?

Will be off line for a little while as i go back to my motel but will have a look from there.

Oh and no matter how much you hate me you gotta admit you do miss me dont you Mandas :-))))

"....Remind what the exact wording is Mandas because if you now claim they wont fail then why do you persist with this stupid (but highly entertaining) argument?..."

Huh? I thought you had claimed to have read the report? If so, you would know the exact wording (which I also posted above). Looks like you are lying AGAIN!! I never claimed anything about the report - I only repeated what it said. You were the one making the claim.

"....wifi which apparently is not mentioned in the report..."

Apparently??? So you admit to never having read the report. Now, go away, read it for the first time, and tell us why you think it is crap (apart from that being what Anthony told you to think).

The argument (if you can call it that) is all about you critising a report you haven't read. It looks as though you have finally admitted to not having read it, so let's go on from there shall we?

While you are at it, answer my question about why very low frequency sound waves can't be used for satellite communications. There's a good little boy.

I feel the need to bring this up again. Crakar24 @ 55:

"The example was supposed to illuminate the fact that low frequency sound waves travel through water with very little loss however they cannot be used as sat communications because of their high loses as they travel through the atmosphere."

'Sat' being satellite. Most communications satellites are in geostationary orbit (i.e. at over 35,000 km altitude). What does sound need to propogate?

Screw it, I'm just going to quote the Simpsons.

"Ain't no air in space!"
"There's an air in space museum."

Crackar, even you must admit that you don't need to be an expert to understand that the reason low frequency sound waves aren't used for satellite communications is NOT because of losses through the atmosphere. You lose ALL the sound signal if it has nothign to propogate through.

Also, I now proclaim you king of the morons.

"The only way temperature can affect RF at these frequencies is for there to be an temperature inversion, that is a stratification of the atmosphere density where the denser atmosphere is above the less dense atmosphere"

Also known to RF engineers as "Anaprop": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_propagation

Also note that as a rule-of-thumb, C/S band radar is modeled for detection as if the earth's radius were 4/3 times the size of its actual radius.

PS cracker-ass:

"Now is not the time and place to educate you both on the properties of radio communications"

No, the time is fine. The problem is you don't have the knowledge or capability.

"starting from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines"

Which isn't WiFi connected either. Seems like you need to know what wifi is, what RF frequency it is and what wireless is and what frequency IT runs at.

Like I said, the time would be fine, but you just don't have the capability.

"Both wireless and wifi are not directional "

http://www.turnpoint.net/wireless/cantennahowto.html

See how little you know, cracker-ass?

"Climate change is one of the biggest challenges the world faces."

Crakar,
Rest assured, when this is the first sentence in the first section of the referenced government publication from MAY 2011, you are being spun through the whole document.

The world these pols live in is as far removed from reality as one can get.

So tell us, Paul, do you agree with Crakar's specific critique of the report that neither he nor you read?

If so, say it.

If not, why are you switching the subject? (The question is quite serious.)

Crakar made yet another straw man argument and a fool of himself. Why are you so quick to give him consolation?

And more to the point, Paul, do you agree with Crakar's arguments in general? Are you willing to attach your credibility to his?

Those are direct and earnest questions. I would truly like to see answers.

Skip,

Yes I read this report and there is no bases in RF propagation for the claim "Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as wireless transmission is dependent on temperature."

For the love of God i read the report you idiot

71,

Stu N,

It shows you lack of knowledge in this field when you lambast me for the words i use. I suppose you get this response when someone like you views "wireless" as white mans magic.

Sorry WOW but post 73 does not make any sense to me can please reword it.

I am quite certain you did read it Crakar, but I am afraid you are wasting your time pointing that out to Prof Skip. As you know, he is a one-trick pony. His response to everything is the same: 'Go on, admit it. You didn't read it, did you? Did you? Admit it.'

It is all pretty childish. Best to ignore him, I find.

74,

Jesus fucking wept.

Wow you have no idea what you are talking about and it saddens me greatly to think that you can pull a link like that and display it here as proof positive that i am wrong.

To be honest i dont know where to begin in response to this.............ok lets start from the beginning so first of all you are talking about recieving a signal the concept of directional or non directional signals is based on the TRANSMISSION of signals.

Lets clear up a few things, wireless internet uses the mobile phone network thats why it has a SIM card in it whereas WIFI is a dedicated internet network. They essentially work the same way but on different frequencies so for the sake of simplicity the two concepts are interchangeable.

Wireless in large cities is normally omni directional (transmitted in 360 degrees) some of you will know this as a "cell site" each cell is divided into 3 120 degree sections, each section has a receive and transmit function.

On major highways you will only have two sections of 120 degrees pointing in opposite directions both of these examples are non directional transmission because the whole purpose is to give you a coverage area where you can connect to as many customers as possible (resticted by the capacity of the network).

The towers or cell sites are connected to a mobile switching center (MSC) the MSC can route your phone call to another phone or for internet to your ISP. The towers are connected to the MSC by either fibre optic cable or microwave links.

The microwave links ARE directional transmissions, the TX and RX antennas must be lined up so as they can TX and RX information.

Do you understand the concept now?

As for your link to the baked bean tin antenna i suggest you remove it from your fav's list.

Hey snowman how are you all good i hope, looks like my beloved West Ham is back wandering in the wilderness for a few more years, we were 2 nil up how could we lose it from there?

Crakar claims, at post #78:

â....For the love of God i read the report you idiot....â

That really confuses me, because at post #27, he said this to skip:

â....Your delusional attempts to link a bullshit report from a UK government department that claims WIFI wont work in a post AGW catastrophe with WATTS is a perfect example....â

If you had really read the report, you would have known that wi-fi isnât mentioned in the report â not once! So, on what basis do you claim the report is âbullshitâ for claiming that wi-fi wonât work because of AGW?

You compound you error, by trying to say WHY (IYHO) the report is crap:

â....The reason why the report is crap is that WIFI works in temp ranges from 0C or less up to 60C...â

So, since the report NEVER mentions wi-fi, I guess you explanation of why it is crap is invalid. But of course, you keep claiming to have read the report, so why do you keep on with your claims about wi-fi?

Then came the attempted save. But first, it is important to establish your credibility and how much of an expert on the subject he is. At post #37:

â....i have built and maintained mobile phone and internet networks (yes wifi and wireless) throughout Australia, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand i also have extensive experience in the atmospheric loses (RF propagation) of radio waves...â

Well, I would have thought that someone who helps construct radio towers is probably nothing more than a construction worker, but letâs just accept crakarâs word that he is an âexpertâ on RF propagation for a moment. But for an expert, crakar makes some pretty amazing claims:

Post #42: â...from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass)..â. Really?? I thought it was to stop you scaring the fish and to stop greasy fingerprints on the glass. But crakar believes it is because it creates ELF radio waves.

Also post #42: â...all the way up to extremely high frequency (EHF) used in sat coms....â. Really again?? Well, no. ELF is not used in satellite communications because it suffers from extremely high absorption in the atmosphere, but nice try there crakar.

Also post #42: â...HF cannot go beyond the ionosphere and is bent back down to Earth....â. Once again, no. HF is largely reflected by the ionosphere, but it depends in the angle of incidence. At high angles (ie close to 90 degrees), it goes straight through.

Post #42 (again): â...Both wireless and wifi are not directional...â. No RF is directional, but most CAN be directional depending upon the antenna shape. This is more likely at higher frequences, especially those in the bands used by wireless and wifi.

Post #50: â...You would have seen subs pinging to try and find another sub etc in movies but if a sub sits in a cooler or hotter current the ping will go over or under them and they will not be seen....â. Subs donât hunt other subs by âpingingâ. They use passive sonar. Pinging, or active sonar, would give away the subâs position, and no submarine commander would ever do that.

Post #55: â...low frequency sound waves travel through water with very little loss however they cannot be used as sat communications because of their high loses as they travel through the atmosphere...â. This is just so laughable I am at a total loss to explain the sheer idiocy of it. No crakar, the reason that low frequency sound waves are not used for satellite communications is NOT high losses in the atmosphere. IT IS BECAUSE SOUND DOES NOT PROPAGATE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE (apart from the fact that satellites move faster than sound, etc, etc, etc). OMFG!!!

Post #58: â....wave length generated by the magnatron (yes i know this word is unfamiliar to you)...â. Well, youâre correct there crakar. I have never heard of a âmagnatronâ. Is it on of the Transformers? A friend of Optimus Prime perhaps? BUT...., as I was an electronic warfare officer in the Air Force, and am quite familiar with radars (remember me saying this?), I am VERY familiar with a âMAGNETRON.â
Post #58: â...Likewise the grooves around the door where it meets the chassis are seen as high impedance. This stops the ionising radiation from frying your balls and brain and by the sounds of it yours is leaking....â. Ionising radiation? From a microwave oven? And when IPF corrected this error at post #60, you attempted to bluff your way out by insulting him at post #61. Good way to demonstrate your integrity there crakar.
Post #65: â...The report claims the wireless networks may fail ...â. No it doesnât. It never says the networks may fail!! I thought you claimed to have read the report!
Post #67: â...weather radars work around 10 Ghz as at this frequency it sees rain drops as high impedance and we get some energy reflected back this affect is all but gone in the lower few Ghz wireless operates normally below 2Ghz (mobile phone stuff) wifi which apparently is not mentioned in the report operates at 2.4Ghz so as you can see Mandas/Ian/Rs/whoever else wants to take a cheap shot rain does not have any affect on this frequency range. So there you have the report is crap....â. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean! Weather radars? Where the fuck did that come from? The report is crap because mobile phones and wif-fi are not affected by rain? Who said anything about rain?

My god crakar? Have you gone off your medication? Your posts are getting more delusional by the day. Your lies are so obviously transparent, and even on a subject in which you claim expertise, your level of knowledge is pitifully low. You really do need to go back to school and get an education. See if you can get past grade 4 this time.

81,

Yes snowman it is quite sad to think the once great Skip is reduced to this type of post as his only way of making a contribution and yes i do find he has become irrelevant and should be ignored.

But have a look at the company he keeps, we have Wow who is now full bottle on wireless because he found a site which shows him how to build a wave guide antenna. Of course there is no such thing as a wave guide antenna but that does not stop him.

The link tells you to "stick" a copper wire in the "brass tube" of the N-type connector, oh how i laughed when i read that.

Problems with the design:

At 2.4Gig you need to be careful what type of cable you use otherwise you will get high attenuation loss, i would suggest a "copper wire" will not cut the mustard.

As the baked bean tin is not physically connected to the copper wire it looks as though he is using it as a funnel of some kind unfortunately a baked bean tin will not funnel RF energy but simply interfere with it.

In fact it would work better without the tin can, also the copper wire has no shielding so once again we will get interference.

Now this is how these warmisters think Snowman, no doubt they are educated to some degree in a field totally unrelated but they think they are experts on everything and we are just dumb idiots. Wow now thinks he knows more about the mysteries of RF than i do just by reading some idiotic crap on a website.

Its like the microwave oven they thought the metal screen was to stop the glass window from getting scratched and the list goes on.

Mandas is an expert on radars because he was a scope dope in the RAAF 25 years ago, this way he can prove me wrong again (in his mind anyway). He thinks he has stumbled upon the holy grail re sat comms hence his little game he is playing at the moment.

Then we have Stu N claiming RF cannot go into space as there is no medium for them to travel in he must think all sats are connected by a piece of string.

Have you noticed that they all believe ( because a gov report told them so) that temp changes will stop their wireless from working but none can explain why it still works when it is hot or cold?

Have you noticed that they all now believe extra rain will stop it from working and the experts that allocated the band to this type of communication were not as smart as them.

Good luck with Chelsea

Not to chat with you again.

Crakar

mandas,

Temperature is not going to do anything. Who ever authored the report may have meant many things but what was written was wrong.

"Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as
wireless transmission is dependent on temperature."

That is a totally false statement.

When will this stupidity ever end

"If you had really read the report, you would have known that wi-fi isnât mentioned in the report â not once! So, on what basis do you claim the report is âbullshitâ for claiming that wi-fi wonât work because of AGW?"

WI FI is short for "wireless fidelity"

Also any communication that is not connected by wires is considered to be wire.....you guessed it........less.

"Well, I would have thought that someone who helps construct radio towers is probably nothing more than a construction worker, but letâs just accept crakarâs word that he is an âexpertâ on RF propagation for a moment. But for an expert, crakar makes some pretty amazing claims:"

No Mandas i did not, do not nor have i ever constructed nor helped construct a tower of any kind not even your tower made of ivory.

When one says they built and maintained a network they mean they installed the "white mans magic" part of the network not the physical structure, the white mans magic includes proposing the location of the towers.

"Post #42: â...from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass)..â. Really?? I thought it was to stop you scaring the fish and to stop greasy fingerprints on the glass. But crakar believes it is because it creates ELF radio waves."

Low frequency waves travel through water very efficiently, you knew what i meant but this is the best you have as a response, quite sad really.

"Also post #42: â...all the way up to extremely high frequency (EHF) used in sat coms....â. Really again?? Well, no. ELF is not used in satellite communications because it suffers from extremely high absorption in the atmosphere, but nice try there crakar."

Idiot.....EHF is used in sat comms my god mandas you really are desperate to the point of mis quoting so very sad.

"Also post #42: â...HF cannot go beyond the ionosphere and is bent back down to Earth....â. Once again, no. HF is largely reflected by the ionosphere, but it depends in the angle of incidence. At high angles (ie close to 90 degrees), it goes straight through."

Bent.....reflected this is just a play on words and another sad response from you, you really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel and it is not a good look.

It goes straight through hey, ok if i have a transmitter that produces a carrier wave of say 19.5 Mhz at 50 watts, forget about modulation for now and i transmit it straight up and i have a rx in space how many watts will i rx?

I find this response to be quite amusing you previously claimed ELF cannot go through the atmosphere due to high loses but HF seems impervious to this.

"Post #42 (again): â...Both wireless and wifi are not directional...â. No RF is directional, but most CAN be directional depending upon the antenna shape. This is more likely at higher frequences, especially those in the bands used by wireless and wifi."

You see this is the problem with talking to the uneducated, a cell site transmits in 360 degrees, it is designed that way how can an omni directional antenna be directional??????????????

If it was directional then you could only connect to the network if you stood in the right place, take 5 steps to the left or right or go up or down a little bit and you would lose the connection, how stupid are you!!!!!!!!!!

"Post #50: â...You would have seen subs pinging to try and find another sub etc in movies but if a sub sits in a cooler or hotter current the ping will go over or under them and they will not be seen....â. Subs donât hunt other subs by âpingingâ. They use passive sonar. Pinging, or active sonar, would give away the subâs position, and no submarine commander would ever do that."

OK idiot, once agin you have plumbed the depths of stupidity.

"Post #55: â...low frequency sound waves travel through water with very little loss however they cannot be used as sat communications because of their high loses as they travel through the atmosphere...â. This is just so laughable I am at a total loss to explain the sheer idiocy of it. No crakar, the reason that low frequency sound waves are not used for satellite communications is NOT high losses in the atmosphere. IT IS BECAUSE SOUND DOES NOT PROPAGATE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE (apart from the fact that satellites move faster than sound, etc, etc, etc). OMFG!!!"

Subs use low frequency to communicate these frequencies range from 3Hz to 30Khz the range of the human ear is 20Hz to 20Khz so they can be called sound waves in that context, so once again you are simply clutching at straws. Once again you show your lack of experience and knowledge in this field.

"Post #58: â....wave length generated by the magnatron (yes i know this word is unfamiliar to you)...â. Well, youâre correct there crakar. I have never heard of a âmagnatronâ. Is it on of the Transformers? A friend of Optimus Prime perhaps? BUT...., as I was an electronic warfare officer in the Air Force, and am quite familiar with radars (remember me saying this?), I am VERY familiar with a âMAGNETRON.â"

Ha thats a good one ill pay that, although there is a difference between "knowing" and "understanding" for example i went pig shooting once or twice so i "know" what a pig is but i dont know what its shit smells like, like you would. See the difference?

P"ost #58: â...Likewise the grooves around the door where it meets the chassis are seen as high impedance. This stops the ionising radiation from frying your balls and brain and by the sounds of it yours is leaking....â. Ionising radiation? From a microwave oven? And when IPF corrected this error at post #60, you attempted to bluff your way out by insulting him at post #61. Good way to demonstrate your integrity there crakar."

The important point to note is that up until now you (and Ian) had no idea why there is a metal screen there nor why there are grooves in the door. This is there to stop RF leakage, why would you bother to do that if it is a harmless microwave and has no affect what so ever on your body. By the way i did acknowledge i was in error re ionising but this fact you failed to mention of course.

"Post #67: â...weather radars work around 10 Ghz as at this frequency it sees rain drops as high impedance and we get some energy reflected back this affect is all but gone in the lower few Ghz wireless operates normally below 2Ghz (mobile phone stuff) wifi which apparently is not mentioned in the report operates at 2.4Ghz so as you can see Mandas/Ian/Rs/whoever else wants to take a cheap shot rain does not have any affect on this frequency range. So there you have the report is crap....â. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean! Weather radars? Where the fuck did that come from? The report is crap because mobile phones and wif-fi are not affected by rain? Who said anything about rain?"

Well Mandas first of all Ian claimed he knew more about waether radars than me but his silence gives him away but surely you can see the connection? The report states we will get more biblical floods which of course means more rain........yes?

The report also claims we will get higher temps and we all know the higher temps will come from increased water vapour......yes?

To be honest the problem with your post is that you lack the experience and knowledge of this field and you are not the only (wow and his antenna...oh i am still laughing) if you had more knowledge most of your post would not have been written i am sure.

So now it is your turn, simple question if your mobile phone or wifi works when the temp is 5C at night time and then at 25C during the day then how can a increase in temp caused by AGW have any affect?

Vernon,

This is not about agw this about Mandas being right about everything, he will argue this point till the cows come home.

vernon / crakar

This issue has always been about crakar's delusional lying - nothing else.

He linked to a magazine article and proclaimed that the subject report was total bullshit, because of what the report claimed about wi-fi. That proved conclusively that crakar had NEVER READ THE REPORT HE WAS CRITICISING.

When his disengenous lying was revealed, he tried to divert attention away from himself and onto other people with idiotic claims of his own expertise and how nobody else knows as much about RF propagation as him.

Of course, crakar being the idiot that he is, made mistake after mistake in his claim of expertise. We all know it - including you. Or do you support many of his moronic claims? Even snowman knows crakar has made numerous idiotic statements - which is why he won't support him either. To be frank - a 5 year old can spot most of crakar's idiocy.

But it isn't going to work crakar. You have been revealed - once again - as nothing more than a denialist troll. If you had bothered to read the report in the first place, you might have been able to make a considered and rational critique, sort of like vernon has done. But no! You would much rather just cut and paste someone else's opinion rather than do the hard yards and actually read and understand something before going off on a delusional, ideological rant.

You may have read the report now - but you didn't at the start of this discussion when you ranted about what bullshit it was. We all know that, and your lying and diversions will not change that very simple fact.

I may not agree with vernon on the issue of climate change, but at least in this case he has made a rational argument and identified a flaw in the report. You on the other hand...... well, you have revealed yourself as more foolish than we previously thought.

The RF spectrum is quite large and is divided into bands starting from extremely low frequency (ELF) used to communicate with submarines (which is why they have signs in chinese restaurants telling you not to tap on the fish tank glass)

Subs use low frequency to communicate these frequencies range from 3Hz to 30Khz the range of the human ear is 20Hz to 20Khz so they can be called sound waves in that context, . . .

I know almost nothing about electromagnetic radiation, but when I see you repeatedly equating it with acoustic waves, I realize it is probably foolish to accept at face value anything you write.

Prove me wrong Mandas by answering this simple question from two previous posts.

Simple question if your mobile phone or wifi works just as well when the temp is 5C at night time and then at 25C during the day then how can a increase in temp caused by AGW have any affect?

Just answer the question Mandas and show the world why i am wrong and this UK propagander piece is correct.

If i generate a 27Hz tone i should (barring any form of deafness) here that tone, what i would be listening to would be a radio wave in the extremely low frequency band. Now you can call it a radio wave if you like or because we can here it you can call it a sound wave.

Questions?

Well, I was wrong again.

Twice previously I suggested that crakar could not get any stupider. But he has proved me wrong at post #92.

Congratulations crakar, you are the stupidest person alive.

Leaving ridicule aside what is wrong with what i have written?

Oh by the way you still refuse to answer why wireless works over large temp swings, is there a problem?

Yesterday, I made a post at the HTTACS Open thread (#126) about a media report regarding the withdrawal of the âWegmann Reportâ from publication because of plagiarism. The link to the story is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climat…

That story has since been confirmed by the publication concerned and in a number of other media outlets. Even wattsupmybutt is up to his usual standard of excellence, condemning everyone for daring to âsilenceâ one of the more famous of the denialist community.

I then remembered that we had a discussion a few months previously about supposed plagiarism by Kevin Trenberth in one of his talks. Trenberth has since been cleared of any wrong doing. Of course, at the time, crakar was all over it like a rash. He had linked to the SPPI â one of his favourite sources that he trolls from â with this link here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/trenber…

He also made a number of comments, as follows:

Post #71: â....the darling of AGW was caught red handed committing the heinous crime of plagiarism.... Trenberth is a plagiarist pure and simple so i expect you to treat him exactly the way you treated me when accused of the same crime, of course i know you wont because you like all your comrades here operate with a very high degree of double standards.....â

Post #73: â....In fact the evidence of plagiarism is quite damning Trenberth in his pre print speech to the AMS clearly plagiarises Hasselman (sp) and the only reason why he changed it was on the advice from Mc Intyre. So one can assume now that you condemn Trenberth?...â

Post #76: â...In other words Trenberth is full of shit just like your babies nappies....â

Post #77: â....why dont you read what Mc Intyre says then have a look at what Trenberth originally wrote and tell me if he did commit plagiarism. If so then condemn him, dont waste my time telling me what should or should not happen....â

Crakar also had a go (as usual) at skip and I about our supposed refusal to condemn Trenberth, despite me saying at post #72: â....I condemn ANYONE who commits plagiarism....â and reaffirming this at post #74: â...What part of "I condemn ANYONE who commits plagiarism" don't you understand?...â

So, let me reiterate the point I made back on 31 January. I categorically condemn anyone who commits plagiarism. And of course, we all know you do as well donât you crakar, because you made the point quite plainly at the time when you said: â....Trenberth is a plagiarist pure and simple so i expect you to treat him exactly the way you treated me when accused of the same crime...â

And I hate double standards and hypocrisy. And I know you do as well, donât you crakar? You made that quite clear when you chastised skip and I for supposedly â...operating with a very high degree of double standards....â.

So hereâs your chance crakar. You hate plagiarism, and you hate double standards. Show us the strength of your convictions. You must now â and without equivocation â condemn Wegmann for committing plagiarism.

I await your response with eager anticipation.

What google did not give you the right answer?

Why dont you start with answering the question, for the 5th time. If the predicted temp increase from AGW is going to stop my mobile phone or if you like wireless internet from working then why does it work now with temperature swings way beyond the catastrophic predictions proposed.

crakar

Ok - I'll answer your question then you answer mine.

No-one has ever said that mobile phones or wi-fi will stop working because of AGW. I never said it. The report never said it. And the reason no-one has suggested it is because it is obviously wrong.

But you would know that, because you have read everything I have written and you have said that you read the report.

Your turn. I await your condemnation of Wegmann for plagiarism.

Mandas

As Vernon said in 86

"Temperature is not going to do anything. Who ever authored the report may have meant many things but what was written was wrong.

"Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as
wireless transmission is dependent on temperature."

That is a totally false statement."

Do you now acknowledge this statement is totally false?

No crakar, I answered your question. Before I answer any more from you, you have to answer the one I posed regarding Wegmann and plagiarism.

Ah the famous Mandas soft shoe shuffle, lets deal with one issue at a time shall we.

The quote from the UK propagander paper states, once again.

"Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as
wireless transmission is dependent on temperature"

In other words they claim that as the temp rises the performance of wireless transmissions (apparently not wifi) may become degraded.

Do you Mandas stand by this statement or do you now acknowledge this statement to be completely false?

Yes or no will suffice.

You're not getting away with it this time crakar.

I answered your previous question, and when you answer mine regarding Wegmann and plagiarism, I will answer your question.

That's how it works. I answer one. You answer one. etc

So temperature will not affect cell phones?

Well there is a very good reason why it might. It has got nothing to do with RF waves going through the air. It has everything to do with the hardware incorporated into cell phone towers.

Ever heard of HTSC (high temperature superconductors) Vernon, crackar et al? The high temperature is a bit of a misnomer since they still need temperatures of about 150K to operate but still better than the old style superconductors which required temps as low as 30 K. While still very cold they are much cheaper to operate because you can use liquid nitrogen rather than liquid helium

Now how will global warming enter the equation?

Well, most of the new cell phone towers incorporate HTSC filters to improve signal/noise ratio (I wish we could get a filter in here that would filter out all the denier noise). I would suspect that they are designed to work within certain temperature parameters. If it gets too warm then the cooling system would probably work intermittently when the outside temps got too warm due to AGW.

So there is a very good technical reason why AGW may cause a problem with cell phone transmissions. Thus it is correct for a government report to raise the potential problem so it can be evaluated and proper remedial action taken if necessary.

Gotta go Mandas, take your time in answering yes or no OK.

Whilst we all wait for Mandas to fight his inner demons and bring himself to acknowledge that the UK report is crap i thought we could pass the time with this. I just want to say right off the bat that the motto for science should now be "evidence not required".

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~agallant/GallantGergis_WRR_2010WR00…

This is an interesting study stating that this last drought to hit the MDB was the worst in 1500 years. Whats interesting is the scientists did not take core samples from the red gums that inhabit the area, instead they decided not to leave the comforts of their desks and use results from other studies.

These results are from celery top pines in Tasmania, teak in Indonesia, some tall timber in Western Australia, Tongan corals, kauri in New Zealand and other interesting bits of Bali, Fiji and the Great Barrier Reef. The closest survey site was a good 900 kilometres from the Murray, the furthest a 10-hour flight.

Then they put the selected data through a number cruncher and guess what this was/is 1 in 1500 year drought and they boast an accuracy of 97.7%, wow (no not you wow) the science really is settled. Now i am not sure how all this works but i would have thought all studies must pass the smell test and this study stinks a bit to me.

I would have thought they may have dug a little deeper, perhaps somewhere a little closer to the river its self. For example there was a drought way back in 1915 which by all accounts was a whopper much bigger than this one and here is a photo which shows you just how bad it was.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Dry_Murray_…

Oh come on Mandas admit defeat when it is staring you in the face.

Thanks crakar. That's all the answer I needed.

You won't condemn Wegmann for committing plagiarism, because he is just like you - a denier. And a denier never criticises another denier, even if his arguments are different to your own.

You have amply proven that you have absolutely no integity crakar. You are lying hypocrite, who attempts to hold scientists to a higher standard than you are willing to accept for the idiots that you worship. No wonder everyone here despises you. Not only are you a racist arsehole, you are a hypocrite. And in my humble opinion, they are just about the two lowest forms of human life.

Oh - and regarding your question that you think I won't answer. This just proves - once again - that you do not read anything that anyone says.

I have already answered it. Just scroll back up and read the thread from the beginning again. You will find I have stated my position on the issue very clearly.

If i generate a 27Hz tone i should (barring any form of deafness) here that tone, what i would be listening to would be a radio wave in the extremely low frequency band. Now you can call it a radio wave if you like or because we can here it you can call it a sound wave.

Amazing! A gaff that should have been sorted out in your first high school physics course. And here I was thinking you were just drawing an analogy between sound and radio waves, but describing it too sketchily to make sense. Tell me, crakar, how are photons (the fundamental particles of EM radiation) involved in the production, propagation or detection of sound and what is the purpose of a diaphragm?

Ian in 103,

Yes super conductors are reliant on temp, but you must understand the temp is controlled by cooling systems and the temp is not proportional to the air temp.

I will pose the same question to you, the one Mandas fails to answer, if super conductors like the ones used in the Hadron collider or on a magnetic levitation trains where susceptible to changes in air temp by a few degrees then how do they work when the temp swings by a large proportion from night to day?

You people are so desperate to prop up this UK propagander that you are not thinking logically.

Ian

I wasn't aware of the superconductor issue, but as I have said, I am not an expert on this. Which is why I did some reading. You might be interested in reading these articles which I discovered, on something called 'thermal fade'. I have no idea if they are relevant, but I understand (and I may be mistaken here), that 'thermal fade' is the reference that was used for the original Government report. First link is to a blog which discusses the report and the basis for the claim. The second is to a study into thermal fade:

http://mikepuchol.com/

http://www.freeopenbook.com/wireless-hacks/wirelesshks-chp-3-sect-16.ht…

Now, as I said, I have no idea of the accuracy or otherwise of these two sources so I will make no claim about them. Perhaps an expert can comment on them.

Of course, I never made any claims about the accuracy of the originall report - and still don't. I haven't looked at the source data that the report uses for its information.

Mandas your are a funny man, have a look at the turn you got here today to support your latest idiotic warmist crusade.

All you need to do is answer yes or no to the question i have posed many times and the subject can be closed, then if you like we can move onto Wegman but one thing at a time.

Oh and Richard i will address your post but first why dont you help Mandas with his problem of answering the question.

Crakar

Once again you have demonstrated a spectacular inability to read or understand ANYTHING. Your latest offering â the Murray Darling Stream Flow Reconstruction study â is a perfect case in point. Could you please tell us all where you read about it, and who you trolled your opinion from. Because we all know you could not possibly have discovered it by yourself, and you certainly didnât form your opinion from having read it.

Crakarâs link at post #104 takes you to a study conducted by two researchers from the University of Melbourne into stream flows in the Murray Darling Basin â Australiaâs most extensive waterway. Of course, crakar hasnât read the study. Either that or he is just spectacularly ignorant in his interpretation â both possibilities have equal credibility. Some of his statements are just plain ludicrous!!! Take this one for instance:

â....This is an interesting study stating that this last drought to hit the MDB was the worst in 1500 years...â

What the study actually concludes is this:

â...Reconstructed River Murray streamflow shows considerable variation since 1783. We estimate that there is a 2.3% chance that the 1998â2008 record low decadal streamflow deficit has been exceeded since European settlement....â

So there is a slight(!!) difference here. Crakar says 1,500 years, the study says 200 years. This is so damn obvious that I am staggered by the stupidity of crakarâs remarks. Even the title of the paper should have given it away:

âAn experimental streamflow reconstruction for the River Murray, Australia, 1783â1988â

Oh well, whatâs 1,300 years between friends. Where he gets the 1,500 number from is this quote:

â....Our reconstruction suggests that although the 1998â2008 lowflow record was not necessarily unprecedented in the 206 year record, it is still highly unusual. Further testing using synthetic simulations of streamflow based on the paleostreamflow estimates suggests that the 1998â2008 drought was a 1 in 1500 year event....â

So ummm â how did you turn that into the nonsense you sprouted crakar?

What about the claimed accuracy of 97.7%, as per this claim of crakarâs:

â...Then they put the selected data through a number cruncher and guess what this was/is 1 in 1500 year drought and they boast an accuracy of 97.7%,....â

What the study actually says is:

â...We estimate that there is a 2.3% chance that the 1998â2008 record low decadal streamflow deficit has been exceeded since European settlement....â

So crakar has just taken the real estimate â 2.3% - away from 100, and come up with his own magic number of 97.7%, which is never mentioned in the report. Way to make shit up there crakar!

So what about his criticism of the source of the data? Why didnât they use âriver red gumsâ. Letâs have a look at what the paper says shall we:

â....Monthly streamflows for the River Murray were provided by the MurrayâDarling Basin Authority for the 1892â2009 period....â

So for the last 120 years, they used actual streamflow information, and did not have to rely on proxy reconstructions. I guess thatâs why they didnât take core samples from the river red gums then. What about for the previous 100 years or so?

â...The lack of annually resolved paleoclimate records currently available directly from the MDB region means that records must be selected from a wider Australasian region (Table 1). All records show published sensitivities to either regionalâ or largeâscale circulation features important to the MDB, such as the El NiñoâSouthern Oscillation (ENSO). However, it is important to recognize that using largeâscale regional climate records to infer changes to localized streamflow ignore important land surface conditions (soil moisture, vegetation cover, and groundwater recharge) [Chiew et al., 1998; Kiem and VerdonâKidd, 2010]. Therefore, this experimental reconstruction is able to provide streamflow estimates only from climateârelated components (e.g., rainfall, temperature, and circulation changes) of the more complex coupled hydroclimate system....â

So there wasnât anything available huh? So they used proxies which showed correlation with known variations in the MDB region, but also recognise that there may be errors in doing so.

Whatâs next crakar? Fuck yes â I just love this quote of yours!!!

â.....For example there was a drought way back in 1915 which by all accounts was a whopper much bigger than this one and here is a photo which shows you just how bad it was....â

So you are trying to discredit a science study based on a photo that someone dug up from somewhere that shows a dry river bed somewhere in the world (which denier site provided you with the photo by the way?). Great science there crakar. This is even worse than your usual standard of bullshit â and that IS saying a lot!

So â was there a drought in 1915, as you have alleged?

Well, yes there was. There were a series of droughts during 1911 â 15, but none of them were considered to be as severe as the most recent drought. Indeed, they werenât even as severe as numerous other droughts such as the Federation drought of 1902-03. But obviously all the figures lie â crakar has a photo which PROVES the paper and all the other figures are wrong. Goodonya crakar. It makes you wonder why scientists do all this research, when all they need to do is to look at a few pictures.

So please crakar. Tell us all. Where did you get this stuff from? We all know you never read science papers, and you never read journals anyway so you couldn't have just come across the paper. Someone on some denier website must have already provided these comments, and you just cut and pasted them like the troll you are. Who was it?

Mandas, that same idiotic twisting of the facts to suit his purposes has been done before by cracker-ass.

I suspect that the details come from WTFUWT. If he'd done his own work, he'd be able to avoid the pitfalls, but he slavishly believes anything the echo chamber there pronounces.

I wonder what he'll do now that Watts' proposal that the US dataset is unreliable has been shown to be wrong by one Anthony Watts.

"Temperature is not going to do anything. Who ever authored the report may have meant many things but what was written was wrong.

"Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as
wireless transmission is dependent on temperature."

That is a totally false statement.

Posted by: Vernon"

So wrong, Vernon.

I point you YET AGAIN to the phenomenon of anaprop.

Also, from the report: ", or if intense rainfall or high temperatures disrupt Wi-Fi signals."

Heat doesnât affect electromagnetic radiation (wireless signals), density does.

But because warm air is less dense, temperature does change density.

Given your stringent requirements of accuracy to avoid the claim of "this is a totally false statement", your statement is likewise totally false.

PS off another reporter of the situation:

"The Daily Telegraph paraphrased her as saying in her speech, "The signal from wi-fi cannot travel as far when temperatures increase. Heavy downfalls of rain also affect the ability of the device to capture a signal." "

Note: THE DAILY TELEGRAPH PARAPHRASED HER.

"Sorry WOW but post 73 does not make any sense to me can please reword it.

Posted by: crakar24 | May 16, 2011 3:41 PM"

Certainly, Cracer-ass:

You're a freaking idiotic troll who cannot string two sentences together without making boneheaded mistakes and lies in at least two of them.

Nothing reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of the warmists more starkly than their reaction to anyone who has the effrontery to disagree with them. They gather like hyenas encircling a zebra, biting at flanks and tugging at fetlocks in the hope that they will eventually drag their prey to earth. When that prey refuses to submit but instead hits back, their outrage knows no bounds.

Of course, if we look beyond the immediate pattern of behaviour - if we deconstruct the narrative (as Skip would no doubt pompously put it) - it is evident that their fury follows from their awareness that they have lost the argument. They know that - in the real world - they are increasingly seen as sanctimonious prigs wallowing in their own self-righteousness.

So, keep it up Crakar and give no quarter. The very fact that they froth and foam shows that you are winning.

snowman

Nothing reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of the denier more than your previous post.

You cheer on someone who has been shown repeatedly to be lying, to be misrepresenting science, to be trolling opinions they do not understand regarding papers they haven't read, and who demonstrates gross hypocrisy by refusing to condemn actions in their side that they have already condemned in others.

Your last post has amply demonstrated how completely irrelevant you and your opinions truly are.

You have contributed nothing to any of these debates other than to nit-pick language (despite your own failings in this area) and to make personal attacks on people such as skip.

Lost the argument you say? Yes - that's right, we have obviously lost the argument. After all, what have we got on our side apart from science, facts, evidence, and the support of every reputable organisation in the world. You in the other hand have bullshit, bluster, diversion, avoidance, ideology and the support of intellectual midgets and industry shills.

I thought crakar was despicable because of his refusal to accept facts and logic, and to maintain his ideological trolling no matter how flawed his arguments were. But crakar at least has an excuse. He is a barely literate moron with no education and no opinions to call his own.

What is your excuse?

Hi Crakar!

"If i generate a 27Hz tone i should (barring any form of deafness) here that tone, what i would be listening to would be a radio wave in the extremely low frequency band. Now you can call it a radio wave if you like or because we can here it you can call it a sound wave."

So, you asked what is wrong with this? A lot of the other commenters want to skirt the issue rather and just let you be wrong rather than see if you can learn something. But not me.

Here's the biggest problem: Sound waves and electromagnetic waves (eg, radio waves) are completely and utterly distinct from each other. Sound waves are (usually) longitudinal waves that require a medium through which to travel, eg. air. Radio waves, and electromagnetic waves in general, are a transverse oscillation of electic and magnetic fields that propogate through space, i.e. they do not require a medium. Additionally, they can be thought of as particles (photons).

And that is what is wrong with your statement. What you listen to isn't an electromagnetic wave. You cannot call a radio wave a sound wave (well, you could but you'd be wrong).

Perhaps snowman would care to comment on Stu N's post @ 118 above?

Perhaps snowman believes that crakar has won the argument by being demonstrably wrong, which would explain how he thinks the anti-science crowd are winning the larger argument - the more wrong you are, the more snowman thinks you are winning.

Oh and Richard i will address your post but first why dont you help Mandas with his problem of answering the question.

Because, unlike you, I have a reasonably good idea of the limitations to my knowledge. BTW, have you cracked open a first year physics book yet?

Further to Chris's query, on this:

"If i generate a 27Hz tone i should (barring any form of deafness) here that tone, what i would be listening to would be a radio wave in the extremely low frequency band"

Is cracker-ass saying he can hear radio waves?

Can anyone loan this guy some tinfoil?

Here's bankruptcy, Snowman:

When are you going to answer the dozen or so questions I have posed to you?

You won't answer of course: Because on top of being a proven liar, statistical incompetent, and self-celebrated toady of a half-wit non-scientist, you are a coward.

This is the part I love: You will evade, you will preen, you will snark out some idiotic attempt at elegance, but you will not answer.

Despite your demonstrated incompetence (trend lines, your assessment of what constitutes a "Mike Tyson" . . . what a joke), you have just enough wit to recognize that any honest answer is an embarrassment, and any non-embarrassing answer is a lie.

There you have it Snowman. By the measure of honor and honesty, you are absolutely beaten. Hands down. It is over.

In the arena of endless pontification from a cowardly posture of evasion I suspect we will never hear the end of you, but you've acquitted yourself as a coward and liar and your next evasive response will simply confirm it.

Wow - As far as I can make out, crakar believes that radio and sound waves are the same thing. That is why I asked about photons and diaphragms, to see if I could get him to think about the goof he made. I find it odd that someone could BS so convincingly (to a radio ignoramus like me) then make such a colossal blunder.

Goodness, what an outburst. I really would urge you, Skip, to avoid working yourself into such a state. I'm sure it can't be good for you. My advice is to take a little break from this blog and sit back with an improving book. Drink lots of herbal tea.

In fact, I also intend to take some time off. I don't know when I'll be back but I confidently leave Crakar to hold the fort.

In fact, I also intend to take some time off . . .

No. As I correctly predicted, you're cringing, dodging, and running. *It's* what cowards do.

I wonder what snowman thinks of crakar's ability to hear radio waves and that the reason we don't use low frequency sound to communicate with satellites is because of loss in the atmosphere. After all, he did proclaim that we were intellectually bankrupt for reacting strongly to crakar's effrontery for daring to disagree with us.

So obviously, you agree with him do you snowman?

And I also think you analogy about us being hyenas and crakar being a zebra is flawed as well. You could keep with the animal theme and use lions and a dying warthog. Of course, that would make snowman the Vervet, sitting in the tree flinging faeces at the participants.

But I think a far better one would be to compare me with King Arthur, and crakar with the Black Knight, guarding the bridge so that 'none shall pass'. And snowman is just part of the crowd screaming to burn the witch because she has a wart on her nose.

Thanks for the support snowman

"Hyenas encircling a Zebra" gold pure gold.

So you aren't hiding your head in shame then crakar?

How are you going with your condemnation of Wegmann for plagiarism?

Stu N in 117,

This response is to an earlier promise to Richard but to all others aswell i suppose.

When i talk about RF i am talking about a pure sine wave and using a previous example it would consist of 27 cycles per second and if i use a cathode ray oscillascope i could see and measure this frequency.

When you talk about sound waves you are talking about the physical process of how the sound is generated but it will have a specific and constant frequency if it is a tone. Voice on the other hand is a series of changing frequencies.

These changing frequencies produce a different sound. All radio waves produce sound to some extent a good example is a dog whistle which can be heard by a dog however the sound it creates is too high in frequency for us to hear.

RS in 123,

Diaphragms? you mean in a microphone? what would you like to know?

Lets assume you are in a plane (could be anywhere) and you want to talk to the tower (no not the Ivory one Mandas lives in) then you have two options, the first is to shout really loud or the second is to use a radio.

So how does this work? Well you speak into a microphone, the sound waves generated by your voice forces the diaphragm to move, this movement converts your voice (sound waves) into electrical energy (radio wave in the ELF, SLF and some of the VLF bands).

But what happens then?

Well this energy is then used to modulate a carrier wave, for civilian aircraft it will be VHF and for military it will be UHF. If it is amplitude modulation then the amplitude of the carrier wave will be modulated, therefore the amplitude of the wave will vary.

If it is frequency modulated (FM) then the frequency will vary around the carrier frequency. As noise sits on the top of the signal FM is therefore a much clearer signal as variations in amplitude have no effect.

In this situation the signal is omni directional, the tower will rx the signal and when you pass the signal through a mixer it strips the carrier away from the original voice signal. This signal is then outputted via a speaker which works the same way as a microphone but in reverse.

Now i have just hit the high points here for simplicities sake. By the way RS you seem to have a knowledge of sound waves i assume that there is some interest in it for you, let me ask you a question. If your listening to music at home on a CD, would you rather have an amplifier that has DC or AC coupling between amplifier stages?

Wow 113,

Yes anaprop is a real phenomenon but it will not cause probs for "wireless", once again you people need to get it through your thick heads that just because you read something somewhere does not make you an expert.

Wireless according to Mandas does not include wifi so lets just stick to mobile phones. How many times Wow has your mobile phone suffered from anaprop?

NEVER........ you would be at best 30 kilometers from the cell site most of the time you are standing in its shadow and the thing is pumping out 50 watts this is just as stupid as the baked bean tin antenna that was not connected to anything.

IDIOT

OMFG,

"But I think a far better one would be to compare me with King Arthur, and crakar with the Black Knight, guarding the bridge so that 'none shall pass'. And snowman is just part of the crowd screaming to burn the witch because she has a wart on her nose."

The first thing that crossed my mind when i read this was "African or European"

128,

When you admit that the UK study in question (not wegman) is crap when they state an increase in temp will reduce (they use sub optimal) wireless performance then we can move on.

However i dont believe your followers have finished trying to discredit me so as to avoid answering this question "If the predicted temp increase from AGW is going to stop my mobile phone or if you like wireless internet from working then why does it work now with temperature swings way beyond the catastrophic predictions proposed."

I thought wow would shut up after his baked bean antenna, there is no way google can save RS's ass re the question i asked him and to be honest if he does not know the answer then i can confirm he knows absolutely nothing about sound.

You have been shot down in flames time and time again and where is Skip? Ah yes sniping from the bleaches as always, although credit where credit is due. He has not sank so low as to google his way through this debate.

Crakar - I asked about photons and diaphragms to try to get you to think about the difference between radio waves and sound waves, but clearly failed monumentally.

All radio waves produce sound to some extent a good example is a dog whistle which can be heard by a dog however the sound it creates is too high in frequency for us to hear.

A dog whistle does not produce radio waves. Please, please, reread a basic physics text starting with the supposition that you know nothing. The rest of your prattle may well be correct - I would not know - but you obviously have no understanding of the processes.

My god RS let me rephrase this simple statement for you

a dog whistle will produce a sound above and beyond what a human ear can hear.

This is because the frequency of the sound is to high, there is a physical process that goes on to produce what we know as sound waves.

But the dog whistle will produce a frequency that can be measured, i am not talking about pressure waves or what not, the whistle will produce a frequency.

So you dont know what ac or dc coupling is and the ramifications it has to sound? You have no idea how a super hetrodyne rxr works? You have no idea what an omni directional antenna is? In fact you know jack shit about anything to do with this subject but here you are calling a fucking idiot and by logical extension a denier.

I am sure that only fuckwits inhabit this site, fuckwits that are no longer welcome anywhere else.

You know, I thought even crakar would have got it by now.

How many freekin times do you have to have the difference between sound waves and RF waves pointed out to you before you get it? Jesus H freekin christ man!!! Dog whistles now! My god!!!

And how many times do you have to have it pointed out to you? No-one - not even the study that you still haven't read - says that mobile phones will stop working because of AGW.

And where did you troll that MDB study from? Who told you what to say, and are you going to go away and read the study for the first time to see how you got it completely wrong?

And when are you going to demonstrate that you are not the complete hypocrite we all know you are, and condemn Wegmann for plagiarism? I will NEVER let you forget this one.

Ok this is too insane to even believe.

Crakar: As much as I despise your shitty editing, your abject intellectual dishonesty, your bigotry, and probably a half a dozen other things that I have not the time to recount right now, I want to give you a chance to explain away this unbelievable stupidity that RS just pointed out.

What--in the name of all that is right . . . for the love of God--are you even talking about?

I think, despite all, I would even accept a tortured and implausible excuse for your post that RS quoted.

Otherwise it looks like the rarely posting but keenly observant Richard S. has done it again. (Anyone remember Richard Wakefield's postmodern t-test?)

RS,

Seeing as you are an expert on sound waves and only sound waves i might add. You must surely appreciate the fact that when listening to music the more low frequency sound you have the better. In fact sound waves below 3hz are essential to bring out the best in the music you are listening to.

Would you agree?

135,

And when are you going to admit that temp will have no affect on wireless (not wifi)?

Ah the mighty Skip makes a noise, is it related to what is being talked about, does it add to the debate..........no of course not. Therefore it will be ignored.

135,

I havent read the study now? Make up your mind.

Did you read the MDB study oh great one?

Do you agree with the pathetic way in which they conducted this study oh all knowing one? By the way i did not "troll" it anywhere it is afterall peer reviewed and published i believe.

And when are you going to acknowledge the UK report is crap (first things first remember).

You are fair dinkum certifiable crakar.

"...Did you read the MDB study oh great one?..."

Ummm scroll up to post #111. And I know it was peer reviewed. Where did you troll it from? Who told you about it?

Annd when are you going to show even the tiniest sliver of integrity and condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Ahhh - forget it. You aren't man enough.

Last word one this wave issue,

If you make a sound you produce a frequency thats why it is called a s-o-u-n-d w-a-v-e, if you measure this wave you can measure its frequency.

All sounds no matter if we can hear them or not are measured by its f-r-e-q-u-e-n-c-y.

The limits of the human ear are from 3hz to 20Khz.

If you compare this to the frequency spectrum we can hear in the ELF,SLF and some of the VLF bands. No we cannot hear radio waves BUT our limits of hearing fall into these bands.

RS just so you can expand on your limited knowledge of sound, to get the best from your stereo you need an amplifier with DC coupling because it will pass the very low frequencies required. If you are actually interested in any of this just ask, if this is just the usual smear campaign then lets leave it at that.

Wow, if you make your home made baked bean tin antenna i suggest you remove the tin as all it will do is block the signal, no need for the female N-type connector, in fact there is no need to strip the copper wire as 2.4Ghz goes straight through the PVC coating. What you will end up with is a long wire antenna which will be less efficient than the one built into your laptop so why would you bother?

Mandas, RF is considered a black art in all my years i have seen things that should not happen, for example we where out bush and had a delta V antenna (a directional antenna ) and using HF we tried to contact base but could not. Then someone grab a hessian bag full of tangled up Don10 (a bit like Wow's copper wire) and threw it into a nearby tree, connected it to the txr and we could contact base. To this day i do not know why. So i would pause a little the next time you google search your smoking gun.

Skip, i actually paid you a compliment by stating that you bit your tongue on a subject you like the rest of your cronies know nothing about, and then you went and shot your mouth off. i understand you have met your match in snowman but rather than get biter and twisted over it i suggest you learn from this experience and try to become a better person.

Did i leave anyone out? If so i do apologies

When are you going to admit that a small increase in temp is not going to decrease the performance of wireless, not wifi bacuse they are different apparently.

Once you do that we can discuss the wegman report, nothing complex here. You have been shown many times that the report is crap so just admit.

The MDB study states quite clearly that there is a 2.3% chance that this is not the worst drought since European settlement. So you can say there is a 97.7% chance that this is the greatest drought since european settlement. Remind me when was Europe settled?

They go on to claim that this is a 1 in 1500 years drought (based on the 97.7% i assume) which is what i staed.

So they used local data for the last 120 years so how did they arrive at the 2.3% figure and claim it is a 1 in 1500 year drought Mandas? What proxies did they use for that?

You then out of pure desperation turn your sights onto the photograph, you dispute the date it was taken by claiming there was an even bigger drought a decade in a piss poor attempt to discredit me.

A couple of things you omitted, firstly if this photo was indeed taken in 1915 that means there was even less water (if that is possible) a decade ago.

You also failed to tell everyone that in this recent drought of which there is a 2.3% of being the second largets drought since european settlement had shit tins more water in the river than when the photo was taken. was the photo taken before european settlement?

Surely a drought of such epic proportions depicted in the photo should have at least rated a mention. No, no the only thing discussed is the recent one and how it is the biggest since only god knows when.

Pathetic piece of crap and the fact that you defend it so ferociously, this comes as no suprise considering your stupid comments re RF diespite your complete ignorance on the subject

Seeing as you are an expert on sound waves and only sound waves i might add. You must surely appreciate the fact that when listening to music the more low frequency sound you have the better. In fact sound waves below 3hz are essential to bring out the best in the music you are listening to.

Completely irrelevant. I do not claim to be an expert on either sound waves or radio waves, but I do know that they are different animals. It is clear that you do not.

crakar

When are you going to demonstrate some integrity and condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Oh come on Richard you openly admit to knowing nothing about the subject being discussed and therefore through ignorance and stupidity you misunderstand what i say and from this misunderstanding you have decided i like you also know nothing.

Do you even know what a cathode ray oscilloscope is? Do you know what a spectrum analyser is?, what about a waveform generator? Anything? anything at all? My bet is you would not recognise one if it bit you on the arse but these three types of equipment are paramount when it comes to measuring and understanding waves, sound or radio.

Now piss off you little upstart and go back to your boring little non important existence that you call a life.

Sorry you little snivelling piece of shit i forgot to say that if you feel that a resistive/capacitive circuit is irrelevant to the coupling of audio and therefore the production of sound waves then you are a complete and utter fool.

Mandas,

Both myself and Vernon have highlighted to you that the UK gov report made claims that an increase in temp would have a detrimental affect on wireless systems.

We have both shown you evidence which shows this claim to be false, you as expected hold the opposite view. When called upon to explain why the reports wireless claims are robust you failed to do so.

As per your normal MO you dodged and weaved your responsibilities. Now i will asked you one more time, do you accept that rising temps WILL cause a detrimental affect on wireless as per the report? If so on what evidence do you base this on?

Simply answer this question and we can put this issue to bed and then i will be more than happy to discuss the wegman report and its associated topics with you.

This is not a big request Mandas, failure to comply can only be seem as just another dodge.

The choice is yours.

Crakar,

If, as I think was the case, you were attempting to use sound waves analagously to radio waves, you explained yourself really badly and came out with some monumental blunders. Almost everything you said on the subject makes it look like you didn't know sound and radio waves were produced by different mechanisms and have different properties.

Anyway, more of what you have said is wrong. The limit of human hearing is quite a bit higher than 3hz (but that's not really relevant). You then said:

"If you compare this to the frequency spectrum we can hear in the ELF,SLF and some of the VLF bands. No we cannot hear radio waves BUT our limits of hearing fall into these bands."

Can you tell me the relevance of this statement? Not to mention that yet again you explain yourself in terrible fashion, stating that "we can hear in the ElF, SLF etc..."; you might as well tell us we can taste colours because we can also see them. At least you corrected yourself in the next sentence.

If he was intending to use an analogy, he missed out key words like "like" "as if it were" and "similarly".

Having now had the fact of his failure pushed at him so hard, cracer-ass now has to kid on he's made a minor blunder, but he does (in contradiction to all the evidence) know about radio waves.

He doesn't. He's clueless. But he may have popped off to do some quick reading on the internet to fake some ability by now.

"Both myself and Vernon have highlighted to you that the UK gov report made claims that an increase in temp would have a detrimental affect on wireless systems."

Indeed, This isn't in dispute.

But wireless !=WiFi.

ANYONE who has been in the wireless industry knows they're different.

Your usual MO though is to replay history in your mind until it fits your preferred conclusion. Facts are purely subjective for you (and, since you believe yourself not the complete nutcase you are, everyone else must do the same in your mind).

"Now i will asked you one more time, do you accept that rising temps WILL cause a detrimental affect on wireless as per the report"

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

"Both myself and Vernon have highlighted to you that the UK gov report made claims that an increase in temp would have a detrimental affect on wireless systems."

Indeed, This isn't in dispute.

But wireless !=WiFi.

ANYONE who has been in the wireless industry knows they're different.

Your usual MO though is to replay history in your mind until it fits your preferred conclusion. Facts are purely subjective for you (and, since you believe yourself not the complete nutcase you are, everyone else must do the same in your mind).

"Now i will asked you one more time, do you accept that rising temps WILL cause a detrimental affect on wireless as per the report"

Yes.

Clapeyron_relation

Subsidence

Rain

sea-level rise (abandonment of coastal cities)

"you openly admit to knowing nothing about the subject being discussed and therefore through ignorance and stupidity you misunderstand what i say and from this misunderstanding you have decided i like you also know nothing."

Said the climate scientist to crakar (with better punctuation and capitalised personal pronoun)...

I just want something on the record . . . .

From Anthony Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=wi-fi

UK Climate Resilient Infrastructure: billions needed to combat climate change effects on Wi-Fi signals

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Ryan Maue

News Post by Ryan Maue A government issued report from the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) sounds the alarm about the incredible impacts of climate change upon UK: Wi-Fi signal range and strength will be greatly â¦

Later . . .

Anthony Watts says:

May 9, 2011 at 11:48 am

This is the most effing stupid thing Iâve ever read.

That very same date on Coby's humble little blog:

If you want to know why people are losing faith in your little church it is because of stories like this.Posted by: crakar24 | May 9, 2011 6:02 PM

Because Crakar is an illiterate, plagiarizing fool with no capacity for independent thought and believes Anthony Watts, he is now fixated on this idea that AGW acceptors also believe that climate change will affect wireless and/or wifi and/or cell phone coverage because of higher temperatures.

When Mandas pointed out that "wi-fi" never occurs in the report, Crakar tried to save with this childish mush:

Oh by the way WIFI even though not mentioned in the report operates at a slightly higher frequency than wireless so it is safe to say that if god forbid AGW did destroy wireless it would also destroy wifi, seeing how the government propagander machine are illiterate when it comes to ITC just like you are [sic] they failed to montion [sic] it.

Translation: "Even though they didn't say the stupid thing I originally said they said, they *would* have said it. Thus do I prove myself correct with data which exists only in my own mind."

But the obvious fact that Crakar is an illiterate who simply cuts and pastes stupidity from Watts is the small point. The larger point is this:

Crakar: No one here *ever* said we thought wireless/wi-fi/cell phones were affected by climate change in the simplistic sense of rising temperatures disrupting transmissions. Nor does any of us care. The notion that we do exists only in your tortured, Thorazine-deprived mind, having been planted there by the epic fool, Anthony Watts

wow,

Even if you ignore what was actually said in the document and try to make it about air density, it is still wrong. Warming the atmosphere will not change the propagation. The atmosphere will still have density going highest at ground level and steadily decrease with attitude. The propagation is still going to work the same. Anomalous propagation (anaprop)is a temperature inversion which I have already stated. Please show where an increase in average air temperature will cause more temperature inversions.

Basically, the "Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as wireless transmission is dependent on temperature." is a false statement. It is simply not true, no matter how you want to twist it.

[Sorry about the double-post, Coby but I had to fix the formatting error that came out above.]

I just want something on the record . . . .

From Anthony Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=wi-fi

UK Climate Resilient Infrastructure: billions needed to combat climate change effects on Wi-Fi signals

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Ryan Maue

News Post by Ryan Maue A government issued report from the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) sounds the alarm about the incredible impacts of climate change upon UK: Wi-Fi signal range and strength will be greatly â¦

Later, Mad Anthony chimed in:

Anthony Watts says:

May 9, 2011 at 11:48 am

This is the most effing stupid thing Iâve ever read.

That very same date on Coby's humble little blog:

If you want to know why people are losing faith in your little church it is because of stories like this.

[followed by alink to the techradar story included; he was so dumb he thought he'd thought he'd covered his tracks]

Posted by: crakar24 | May 9, 2011 6:02 PM

Because Crakar is an illiterate, plagiarizing fool with no capacity for independent thought and believes Anthony Watts, he is now fixated on this idea that AGW acceptors also believe that climate change will affect wireless and/or wifi and/or cell phone coverage.

When Mandas pointed out that "wi-fi" never occurs in the report, Crakar tried to save with this childish mush:

Oh by the way WIFI even though not mentioned in the report operates at a slightly higher frequency than wireless so it is safe to say that if god forbid AGW did destroy wireless it would also destroy wifi, seeing how the government propagander machine are illiterate when it comes to ITC just like you are [sic] they failed to montion [sic] it.

Translation: "Even though they didn't say the stupid thing I originally said they said, they *would* have said it. Thus do I prove myself correct with data which exists only in my own mind."

But the obvious fact that Crakar is an illiterate who simply cuts and pastes stupidity from Watts is the small point. The larger point is this:

Crakar: No one here *ever* said we thought wireless/wi-fi/cell phones were affected by climate change in the simplistic sense of rising temperatures disrupting transmissions. Nor does any of us care. The notion that we do exists only in your tortured, Thorazine-deprived mind, having been planted there by the epic fool, Anthony Watts

The low end of wifi and upper end of wireless do overlap. Wifi is more absorbed by water than wireless frequencies but still are too low for there to be much impacted. The graph on this link shows that even for the high end of wifi, 5 ghz, water vapor still has only a sight impact. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm-absorption.htm

But I forgot and actually thought this was a scientific discussion about temperature affects on RF propagation. For a science blog, there is very little science being discussed.

Basically, the "Location/density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal as wireless transmission is dependent on temperature." is a false statement. It is simply not true, no matter how you want to twist it.

Assume for the sake of argument you are correct, Vernon.

Who cares? Why should I? Who among us ever attempted to "defend" the report's specific assertion you cite?

Do you know of *anyone* who has made increased temperature impacts on wireless transmissions a central feature of their concern about AGW?

Finally, when are you going to answer my questions regarding the Wegman report and your view of Richard Wakefield?

"Even if you ignore what was actually said in the document"

Those elements I said are in the document.

Haven't you gotten around to reading it yourself?

Seems like either that or you are ignoring what was actually said in the document.

"The low end of wifi and upper end of wireless do overlap."

Wireless means "without wires", so it goes all the way from ELF up to the UV level.

I'd call that an overlap with the 2.4GHz signal Wifi uses...

"but still are too low for there to be much impacted."

Since "much impacted" isn't "not impacted", you assert that wifi signals are attenuated by water vapour.

Seems like you agree with the statement you thing is completely and utterly wrong.

Do you even know what a cathode ray oscilloscope is? Do you know what a spectrum analyser is?, what about a waveform generator?

Sure I do. I've used a couple of them. Perhaps I should explain - I've taken postgraduate courses in plant physiology that required some knowledge of the visible portions of the spectrum, but have not taken any interest in other parts of the radio-magnetic spectrum.

Besides, this is all irrelevant to your continuing confusion between RM waves and sound waves.

Sorry you little snivelling piece of shit i forgot to say that if you feel that a resistive/capacitive circuit is irrelevant to the coupling of audio and therefore the production of sound waves then you are a complete and utter fool.

I said nothing of the kind. I have also been careful to always try to treat you with respect, despite your apparent attempts to bring the level of the discourse down to the gutter.

What I am arguing is that all your blustering has failed to show that you have the slightest idea that sound waves and radio waves are manifestations of two completely different processes.

Wow,

I am guessing that you know nothing about RF propagation. If you cannot understand why the statement as made that wireless is temperature dependent is wrong, then it is a waste of time to dialog with you.

Skip,

Your right, it does not matter to you whether a document is correct or not. You have been clear about that from the beginning. The Wegman report was correct and North agreed with his findings about the statistics - your point is?

Refresh me on Richard Wakefield since I do not remember that name in any discussions?

This is a great thread to show how ignorant, arrogant and rude the deniers are. They haven't a clue but keep coming aback with their idiotic responses.

The report shows that there is reason to worry that a warming climate will affect wireless transmission. The main reason is that the towers and associated hardware are designed to operate within a set temperature range. If these temperature ranges are exceeded then the quality of the transmission will deteriorate.

Therefore the report said that these factors should be looked into in greater detail. That is what most preliminary reports do, look for factors that require further study. However, you deniers haven't a clue about anything and because wattsuphisbutt said it was wrong then you gullible idiots are willing to spread the word even though you haven't a clue about what the report said.

"... Wegman report was correct and North agreed with his findings about the statistics ..."

Did North know that the so-called 'noise' hockeystick shaped graphs were, in fact, a carefully created, selected, and refined 1% of the complete set of 'noise' graphs?

It's just not possible to know for certain what Wegman did or didn't know, apart from the fact that he could not have replicated the McIntyre set. It is beyond even my fevered imagination that 2 different people could come up with exactly the same method for obscuring (faking?) the results of the noise comparison.

adelady, it is very unlikely that North knew what Wegman and M & M had done. The reason for this is very simple. Scientists (the honest ones) are very trusting of their colleagues and assume that they are either being honest or are correct in what they say. Unfortunately, that is not the case with AGW deniers since they are either dishonest or ignorant and sloppy with the science, or, most likely, both.

When scientists review papers they assume that the underlying data have been honestly and accurately described. They are looking more at the interpretation of the results. To determine honesty and accuracy would require a massive repeat of the work which is only done under extremely rare occasions.

My god how people go off on tangents!!

The original discussion regarding this issue was all about crakar acting in his usual manner, and commenting on a report he had never even read. He did this in his usual manner, by trolling the opinion of someone else from a denier website (skip thinks its wattsupmybutt - but it could equally be somewhere else, it doesn't matter) that was getting THEIR opinion from a newspaper article - the UK Telegraph!

In other words - this whole issue is about crakar going off on one of his usual rants using fourth hand information, having never read and having no idea about the content of the source document.

I called him on it by reading the original report, by recognising that the whole basis for the article in the Telegraph was bullshit - because the assertion that "wifi will not work in a post AGW apocalypse" - was a complete fabrication. We all (well, those of us who have actually bothered to read the original report - which still does not include crakar) realise wi-fi is not mentioned in the report at all, and the only mention of wireless infrastructure is a couple of dot points in a single row of a single table on one page of a 70 page report.

It is a perfect example of the deniersphere and the mind of the deluded denier. One of them has a non-fact based rant, probably for ideological reasons (which for those of us who know about the Telegraph and Rupert Murdoch, is hardly surprising), and it is picked by another denier and rebroadcast without checking to see if it is correct. Then it is picked up by another denier, and another, and another, and it quickly snowballs and becomes 'fact' in their tiny deluded minds, even though none of them have ever checked to see if the original report was accurate.

Interestingly enough, the day after crakar started on his rant, the magazine he linked to DID realise their error, and printed a correction and retraction. You can go to the link and check if you like. But that was never going to be enough to stop the runaway delusion in the deniershpere. Facts just don't matter when you have ideology on your side.

Now, I have always admitted I am not an expert on wireless tower infrastructure (the tiny bit of the report that seems to have been raised as a matter of national significance by crakar et al), so I have NEVER commented on the accuracy of the report (go back and check if you like). The report doesn't provide references for its claims, so I can't check them. Some people here seem to think that the claim is incorrect - and they may well be right. But then, there is some evidence from my reading that there may be some basis - albeit very minor - to claim it is correct.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. It appears to be the claim of people like crakar that this error (if that's what it is) is enough to label the whole report as 'crap' and 'propergander' (in crakar's unique way of spelling), but I would probably caution everyone - particularly crakar - for labelling a 70 page document as 'crap' based on a single small error. If that has become the standard that crakar is going to use from now on, then EVERYTHING he says, and EVERYTHING that he links to from the deniersphere must similarly be labelled as crap and propaganda (note spelling there crakar!) if it contains a single error - and they all contain multiple errors that are easy to find.

Which brings me, once again, to the issue of hypocrisy. There is his obvious hypocrisy in not condemning Wegmann for plagiarism, despite his demands that we do likewise to Trenberth (who was later exonerated). I said at the time that ANYONE who commits plagiarism should be condemned for it, and everyone here who has a science education would concur. Plagiarism is a sin right up there with fabricating data and lying, and there isn't a single scientist or academic that would tolerate them. It should not take me (or anyone else) having to jump through 20 hoops before crakar deigned to respond to my request that he be consistent and condemn plagiarism. The case against Wegmann has beenn proven, and no-one denies that there is plagiarism in the report. It should automatically follow that he be criticised for the act or ommission. The fact that crakar (and people like watts) refuse to do so speak volumes for their lack of integrity.

Crakar like to call himself a sceptic, but he isn't. He accuses us of swallowing warmist propaganda hook line and sinker, but he is, as usual, wrong.

A sceptic is someone who does not take anything at face value, and who demands evidence before accepting the claims of others. Crakar and the deniersphere do not meet this simple criteria. They refuse to accept evidence if they don't like it, and they NEVER critically judge anything that their own side says. This is the issue here. If crakar gave even a fraction of the effort that he gave to being a denier, to critically examining denier pieces and to actually reading the reports and papers that he rants about BEFORE he goes off on his rant, then he might actually develop a level of credibility and integrity worthy of an intellectual debate.

But he won't. Because he knows, as do we all, that if denialist arguments are subject to even a modicum of critical review, they all come tumbling down like the house of cards they actually are. And that would destroy the fragile egoes of those whose whole worldviews are based on ideology, and not reason.

And while crakar's lack of integrity is bad enough, I happen to think that snowman is far worse. At least crakar is at least making an effort to look at some science issues - flawed though his approach may be. Snowman's entire contribution to the discussion consists of nothing more than personal attacks.

Seeing as they both follow football, it makes a perfect analogy. Crakar is a player in a very bad team. They have never scored a goal, and they have lost every match they have played. And snowman is one of their supporters. He turns up to the occasional game, and yells abuse at the referee and the opposing team. He has no capacity to play - so he lives his life vicariously through players such as crakar and Dick. While other supporters cheer on the David Beckhams of the world, snowman takes a perverse pleasure in wishing he could be a bad player in the fourth division. The Premier League is just too tough for him.

Your right, it does not matter to you whether a document is correct or not. You have been clear about that from the beginning. --Vernon

A lie.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/gmuniversity_investigatin…

Quoting directly, Vernon--the question you dodged:

Let me ask *you* [Vernon] a question: To what extent is the Wegman report a threat to the overall theory of AGW?

Posted by: skip | February 21, 2011 4:21 PM

You never responded, Vernon. We both of course know why, but I really want to see how you try to worm out of it this time. Last time you just faded away for several weeks.

I invite you, Vernon, to explore this issue with me further on the GMU thread that I just linked.

As for R. Wakefield, I confess to not being able to locate our exchange at the moment, but you definitely chimed in and I wanted to hear your assessment of the man's overall argument. I admit under the circumstances I have to table that for the moment . . .

Skip,

The main point of AGW is that the current warming is exceptional. The only proof of that at the time was Mann's Hockey Stick which was promoted extensively in the TAR. Wegman confirmed what MM had found, that Mann's findings, that the current warming was the results of bad statistics.

I pointed out that Cracker was wrong, but the claim in the report was wrong too. You are the one that said it did not matter.

"...the results of bad statistics..."

How bad can it get? What M1 "found" was that if you set up a sub-routine to rank your results in a certain way, then run *another* one to pick off the Top 100 from your hit parade, you finish up with what you wanted.

A neat package excluding all that messy statistical stuff needing analysis. No need to work out anything. Just pretend that the results of your nifty footwork are the results of the original process. Ignore the 9,900 other results and don't tell anyone about them.

Only the sharp eyes of someone actually knowledgeable applied skill and intelligence to the material and then informed the rest of the world. Too late for Wegman and North, though.

This item http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-… is worth a thorough read. The important (staggering) part is in the middle of it so I'll quote it now -

"... the astonishing fact that this special collection of âhockey sticksâ is not a random sample of the 10,000 pseudo-proxy PC1s originally produced in the GRL study. Rather it expressly contains the very top 100 â one percent â having the most pronounced upward blade...â

This was all Mr McIntyre's work. Just like Wegman, I rather fancy that M2 simply accepted this work because it was what he expected. Big mistake.

The depth of the "hockey stick" they got was also much lower than the one seen from actual data, therefore it would prove that the upward trend shown by Mann's graph is not an artifact of noise but a genuine phenomena.

That isn't seen by denialists, though: it goes against their beliefs.

Also note that Wegman's report used a method NOBODY ELSE USES. Therefore, if any form of conclusion can be drawn from it (not possible as adelady shows above), it's that Mann was right not to use the method Wegman did.

"Wow,

I am guessing that you know nothing about RF propagation."

And, like with all your other statements, you guess wrong.

"If you cannot understand why the statement as made that wireless is temperature dependent is wrong"

I note that all you have is "it's wrong" to comprehend.

So what happened to: "Wifi is more absorbed by water than wireless frequencies but still are too low for there to be much impacted." ?

I guess you're just wrong. Though since you said that it's wrong but also said that it's right, I guess you must be two people using the same login.

Vernon:

Since you did not answer it--again--I'm going to ask it again, and I invite you to respond on the GMU thread.

Let me ask *you* [Vernon] a question: To what extent is the Wegman report a threat to the overall theory of AGW?

Which leads us to your evasive response:

The only proof ["the current warming is exceptional"] at the time was Mann's Hockey Stick which was promoted extensively in the TAR. --Vernon

Outrageous. Mann's reconstruction was simply one of the first attempts to systematically document temperature rises. Which leads us to this:

Wegman confirmed what MM had found, that Mann's findings, that the current warming was the results of bad statistics.

Pure, unmitigated, absolutely brazen and outrageous horse *shit*, Vernon. Total bullshit. The warming was absolutely and unequivocally real, despite Mann's *slight* methodological flaw. You know this, have been told this multiple times, and now you're just in pure bullshit mode.

You are the one that said [the report cited by Crakar] did not matter.

I said I did not *care* if the report was wrong about the impact of AGW on electronic services, Vernon! I'd never even heard of the sumbitch until Crakar presented it as proof of the absurdity of the AGW "church". I don't care if my goddam cell phone doesn't work if my kids inherit a world where Pakistan and India are nuking each other over rice! My response to this whole dumbshit issue is exactly as it was in post 26.

Skip,

Sorry for the typo, it should have said "that the current warming was exceptional was the results of bad statistics." Now, you want to retract your name calling, or do you never make mistakes when typing?

I have answered several times. If you want to discuss Wegman, then my answer is what he showed was that Mann used bad statistical methods which did not support his findings which was what North agreed to. The impact, as I will say again, was that prior to Mann 98, there was nothing showing that the present warming was exceptional. Say what you want but the creator of the methodology that Mann was trying to use says he did not use it properly.

In order to put this issue to bed i give you two links

http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/gases.htm

http://www.spectracomcorp.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.as…

Both these links clearly show that wireless which operates below 2GHz or WIFI which operates at 2.4GHz will not be affected by water/humidity/temp.

Please read these links and try to understand that the UK report is flat out wrong.

Any questions?

I have one.

When are you going to condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Mandas,

This is how it normally works, when people debate an issue they debate it until they reach a common ground. In this case i have made the claim that a UK report is wrong and i have supplied evidence to support my claim, latest being the links above.

1) You now have to state if you accept the evidence i have presented and agree the report is wrong *or* you can state you support the UK report and explain why my evidence does not suffice.

You cannot introduce any debating point and hold me to ransom by not stating your position on the UK report and yet at the same time demand me to begin debating another issue.

What you need to do is know follow the steps in 1), once this has been done we can move onto another issue if you do wish to move on that is.

crakar

I have already answered your question on multiple occasions. Scroll up and read post #165 for the first time.

So I guess we can now move on.

Why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism? Why won't you stop being a hypocrite and show some integrity and do what you demanded skip and I do to Trenberth? Why won't you reject academic fraud? It should not need me to do anything first - even though I have already done so. Plagiarism is fraud, pure and simple. I condemn it - and said so at the time that you demanded I condemn Trenberth for it. Every scientist and academic in the world condemns it. It will get you dismissed from an undergraduate course at university.

Wegmann is guilty of it, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

So, I ask again, why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

It appears that Vernon is blind to adelady's posts (#163 & #168), I'm sure he won't be rude enough to ignore them.

cracker-ass won't attack wegman since this would undermine the consensus that AGW is false. Since all they have is the assertion and that they themselves trumpet every single smidgeon of disagreement in the scientific consensus as "proof" that it doesn't exist, they CANNOT afford the least bit of disagreement to appear.

Their stance against AGW being based upon nothing more than appearances DEMANDS they appear solid and therefore will never even hint at any problems in their denial in-group.

Vernon too continues to try to drag this off topic so that the problems in the denial industry can be forgotten in the noise.

"I have answered several times. If you want to discuss Wegman, then my answer is what he showed was that Mann used bad statistical methods which did not support his findings"

This is a lie.

Wegman used a method that NOBODY ELSE USES. All his report did was prove that the analysis method Wegman used was no good.

Mann didn't use bad statistical methods since other methods with more rigour gave the same answers.

There were better answers, but it's no more wrong for Mann to use the PCA he did than for someone to use newtonian gravitational theory to describe how masses move in a solar system.

McIntyre's analysis, however, WAS flawed. He thinned down his sample to less than half a dozen specimens.

But, predictably for a denialist, Vernon ignores the bad statistics on the denialist side to continue to hold up the facade of his beliefs.

response to post 165,

Mandas states

" We all (well, those of us who have actually bothered to read the original report - which still does not include crakar) realise wi-fi is not mentioned in the report at all, and the only mention of wireless infrastructure is a couple of dot points in a single row of a single table on one page of a 70 page report."

Here Mandas shows his incompetence, he thinks "wireless" is not "WIFI" and yet not once does the moron give a definition of what he deems wireless to be. The poor simple fool really has no idea, so what is "wireless then you simple moron?

Is it things that dont have wires? What is it oh great one?

Then we have this gem

"Now, I have always admitted I am not an expert on wireless tower infrastructure (the tiny bit of the report that seems to have been raised as a matter of national significance by crakar et al), so I have NEVER commented on the accuracy of the report (go back and check if you like). The report doesn't provide references for its claims, so I can't check them. Some people here seem to think that the claim is incorrect - and they may well be right. But then, there is some evidence from my reading that there may be some basis - albeit very minor - to claim it is correct."

So you have no idea which is why i call you a simpleton, but yet you fill this site with all the bluster and bullshit no sane rational man could muster. In the end everything you have said is based on.............well crap?

Once the (bull) dust has settled you have failed to state with any clarity whether you accept the statement that wiresless (whatever your definition of wireless is) will be degraded by the onset of AGW. And that Mandas is where you have failed.

The rest of your post is usual tripe, some stupid soccer analogy. I follow West Hampton who are crap and Snowman follows Chelsea who are quite strong so i dont understand what the hell you are talking about.

To be honest if we use the boxing analogy i would imagagine snowman taking on both Skip and Mandas at once, it would be like watching Steve Austin take on a couple of midgets. Steve would not even break a sweat as he kicks there arse.

This is what i see here Snowman arrives unexpected kicks your arse, you and Skip get all huffy and puffy, feathers flare, nostrils snort and then.................and then nothing Snowman is gone, like the Phantom the ghost who walks. Here today gone tomorrow, my only regret is he never hangs around long enough for the knockout blow.

But alas i am just crakar snowman has his reasons for elongating your pain i am sure he has his reasons maybe it is just a game to him? Whatever it is i really enjoy watching him bely the living shit out of you both.

So fo rthe last time Mandas do you agree with the UK report re "wireless" performance?

YES or NO

Come on big boy you can answer the question..YES OR NO.

Wow:

I also appreciated Ad's link to Deep Climate but because I have not--and never claimed to have--but vaguely understood the statistics behind these random "noise" replications I won't comment.

it should have said "that the current warming was exceptional was the results of bad statistics." --Vernon

Which goes *right* back to the original question, which you are dodging. You have *not* answered it several times. You have used evasion and vague wording to try to let *Mann's* minor mistake seem in your own mind and hopefully to anyone else's as *a mistake with the theory of AGW*.

You know what you're doing in this project of obfuscation, and its just a lie in dinner dress. We indeed have a "name" for people who engage in that behavior (lying), and while I have not called you that name directly yet, if I ever do there will be no retraction.

To wit:

Wegman . . . showed . .. that Mann used bad statistical methods which did not support his findings which was what North agreed to . . .

is *not*--repeat, *not* an answer to:

To what extent is the Wegman report a threat to the overall theory of AGW?

We both know why you won't answer, Vernon. Because the honest answer is, "Nothing. The Wegman report does not threaten the overall theory of AGW *at all*."

You know this as we as I do.

And as for you, Crakar: If you and Mandas want to pursue this issue for which I have never cared a thing, have at it.

But you know why Snowman vanished: I called him out as a coward and a liar, correctly predicted that he would not answer a direct question, and he pissed himself and ran.

He uses you, Crakar. He has no concern for the quality of your arguments or your character. He just wants to see some other illiterate be the goat and bog down this forum.

Snowman gets bored so he comes here and rattles your cage, he may be here but a short time but ut takes you a week to get over it.

As for using me dont be a fool Skip, and bogging down of this site dont make me laugh. This site is dead most of the time. You Mandas and wow and his tin can antenna and lets not forget "i know all there is about sound waves Simmons" patrol this site with more gusto than the Russian front.

You and your cronies stifle the debate, the poor bastards that stry too close to here never come back. You lot have your own back slapping echo chamber. The real debate is going on out there in the real world while you sit here and hid.

snowman's a troll, cracker. As are you.

clueless too, but so full of yourself, you HAVE to go and pretend that you're an expert.

But an expert in radio waves who thinks that tapping on a goldfish bowl will work in place of an antenna...

But, as predicted, cracker-ass cannot and will not take any denialist to task. all they have is bluster and lies and as soon as they start acting skeptically of each other, they will lose because whilst AGW has facts on its side, denial of it only has dogma.

"I also appreciated Ad's link to Deep Climate but because I have not--and never claimed to have--but vaguely understood the statistics behind these random "noise" replications I won't comment."

mandas, none of the denilerati who proclaim that they themselves have done the test and found that the hockey stick is an artefact of random noise have ever understood what was going on.

This has never stopped them.

Not understanding hasn't stopped cracker or vernon expounding at great length on any subject they can parrot.

It's why the denialists are more successful in media studies, where as long as you BS hard enough, the audience hasn't a chance of catching you out.

It's only when they have to back their statements up they fall far short.

Heck, the denialists who insist that the hockey stick is just random noise don't even understand what "pink noise" is. It is, to them, just the term that was used to describe what someone else did. So they pretend they did it too.

It is the genuine skeptics like yourself who won't propound on a subject they don't understand without stating the caveat of their neophyte status. And the denialists don't care: any lie that supports their goal is morally mandated.

"So fo rthe last time Mandas do you agree with the UK report re "wireless" performance?"

I'll answer:

YES.

You see, unlike you, I read the report. The infrastructure WILL be affected by climate change.

But do I agree with your parody of it?

NO.

So, with that out the way, what about wegman, huh?

Credit where credit is due Wow, you stand by your beliefs no matter what the cost unlike Mandas who dodges and weaves.

I have shown you beyond any shadow of a doubt that temp and water vapour will have no affect on a signal at the low feqs used for wireless but yet you still beleive.

I cannot help someone as stupid as you, someone who puts a metal cage around an antenna and expects it to work is as stupid as they come. But still credit to you wow.

I would ask you to justify why you think the UK report is correct but you are too stupid to mount a logical defence.

I await Mandas to give me an answer although i know he never will.

"unlike Mandas who dodges and weaves."

So when did you answer mandas' question, cracker-ass?

Or is that not dodging and weaving?

Pathetic.

Someone as dumb as you who creates radio waves by tapping on a goldfish bowl has no clue about radio waves. And as to that metal cage thing, here's something you didn't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect

A radio engineer would have known about it, but you just play one on the internet.

Plus the report doesn't say that the wireless network will be affected by climate change putting metal cages around the antennae either, so your primary idiocy is still in full effect.

But you keep playing a smart person on the internet and dodging and weaving any questions asked of you.

It's all you have.

This is as bad as your tin antenna WOW, look at the frequencies thay are talking about you idiot, they are talking about current and voltage of AC power.

This has nothing to do with "wireless" what spastic you are Wow.

The reason why your tin can antenna was a joke is because the tin can was connected to the antenna you........words fail me to describe just how stupid you look.

This does not even make sense "Plus the report doesn't say that the wireless network will be affected by climate change putting metal cages around the antenna either, so your primary idiocy is still in full effect."

IDIOT.....................

Still unable to answer questions, cracker-ass.

You haven't even been able to show you've stopped making stuff up. "AGW will put all the wireless transmitters in metal cages!" Ha! You certainly have a Walter-Mitty imagination.

Pity it gets in the way of any actual research.

I guess that's why you pretend to be a radio engineer. Much more interesting than your real life.

Here's something else a radio engineer would know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide

And a can has an open end when you've emptied the contents.

Seems cracker can't even feed himself!

I hope that mandas and skip can see the evidence that cracker is not a radio engineer and his credentials are completely made up.

It's either that or his need to be right At All Costs means he'll ignore any education he's made just so he can pretend he was never wrong.

Either of which means that there is no ability, training or learning driving cracker-ass's expositions.

He's no radio engineer. Proved over multitudinous posts.

cracker is not a radio engineer and his credentials are completely made up.

It might well be.

I am in no position to know, and in less of a frame of mind to care.

It is enough that I know he is:

(a) a proven plagiarist of nonsense, demonstrating his blind belief in any argument, no matter how stupid, that he thinks disproves AGW;

(b) an illiterate who reads nothing and routinely composes his posts at a sub-middle school level of competence;

(c) a mindless, raving bigot;

(d) in all of the above and other regards a perfect demonstration of the ignorance and dimness required to deny the overwhelming science of anthropogenic global warming.

If he also happens to be technically incompetent in some other arena it will come as no surprise of course but of no additional damage to his credibility. That is impossible.

"I have shown you beyond any shadow of a doubt that temp and water vapour will have no affect on a signal at the low feqs used for wireless but yet you still beleive."

Possibly, I've not read enough to be sure. But what you haven't done is prove wireless infrastructure WILL be affected by climate change.

I doubt you notice there's a difference between the two statements.

crakar

When are you going to demonstrate some integrity and stop being a hypocrite? Why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Skip,

While it is standard here to keep moving the goal posts during discussions. I know you are not going to get this, but for the last time. AGW became something that had to be dealt with immediately because the current warming was unlike any warming in the last 1000 years. Wegman found that Mann did not use the statistics correctly. North and his panel agreed with Wegman and concluded that Mann's claims about the last 1000 years was not supported. That is the impact of the Wegman report. As to the paper that was retracted due to possible plagiarism, that has no impact on what was present at congresses request and I am sure the if the claim proves to be true, then the proper action will be taken.

The theory of AGW... which one, the one that says man is part of the biosphere and that the biosphere has impacts on climate or the unsupported one where CO2 is the driving engine of climate change? The first I agree to, no question. The second, not so much.

So, the reason the Hockey stick was so important was not that it had the instrumented temperatures grafted on the end, but rather that the handle reduced "temperature" in the past.

Vernon:

AGW became something that had to be dealt with immediately because the current warming was unlike any warming in the last 1000 years.

An exaggeration, a diversion, and a separate subject.

Wegman found that Mann did not use the statistics correctly.

Agreed.

North and his panel agreed with Wegman and concluded that Mann's claims about the last 1000 years was not supported.

Got you. This is where you try to sneak your obfuscations in every time, Vernon. Every single time.

Which "claims", Vernon?

This is what you do all the time: worm around a word like "findings" or "claims" and hope no one notices.

I'll ask the question *yet again*, Vernon, and I will watch with relish as you dodge it:

To what extent is the Wegman report a threat to the overall theory of AGW?

I'll ask it another way:

If we throw out the Mann study, what happens to the overall theory of AGW?

I am not asking whether Mann used a faulty statistic. I am not asking if North agreed that Mann used a faulty statistic. So don't divert with that.

Answer the question(s), Vernon.

As crakar has been unable to show that he knows the difference between a radio wave and a sound wave, I too have come to the conclusion that he is no expert on radio. It's comparable with a vet being unable to distinguish between a hot dog and a sausage dog. At best, he is possibly someone who solders wires together under the direction of someone more knowledgeable.

I don't know if his habitual avoidance of answering questions, either by ignoring them or by making up nonsensical 'quotes' that people did not actually write, is deliberate or just sloppy thinking. From his writing style, I suspect a mixture of both. His bluster and hurling of insults is probably something that he has found works in a face-to-face situation and expects to work here.

Personally, I don't think he or his 'ideas' are worth any more attention.

Vernon - are you a bot? I noted before (177) that you have studiously avoided adelady's contributions and you continue to carry on like a stuck record - Wegmann found, Mann faulty, North agreed - without going in to the substance of these claims at all.

Do you have nothing to say on Wegmann using the exact same method to cherry-pick red noise hockeysticks that McIntyre used? (I'll be charitable here and say M&M used 'faulty' statistics in their ARIFA work). Did North know this when he agreed?

"....Wegman found that Mann did not use the statistics correctly. North and his panel agreed with Wegman and concluded that Mann's claims about the last 1000 years was not supported. That is the impact of the Wegman report...."

Ummm,no. Wegmann 'found' no such thing, because Wegmann found nothing. The Wegmann report was simply a political document which had used other sources (ie plagiarised) as the basis for its claims. And while some claim - with minor justification - that Mann's method could have been improved, his findings have not been seriously challenged.

"....As to the paper that was retracted due to possible plagiarism, that has no impact on what was present at congresses request...."

It is not POSSIBLE plagiarism, it is DEFINITE plagiarism. The paper has been withdrawn from publication, and no-one disagrees that sections of it have been plagiarised from other sources, including wikipedia of all places. You might claim that it was sloppy work rather than deliberate fraud, but that is no excuse. It is plagiarism, pure and simple.

"...and I am sure the if the claim proves to be true, then the proper action will be taken...."

The claim IS true, and it has been withdrawn from publication because of it. As far as any other action goes, it would appear that deniers around the world are equivocating and making hypocritical excuses. Just look at the actions of wattsupmybutt - and closer to home, vernon and crakar. Why won't you people act with some integrity, and condemn it in exactly the same way that you demanded we condemn Trenberth for the same crime? The only difference is Trenberth was exonerated, and Wegmann will not be.

"....The theory of AGW... which one, the one that says man is part of the biosphere and that the biosphere has impacts on climate or the unsupported one where CO2 is the driving engine of climate change? The first I agree to, no question. The second, not so much...."

I would be really interested to know the basis for which you doubt the physical principal of CO2 being a driver of climate. It isn't a theory - it is a well known physical law, and has been for over a century. But not withstanding that, please tell us Vernon, what level of expertise do you possess on the subject to doubt the science? Are you a physicist? Climate scientist? Oceanographer? Atmospheric scientist? Do you possess any qualifications in science at all?

This is important so we all know the basis for your claims. On what grounds do you doubt the overwhelming evidence and research of thousands of experts, every climate research organisation in the world, every scientific body in the world, and every university in the world? You must have a pretty strong basis for your views. What are they?

Vernon tells us:
"North and his panel agreed with Wegman and concluded that Mann's claims about the last 1000 years was not supported."

From the North report:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that âthe 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millenniumâ because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."

No contradiction with MBH98, and the main contradiction with MBH99 is the conclusion on short periods of time (decade + 1998 as warmest year), but not with the conclusion that the last few decades were warmer than any comparable time period in the past.

You people are funny, in your wisdom i know nothing about a particular subject and yet we have Wow comparing radio propagation to the skin affect of AC voltage on transmissions. He thinks he can put a tin can around an antenna wire to boost his reception and of course we have RS who claims he is the burning bush when it comes to sound waves but has know knowledge of the generation, modulation, transmission and demodulation of said waves, best rest assured he knows all there is to know.

I have shown you the calculations for atmospheric propagation, i have shown you the losses of frequencies due to rain this proves that the UK report is false when they claim AGW will make wireless sub optimal.

I have told you (do a google search if you dont believe me) that fibre will not be affected by AGW, modern copper cabling and the pits would need to experience biblical flooding before any effects are seen and the towers will not fall over in a hurry so all in all the report is crap.

But ah no you all are the experts and not i LOFAO.

post 191,

Skip said,

(a) a proven plagiarist of nonsense, demonstrating his blind belief in any argument, no matter how stupid, that he thinks disproves AGW;

Proven? as for the rest its hard to pass judgment as he never adds anything to a debate he just snipes from the edges.

(b) an illiterate who reads nothing and routinely composes his posts at a sub-middle school level of competence;

This is an interesting statement, what Skip is really saying here is that as his knowledge base is but empty the only way he can contribute is by commenting on peoples typing. This way he attempts to show that if ones typing skills are inferior to him then he must be inteelectually far superior but as snowman has pointed out various times Skip spends his life hiding in an obscure university in the back blocks of nowhere hidden away from the harsh light of reality.............reminds me of Mandas.

(c) a mindless, raving bigot;

I mindless raving bigot? whilst the american indians live a life of alcoholic stupor with their lands and dignity stripped from them.

As afro americans continue to struggle to be treated as equals after suffering many years of barbaric slavery.

I mindless raving bigot, whilst the people of vietnem still endure the suffering from agent orange which the american government refuse to pay compensation for.

I mindless raving bigot whilst the americans have effetively torn up every human rights treaty they have ever signed by detaining and torturing men, women and children whom will never have their day in court.

I mindless raving bigot whilst the americans drop cluster bombs, white phosphur weapons and depleted uranium weapons, all banned by the geneva convention on innocent people.

This just the high points, i could go on and on however this proves the point Skip that you and your government are the racists and the bigots.

(d) in all of the above and other regards a perfect demonstration of the ignorance and dimness required to deny the overwhelming science of anthropogenic global warming.

Tell me Skip of all the computer modelled predictions made by the IPCC and associated scientific leaches, which of those have actually come to fruition? I believe you are the dim witted one here.

On another note i see Israel has told the world to fuck off again this time over the issue of returning to the 1967 borders. The americans of course supported Israel on this issue, which raises a question, do you think it is time BO gave his peace prize back?

Gentlemen, despite having visited this blog before, I have not, until now, felt the inclination to comment. However, the exchanges on this particular topic (or should I say topics? It seems to jump from one thing to another faster than a flea on a hotplate)make commenting irresistible. Talk about generating more heat than light!
Crakar starts off by attempting to rubbish a report he'd obviously not read, then, when this is pointed out, goes off on wild tangents; including fish tanks in Chinese restaurants, and drought in the Murray-Darling basin. He then brings American Indians and Agent Orange into it all. And throughout all this, he insults and abuses anyone who doesn't agree with: Cracked might be a more appropriate username.
Then, like some ghostly apparition from the past that's intended to scare children, somebody (Vernon?) brings up the hockey stick and MBH98. Dear God, has not this been done to death enough already? There have been any number of climate/temperature reconstructions using different proxies to those used by Mann in the 13 years since MBH98 and they all produce the same shape and all lead to the same conclusions; namely, that current temperatures are higher than any seen in the last 1,000 years. MBH98 may well be the data set that brought AGW to the notice of the world at large, but it is not the cornerstone of AGW and those who think it is are merely ignorant.
Reading the posts on this thread has been entertaining, but when reading those by crakar in particular, it's hard not think of the quote from Shakespeare - 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

Observe the editing of this ignoramus; it matches the quality of his ideas:

This is an interesting statement,[wrong punctuation mark] . . . the only way he can contribute is by commenting on peoples [plural instead of possessive] typing. This way he attempts to show that if ones [possessive not plural, idiot] typing skills are inferior to him then he must be inteelectually [sp] far superior . . . and on and on . . .

And it takes epic stupidity for a bigot to think his bigotry is nullified by the alleged bigotry of someone else.

Sorry Coby lets this lunatic hog the blog, rrking, but he has a very strict no-censorship policy.

And yes, Crakar is a proven plagiarist (of total stupidity), for the record.

He was even forced to admit it.

And yes I am confident that I am "inteelectually" superior to this buffoon, although it does little for my self esteem, as you might have guessed.

rrking

Nicely put. Good succinct summation of the situation.

crakar

Why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

".....his way he attempts to show that if ones typing skills are inferior to him then he must be inteelectually far superior but as snowman has pointed out various times Skip spends his life hiding in an obscure university in the back blocks of nowhere hidden away from the harsh light of reality.............reminds me of Mandas...."

Missed the mark again crakar. Skip isn't intellectually superior to you because of his typing skills. He is intellectually superior to you because you are a moron. And I don't think it's typing which is the problem with your posts crakar - its your spectacular failure to be able to compose English. Of course, this is in addition to your inability to construct a rational argument, to be able to read and understand science, your denial of everything that doesn't fit your twisted worldview, your gross hypocrisy, and even your failure to grasp the basics of subjects in which you claim expertise.

And back blocks of nowhere? Skip? Me? Did you fail geography at school as well crakar? I'm going to suggest that neither Reno nor Adelaide are in the 'back blocks of nowhere' - but keeping thinking that if you like. It's right up there with your other failings as a human being - which are extensive.

Posted by: crakar | May 21, 2011 5:37 AM

This was apparently Crakar's last post before he was raptured as per Rev. Camping's prediction of apocalypse.

Posted by: mandas | May 21, 2011 7:51 PM

I see, however, mandas, that you were not taken up into the sky to meet the Lord before the 6 PM local time cutoff.

I guess we are both stuck in our respective tribulational hells of Reno and Adelaide.

I'm heading to Reno, U.S. next month. Nice to know I'll have company. Benn tagging zombies for the CDC, they say they have something fun planned for the denialists :)

rrking,

Please, your confusing me with Skip. He keeps going back to Wegman. I posted on the misstatement in the report about temperature controlled propagation at wireless frequencies.

skip

Yeah, I'm still here. Maybe the rapture is really a scientology thing. I noticed there's another volcano erupting in Iceland. Its probably Xenu returning, not Jesus.

Skip,

I got a ticket but slept through my alarm and missed the flight, guess i am stuck here also.

RRKING,

Interesting post, agree with Vernon on the Wegman issue. What you need to understand RRKING is i am not here to talk sense into these people, as i mentioned earlier i am sitting in Nowra bored because the chopper is broken(i come from Adelaide like Mandas). I am here to rattle a few cages or stir up the natives if you like. The time of rational debate has long since passed.

What you will notice about all these posts is that most here even though they have no knowledge on a subject will read a snippet of info on wiki or similar reliable site and beleive they are experts.

Their level of arguments has now reduced to claiming the moral high ground due to their supposed firmer grasp of english. They could not care less if i am right or wrong about wireless they just simply refuse to acknowledge that i am right about something.

This is why the issue being argued jumps around because as i said the issue is not important but the argument is.

In regards to the blighted history of the USA, i bring that up because Skip claims the moral high ground on racism/bigotry unfortunately he does not see that he lives in a country that is widely condemed by the world for failings in this area.

You will notice RRKING that anyone who wonders in here by accident gets the same treated that Vernon, Snowman or myself are subjected to. They do not treat me any different to anybody else but i hang around and piss them off.

You are right we have gone off topic so i offer you a chance to correct this problem, do you accept the UK report or do you think their claims about wireless becoming sub optimal are false?

crakar

"....The time of rational debate has long since passed...."

Ahhh - now I understand. So that's why everything you say is completely irrational.

By the way, why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

still waiting for you to either agree or disagree with the UK report which claims *wireless* (whatever your definition of that is) will become suboptimal in a post AGW induced world.

Not an excuse crakar, and you know it. I've already responded to that question, and all your others. I even pulled apart your trolled opinion of the MDB study. Who gave you that opinion by the way? We all know you didn't think it up by yourself, because we know that:

1 - someone had to direct you to the study, because you don't read journals.

2 - you didn't read the study before going off on one of your usual, deluded rants.

So - where did you troll that opinion from, and why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Please forgive me Mandas i must have missed the post where you stated your position on the UK report, be a dear and repost it again.

TIA

Crakar

".....Please forgive me Mandas i must have missed the post where you stated your position on the UK report, be a dear and repost it again....."

Do you want me to repost it again, which would mean I posted it three times? Better use of language would be to ask me to repost it, or to post it again.

But then, its still here for you to read. All you have to do is scroll up.

Now, why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

I am here to rattle a few cages or stir up the natives if you like. The time of rational debate has long since passed.

Only in the mind of an illiterate, ignorant, bigoted, proven plagiarist--and now fully admitted and boasting troll.

Coby: Please for the love of God . . . create a thread called "The Crakar Box", where Crakar's highlight reel of stupidity can be documented and immortalized, and just deny him any more access.

If he tries to sneak in under a new ID, the misspellings and sub-primate chains of inference will instantly flag him.

Why would i want to sneak in under a new ID, What would be the purpose of that you idiot.

Skip you have been reduced to nothing more than an annoying noise in the back ground, i think Snowman must take full credit for this.

I cant be bothered looking Mandas so just re post it again.

"....I cant be bothered looking Mandas so just re post it again...."

Crakar's philosphy of life encapsulated in a few words. He can't be bothered reading the reports he criticises, so he just trolls the opinions of others. He can't be bothered to read my opinion on the issue; he would just rather criticise me even though he has no idea what my opinion is.

Likewise crakar, I can't be bothered to help you out.

Speaking of which, given that it is pointless trying to reason with you or provide you with the facts of an issue, in future could you please let us know where you troll your opinions from so we can have a debate with the person who's opinions they really are, rather than just the mindless troll who's only contribution to this forum is to cut and paste denialist dogma from elsewhere. It will be far more fruitful to engage with the source, rather than just the messenger boy.

How about you start by letting us all know where you trolled your opinion on the MDB study from, and where you trolled your opinion on the UK Government study.

And why won't you condemn Wegmann for palgiarism? I am pretty confident the answer is because you are a hypocrite - but maybe you can prove me wrong (even though you have never been able to do so in the past).

Why would i [not capped] want to sneak in under a new ID,[wrong punctuation mark] What would be the purpose of that[missing comma] you idiot.

Every time you post you do more damage to yourself than my sharpest barbs.

Skip,

This is a sad day, the once almighty Skip reduced to correcting his opponents grammar.

Mandas,

Looks like you are feeling the strain like Skip. Does it matter where i get my info from?

You either agree or not with what i said about the MDB, where i found the study is irrelevant.

crakar

If you had read my response, you will know that it is not whether or not I agree with you re the MDB report - what you said was flat out wrong as usual. But that is no surprise, because it is obvious that you didn't read the report before you mindlessly trolled the opinion of someone else and pasted their comments here.

That's why it is important that you tell us all the source of your trolling. It's pointless discussing the issue with you, because you don't understand what you are discussing. You are ignorant of science, and the opinions we are discussing are not your own.

It's also a fundamental principle of academic and scientific discourse to reference your sources so people can check them for accuracy. I guess that's why you won't condemn Wegmann for plagiarism, because without plagiarism you might have to think for yourself and formulate an opinion of your own. And that may require that you do something you are incapable of - reading and analysing science.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a parrot. All you do is repeat the phrases that someone else has already said. And I would much rather point out the errors to the original author than to a galah.

so, cracker, ass, still avoiding the questions?

Still following the M.O of the denialist I detailed earlier?

Shame.

Cracker-ass only has denial to live with now, truth is against him.

And mandas, he gets most of it from Montford, Watts and McIntyre. He's dropped of Spencer since he insisted that CO2 was still able to heat the atmosphere.

"While it is standard here to keep moving the goal posts during discussions."

You and cracker's MO depend on it, Vern.

Why are you complaining?

"Wegman found that Mann did not use the statistics correctly."

False. Twice over.

1) Wegman used a stats analysis that NOBODY ELSE USED. He then proved that this analysis was wrong. All wegman managed was to prove he had crap analytical skills.

2) the analysis wasn't the best possible, but changing for an even more complex and optimal one didn't change the results. Mann's stats was even less of a difference of using a Normal distribution rather than a Student's-t distribution in a set size of 1,000.

3) Not using the best possible analysis IS NOT doing the analysis incorrectly.

4) The Hockey stick and the analysis is corroborated with later studies, with and without the bristle pine cone data from the northern temperate latitudes.

"North and his panel agreed with Wegman and concluded that Mann's claims about the last 1000 years was not supported."

False. North agreed that a better statistical method was available. THAT WAS ALL.

"Wow comparing radio propagation to the skin affect of AC voltage on transmissions."

This is how cracker-ass works. Richard noted it earlier.

No, skin effect is rather important when it comes to cutting off an EM signal to an antenna.

But any electrical engineer would know this. Cracker-ass not knowing it is proving himself no engineer, but a pathological liar.

So, cracker-ass, what about that wegman report, huh?

wow

"....And mandas, he gets most of it from Montford, Watts and McIntyre. He's dropped of Spencer since he insisted that CO2 was still able to heat the atmosphere...."

Yeah, I know some of crakar's sources, because when he posts "his" opinions on a paper, I use some of the key phrases in a google search and it often leads me right to the person who originally made them. But I want HIM to say who they are. You know; provide references for the source material, exactly like every scientist, academic and writer is supposed to do.

Everyone knows he doesn't find the papers or opinions he links to by himself. It works like this:
1 - Scientist writes paper, and it get published in a journal.
2 - A press release is issued by the journal, and it is picked up by a newspaper journalist who then relies on the press release to write an opinion on the paper, without bothering to read the original paper.
3 - A denialist reads the newspaper article and twists the story to suit his/her own ideological position. The denialist then writes a rant on her website, calling the paper "crap" or "propaganda". The denialist of course, has never read the paper and has no real idea what is in it, other than the story he/she has read in the on-line newspaper.
4 - Crakar sees the rant on the denialist site, and thinks that it is more conclusive proof that he is right and all the scientists in the world are wrong / lying / deluded / part of a conspiracy.
5 - Crakar cuts sections from the opinion section of the denialist website, and posts them here - passing them off as his own analysis. However, just like the original reporter, the denialist blogger and all his readers, crakar has also not read the original paper.

And I wonder why he won't condemn Wegmann for plagiarism? Silly me. Crakar won't condemn plagiarism because that is all he has. If he was to condemn it, he would not have an opinion to call his own.

And the only learning to come out of this entire thread is:
It can take as much as a week to fix a broken chopper . . .

Yeah, yeah . . .

Don't pout that the party is boring just because no one's dancing with your ugly ass.

As debates about whether or not global warming is actually happening I figure this is the best time to actually figure what global warming is and hopefully get some of my questions answered. I already know by the term alone that global warming is the earth warming. I guess my main question is about the CO2 gas. Does the CO2 gas trap the heat so it can't escape the earth's atmosphere and that is how the earth is warming? If this is happening wouldn't the CO2 make it so the sun's heat doesn't get past the atmosphere in the first place making the earth not heat?.

Hi Kiana,

There are a tremendous number of resources available to you with various levels of technical details and you've come to a good place to find a reference suitable for your level of knowledge. Could you describe your scientific background a bit?

Regarding your question, the energy from the sun is mostly in the ultraviolet portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. When it hits the earth it heats up the ground, water, etc. These then release the energy as infrared radiation. CO2 absorbs in the infrared portion of the spectrum, but not ultraviolet.

More simply, CO2 is transparent to the radiation that comes from the sun but not to radiation from the Earth.

The cliff notes version is that the sun radiates above 1um where the gasses are almost entirely transparent, though the solids (e.g. ground) aren't, and the earth radiates below 5um where the gasses in the atmosphere are opaque.

You can't see through your bones with eyesight (visible light), but you CAN see through them with X-Rays.

@mandas
Yes, I have done my research and read the post before you made the comment. By the way, can you show me a place on that chart where you found CO2 causing temperature rise? Show me just one place on that chart. There is not any. I just don't believe anything interpreted by "climate scientists", when they show me a chart. I have one brain of my own.

Meghal Jani boasted:

I have one brain of my own.

Then why don't you use it?

Climate is controlled by what are termed "forcings". When these forcings change equilibrium conditions are knocked out of balance and certain parameters change so that equilibrium can be restored. During ice ages the primary "forcing" is solar insolation changes due to Milankovitch cycles. This results in a change in temperature. Over a long period of time changes (increases) in the temperature of the oceans cause dissolved carbon dioxide to come out of solution, thus the atmospheric concentration will increase.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide cause further increases in temperature because it is a green house gas. Under these conditions carbon dioxide acts as a "feedback" not a "forcing". What is happening now is that we are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at such a high rate that natural mechanisms cannot keep up so the concentration rises. Since it is a green house gas it now causes temperatures to rise but it is now acting as a "forcing" today and not a "feedback" as it did during ice ages.

Too bad you didn't spend the last 6 months reading up on climate science since you wouldn't look so stupid by asking stupid questions, the answer to which are easy to find for anyone with a functioning brain and a will to learn. Appears you fail on both accounts.

Meghal (the troll)

"...Yes, I have done my research...."

Into what?

"..... and read the post before you made the comment...."

What post?

"....By the way, can you show me a place on that chart where you found CO2 causing temperature rise?..."

Charts don't show that CO2 causes temperature rise. That is shown by physical laws.

"...Show me just one place on that chart...."

Which chart?

"....I just don't believe anything interpreted by "climate scientists"....".

What you believe is immaterial, and does not change facts. Climate change isn't like Tinkerbell, and will not go away just because you choose not to believe in it.

"...I have one brain of my own...."

Did you buy it from the butcher? Perhaps if you sauteed it and served it on toast you might make a decent meal out of it. You certaintly aren't using it for thinking. Here's a nice recipe for you:
http://www.grouprecipes.com/3181/sauteed-brains-on-toast.html

"Show me just one place on that chart. There is not any"

Because it isn't that chart that shows CO2 causes warming.

Here's a link to what you need:

www.rahulgladwin.com/docs/ece371.pdf

This shows that the excape of heat energy into the earth system is impeded, just as a blanket impedes the escape of heat from your body, making you warmer DESPITE not actually having any heating in itself.

"I just don't believe anything interpreted by "climate scientists""

Why? You seem to be happy when it's an ex TV weatherman or politician interpreting it for you.

@mandas (the moron)
"Into what?"
I have read both sides of climate research and find skeptics more convincing.

"What post?"
The post that you mentioned on May 3, 2011 10:11 PM". You put a link over there. Click on that link and find for yourself. At least I can remember your posts better that you can, may be because I have a better brain.

"Charts don't show that CO2 causes temperature rise. That is shown by physical laws."
Then why are not your physical laws not working right now?

"What you believe is immaterial, and does not change facts. Climate change isn't like Tinkerbell, and will not go away just because you choose not to believe in it."
Why whatever you believe is material? Because you think so? The world will not come to an end only because you believe in it. In last century, deaths by severe weather have gone down by at least 90%.

"Did you buy it from the butcher? Perhaps if you sauteed it and served it on toast you might make a decent meal out of it."
I will certainly like to use your brain for that recipe, because you do not need it.

@wow
This paper mentions the absorption at 1.57 micro meters for CO2. The sun light is not made of any one frequency. By the way, all gases show higher absorption at some frequency. That includes oxygen and nitrogen.

"Why? You seem to be happy when it's an ex TV weatherman or politician interpreting it for you."
You seem to be happy by the interpretation of climate scientists. If you question motives of politicians, why not climate scientists?

Before mandas et al rip into Meghal's typical contribution in the usual ways, I would like us to try to focus on his statement: "In last century, deaths by severe weather have gone down by at least 90%."

This sounds a bit surprising to me, regardless of the myriad of contributing factors that may be in play and the ambiguity of its implications. Meghal, do you have a reference for this claim that we can have a look at? Despite what you may assume, I am interested in learning new things.

Thanks.

@coby
Here is the detailed report.
http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

@Ian forester
Let's see how much brain you can use after reading these two papers.
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33750/
2) http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

and a news article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8483722.stm

These two papers nullify your arguments of climate forcings, feedback and Milankovich cycle.

"Too bad you didn't spend the last 6 months reading up on climate science since you wouldn't look so stupid by asking stupid questions, the answer to which are easy to find for anyone with a functioning brain and a will to learn. Appears you fail on both accounts."
I read climate news at least four times a week. This includes news articles and publications. If you read both sides, you might have smarter arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

Well as expected deniers like to cite rubbish. Here is a short description of the Reason Foundation:

The Reason Foundation is an American nonprofit think tank founded in 1978 that also publishes Reason magazine. Based in Los Angeles, Reason describes itself as nonpartisan and publishes a statement of values that can best be described as libertarian. It is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization that, like other think tanks, produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values. According to its web site, they are "the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies."

Why should we believe anything published by this right wing "think" tank?

I see that the author also publishes in "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" sounds impressive but is mainly junk.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/jpands.php

meghal once again shows that his brain is in unused condition.

If the site doesn't agree with you, it must be rubbish. So, I can see the same thing about the site that you like. If you have a brain, find an error in the report that I cited.

Let's see how much brain you can use after reading these two papers.
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33750/
2) http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

and a news article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8483722.stm

These two papers nullify your arguments of climate forcings, feedback and Milankovich cycle.

"Too bad you didn't spend the last 6 months reading up on climate science since you wouldn't look so stupid by asking stupid questions, the answer to which are easy to find for anyone with a functioning brain and a will to learn. Appears you fail on both accounts."
I read climate news at least four times a week. This includes news articles and publications. If you read both sides, you might have smarter arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

So, if the site contains something that you do not like, it must be rubbish according to you. I can say the same things about websites that you like. If you have a brain, find an error in the report and prove that you are not a brained-washed moron.

@Ian forester
Let's see how much brain you can use after reading these two papers.
1) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33750/
2) princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

and a news article, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8483722.stm

These two papers nullify your arguments of climate forcings, feedback and Milankovich cycle.

"Too bad you didn't spend the last 6 months reading up on climate science since you wouldn't look so stupid by asking stupid questions, the answer to which are easy to find for anyone with a functioning brain and a will to learn. Appears you fail on both accounts."
I read climate news at least four times a week. This includes news articles and publications. If you read both sides, you might have smarter arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

Don't waste my time by posting old papers from scientists who have been shown to be both wrong and dishonest.

The second paper doesn't mean anything. It is fully discussed here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-ba…

Check out their Figure 3 and you will see that the temperature sensitivity over land is unchanged from previous studies. We grow all of our agricultural crops on land and they are very vulnerable to temperature increases (as well as drought and floods). So nothing changes.

The final quote from the BBC cite says:

"We have plenty of reason to believe that the shape of the relationship may change (be nonlinear) when we 'hit the system harder'. So, I don't think they can rule out that the positive feedback from the carbon cycle could become stronger in a significantly warmer climate."

You continually use the dishonest, ignorant and arrogant tactics of every AGW denier I have encountered. Your brain still remains in "unused" condition.

Get a life, you are pathetic.

So, scientists that you do not agree with are dishonest and liars. So are yours. Now, you do not waste my time with your pathetic lies. Usual practices of alarmist liars.

meghal whined:

So, scientists that you do not agree with are dishonest and liars. So are yours. Now, you do not waste my time with your pathetic lies. Usual practices of alarmist liars.

People like Lindzen have been shown to lie, even to Congress. Their science has been shown to be shoddy by other experts in the field. Only idiots like you who are so ignorant of science can't see that.

Can you show me any examples of the climate scientists lying, and no, you can't cite a lying denier blog or right wing think tank. Go to some published work and then show me that they are lying. You can't do it because you are the one who is lying.

Why do you trust scientists who produce shoddy work and are shown to be liars then use ad hominem attacks on the respected scientists? Could it be that you are brainless, stupid, arrogant, greedy, selfish and a host of other epithets I could use to describe your despicable behaviour?

My honest comments about you are not ad hominem by the way in case that is your response to my honest description of your character as displayed by your posts on this blog.

Looks like we have unearthed one of the stupidest people yet. It looks like Dick Wakefield, Biel Roaig and crakar had a threesome, and the resulting love child is called meghal.

Letâs look at some of his ingenious posts shall we?

At post #232, on 30 November he said this:

â....@mandas
Yes, I have done my research and read the post before you made the comment...

As you might imagine, at post #234 I asked him â...what post?...â

At post #236, he responded with this:

â....The post that you mentioned on May 3, 2011 10:11 PM". You put a link over there. Click on that link and find for yourself. At least I can remember your posts better that you can, may be because I have a better brain.....â

So yeah meghal, you must have a better brain than me, but I guess mine must work a little faster than yours. I generally respond to questions and comments fairly soon after. You, on the other hand, take 6 months to respond. Did it take you 6 months to compose that drivel that you have been going on with for the past couple of days? And did you really think that â after dozens of comments on a multitude of topics in response to numerous idiots like yourself â I would really think you are special enough for me to warrant worrying if and when you would get around to thinking up a response? Never mind â you are here now, so letâs look at what you have posted shall we?

So at post #239 you proved a link which supposedly supports your argument that deaths from severe weather are decreasing. But given the source, we know we donât even need to bother looking at it. It is a advocacy based organisation, and has no scientific credibility at all. Go away and find a real report then we might discuss this further.

Then he provides two links at post #240. The first to a Lindzen paper from 1997. So once again, we can ignore this one. If you want to be relevant to this debate meghal, go away and find something slightly more up to date. 14 year old papers from discredited scientists just donât cut it â here or anywhere else for that matter (maybe at wattsupmybutt?).

Then of course, he provides a link to the recent paper from Schmitter et al on climate sensitivity from reconstructions from the last glacial maximum, and a newspaper article which discusses it. This is the funniest of the lot, because this paper has been the darling of the deniersphere recently, despite what the paper and its authors really say about the issue, and despite what every other climate scientist says about the paper. It also verifies that meghal IS the love child of Wakefield, roaig and crakar, because it shows conclusively that meghal is incapable of reading science, and must rely on the opinions of others â in this case a newspaper reporter â for his opinion on climate science.

If meghal was capable of reading and understanding science, he might have made the slightest effort to read the paper to see what it says before making a fool of himself. So letâs do that for meghal shall we. I find this quotes from the conclusion interesting:

â....To explore this, we conduct sensitivity experiments that perturb various physical and statistical assumptions (Figs. 3, S14, S15). The experiments collectively favor sensitivities between 1 and 3 K. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the analysis is sensitive to uncertainties or statistical assumptions not considered here, and the underestimated land/sea contrast in the model, which leads to the difference between land and ocean based estimates of ECS2xC, remains an important caveat.....â

â....Our uncertainty analysis is not complete and does not explicitly consider uncertainties in radiative forcing due to ice sheet extent or different vegetation distributions. Our limited model ensemble does not scan the full parameter range, neglecting, for example, possible variations in shortwave radiation due to clouds. Non-linear cloud feedbacks in different complex models make the relation between LGM and 2ÃCO2 derived climate sensitivity more ambiguous than apparent in our simplified model ensemble (27). More work, in which these and other uncertainties are considered, will be required for a more complete assessment....â

So letâs leave aside what other climate scientists say about the paper, and letâs ask meghal shall we? Ok meghal, hereâs your chance to demonstrate just how wonderful that so-called brain of yours really is. What do you think the paper is saying? What do you think those quotes mean? And why do you think it undermines the science of climate change?

And finally, letâs look at a couple more of your quotes.

At post #232, you also said this:

â....I just don't believe anything interpreted by "climate scientists", when they show me a chart....â

So if you donât believe anything interpreted by climate scientists, why do you believe the 1997 paper by Lindzen? He is a climate scientist you know. Or do you only believe things that you think support your position? And why would you believe that ONE climate scientist, while ignoring the views of hundreds of others? That's pretty hypocritical meghal, and id very poor science. When you do science, you read and absorb ALL views and papers on the subject, and come to a conclusion based on a weighing of the evidence. You - on the other hand - accept things you like and ignore things you don't. As you said yourself: "... If you read both sides, you might have smarter arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.....". Try taking a little of your own advice.

Then you said that: â....I read climate news at least four times a week...â

But do you understand what you are reading? Because from what you have said so far, it would appear not.

meghal @236:

I have read both sides of climate research and find skeptics more convincing.

Even though they ignore evidence (e.g. this) and are muddled in their explanations of where the science is wrong?

"Charts don't show that CO2 causes temperature rise. That is shown by physical laws."
Then why are not your physical laws not working right now?

Yet another denialist who does not understand basic statistics. No-one has demonstrated that current global temperatures are statistically less than would be expected if the warming trend of the past few decades had continued. They are well within the bounds of what would be expected. If you truly believe self-styled 'skeptics' are more competent or honest, point me to one who has even hinted that looking at a graph and saying 'by golly, it looks like temperatures aren't going up!' is not scientifically rigorous.

@mandas
I can see total refusal to read the sources provided by me. Given this stubbornness, I guess mandas (the moron) was born from sex between Michael Mann and a Monkey. If you find my source of arguments advocacy groups, I find your sources to be left wing front groups, and staunch liars. You refuse to read my sources because they give it up your butt.

Figure 3 shows that there is no chance that temperature can increase beyond 2.6 kelvin by the end of the century, and the mean is 2 kelvin. Citation# 14 describes oceans as CO2 sink. Citation# 15 discusses solar variation. This paragraph also gives list of assumptions for this papers. The "caveat" here is different warming in sea and land with doubling of carbon dioxide (ECS2xC), because they have different heat transfer coefficients. This is particularly ambiguous because oceans have different "water layers" that stand permanently at different temperature and density. This concept is particularly importantly in submarine navigation; and rarely discussed in "climate research".

The first four lines of second paragraph you quoted is quite self-explanatory (at least for me). Therefore, I do not need to explain it. If you still cannot understand, you are too dumb for my taste. Citation# 27 discussed nonlinear feedback at low altitudes. This model does not include that, the main focus is CO2 forcing and dust. Had the author discussed effect of citation# 27, the warming estimates might be even lower; this was done to simplify the model and focus on CO2 only. Another thing this paper ignores is cooling by sulfur emissions from coal fire plants, which was published by your beloved man Michael Mann (Though I doubt those results too). Another uncertainly not discussed in paper is cloud nucleation by cosmic rays; it is not discussed in any climate models so far.

Looks like you pick and choose the results that you like, and you are a hypocrite. Science is not democracy. Therefore, majority and minority is utterly irrelevant. Finally, if you had been more civil and less vile, I might have avoided writing the first paragraph in my post.

"I can see total refusal to read the sources provided by me"

Nope, they were read and answered elsewhere on this site.

That sensitivity relies on the change needed to enter or exit an interglacial being 3 degrees C rather than 5 degrees C. Therefore the climate is more sensitive to temperature (by 60%) changes, and the temperature change less sensitive to CO2 changes (by 10%). That still means we're 50% worse off if that paper (one single paper) is right.

The BBC link was a repeat of the same report. Why is that needed to be read if the paper itself has been dealt with?

And the paper is from Lindzen, a well aired denier and the paper is 14 years old. It hasn't turned out to be correct (see the BEST results, proving temperature changes of 1.1C).

Here is a rebuttal:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modele/

Try your own model.

> Another uncertainly not discussed in paper is cloud nucleation by cosmic rays

LIE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

Do you see those uncertainty bars?

â...I can see total refusal to read the sources provided by me....â

When you source your information from a reputable scientific journal rather than an opinion based advocacy group, I will read them. Did you notice that I read the two papers you linked to? That would be obvious to even the most retarded reader by the fact that I commented on them and provided quotes from one of the papers. I guess it wasnât obvious to meghal though.

â.....Given this stubbornness, I guess mandas (the moron) was born from sex between Michael Mann and a Monkey.....â

So I see you know even less about biology than you do about climate science then. Given the genetic differences between humans and monkeys, it is not possible to conceive an offspring from such a union. But you know that donât you meghal? Thatâs why you never use birth control when you are in bed with your simian spouse.

â....I find your sources to be left wing front groups, and staunch liars....â

I wonder what meghal is referring to here, since the only sources I have provided to him are an on-line recipe site and reputable science journals. It must be the recipe site, because meghal has also linked to a science journal, and unless he is a complete hypocrite, he wouldnât link to something he thought was a left wing front group. But then again.........

â.....The first four lines of second paragraph you quoted is quite self-explanatory (at least for me). Therefore, I do not need to explain it. If you still cannot understand, you are too dumb for my taste....â

Yes, it is self explanatory isnât it? Thatâs why I am surprised that you linked to it as supposed proof that climate change is all a lie. I mean, the quote very clearly states that the analysis in the paper is not complete (â....Our uncertainty analysis is not complete.....â), that it doesnât take into account a number of important considerations (â....and does not explicitly consider uncertainties in radiative forcing due to ice sheet extent or different vegetation distributions....), and their model is only limited (â...Our limited model ensemble does not scan the full parameter range, neglecting, for example, possible variations in shortwave radiation due to clouds....â). So tell us all again. Why did you link to a paper with so many limitations â limitations that are pointed out for everyone to read?

â.....Another uncertainly not discussed in paper is cloud nucleation by cosmic rays; it is not discussed in any climate models so far....â

Oh god! Not this zombie argument again? Leaving aside the obvious point that it isnât discussed because it has nothing to do with the subject of the paper, there is the more telling point that it is a stupid argument made by deniers in a desperate attempt to find something â anything â other than CO2 to blame for the observed global energy imbalance.

â...Another thing this paper ignores is cooling by sulfur emissions from coal fire plants, which was published by your beloved man Michael Mann (Though I doubt those results too)....â

Really? You doubt the results of a study you havenât read on a subject you donât understand? Wow colour me surprised! I would never have thought someone with such a dynamic intellect as meghal would form an opinion based on a complete lack of evidence. Surely you would want to use your brain before you draw a conclusion, wouldnât you meghal? So hereâs your chance. Here is some information on sulphur emissions. How about you tell us whatâs wrong with it and why you doubt it:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_SI_Apendix_Fi…

â....Finally, if you had been more civil and less vile, I might have avoided writing the first paragraph in my post.....â

No â go ahead. If you think you have somehow insulted me then you know even less about me than you do about biology and climate science. Your opinions and views on climate science are worthless, so why should I care what you either think about me or call me? And if you think I am going to be more civil with you, then you have an even poorer grasp of reality than you have displayed to date.

"In last century, deaths by severe weather have gone down by at least 90%."

Ahem:

"In recent years heat wave induced casualties have some what increased. Abnormally high temperatures were observed during April 2002 across the country and a prolonged heat wave over northern regions of India from mid-April through the third week of May caused more than 1000 fatalities ... During 2003 pre-monsoon months, heat wave brought peak temperatures in May of between 45oC and 49oC. This years heat was particularly harsh, with a death toll of at least 1500 people."

De, Dube and Prakasa Rao (2005) Extreme Weather Events over India in the last 100 years, J. Ind. Geophys. Union. Vol.9 pp 173-187

"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures ... Here we review the growing evidence that climateâhealth relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world."

Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway & Foley (2005) Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature, Vol. 438 pp310-317

Chris

That's enough with all your facts and evidence and sciencey type papers!! They have no place in this debate!

mandas. I've heard that before somewhere...