Climategate: McIntyre and the ‘Divergence Problem’

Quote from Ricter via others since I have him on ignore :):

...it was once demonstrated mathematically that bumblebees cannot fly...

Liberals and science is like oil and water, they don't mix. Whether it's a global warming scam or repeating mindless urban legends that are obviously false, liberal ignorance is enormous:

Quote from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee">Wikipedia</a>:
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beats per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists "proving" it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own ignorance".[26] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[27] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes; they had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[28]

Some credit physicist Ludwig Prandtl (1875–1953) of the University of Göttingen in Germany with popularizing the myth. Others say it was Swiss gas dynamicist Jacob Ackeret (1898–1981) who did the calculations.

In 1934, French entomologist Antoine Magnan included the following passage in the introduction to his book Le Vol des Insectes:

Tout d'abord poussé par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai appliqué aux insectes les lois de la résistance de l'air, et je suis arrivé avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol est impossible.

This means:

First prompted by the fact of aviation, I have applied the laws of the resistance of air to insects, and I arrived, with Mister Sainte-Lague, at the conclusion that their flight is impossible.

Magnan refers to his assistant André Sainte-Laguë who was, apparently, an engineer.

It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[29]

Another description of a bee's wing function is that the wings work similarly to helicopter blades, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades".

Bees beat their wings approximately 200 times a second, which is 10–20 times as fast as nerve impulses can fire. They achieve this because their thorax muscles do not expand and contract on each nerve firing, but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band.
 
Quote from TGregg:

Liberals and science is like oil and water, they don't mix. Whether it's a global warming scam or repeating mindless urban legends, liberal ignorance is enormous:

I'm on ignore? I'm devastated.

Not. I knew that.

Anyway, your own snip (I sure say this to you a lot), points out that the calculations to arrive at that were incomplete.

How about that, you supported my point.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Don't keep us in suspense, tell us how.

He states melting ice means the earth is getting hotter.

The article clearly states that the Swiss glaciers melted more when it was cooler. Therefore the argument is bogus. Its not too hard to comprehend.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

He states melting ice means the earth is getting hotter.

The article clearly states that the Swiss glaciers melted more when it was cooler. Therefore the argument is bogus. Its not too hard to comprehend.

That's a pretty complex argument, that one glacier melted under specific anomolous conditions therefore global ice melting under different conditions disproves something else.

I'd like to hear a longer explanation.
 
Assuming we can extrapolate what happened in Switzerland those years to the whole planet...

I accept that other factors besides the big two, water vapor and CO2, can warm a region or a planet.
 
Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png


Here is the data for the last 5.5 Million years. Where is this great big spike that you always here about?

We always hear how todays climate is unprecedented. I certainly can't tell by this graph. Can someone point it out to me? Or is the claim a bunch of bullshit?
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

That's a pretty complex argument, that one glacier melted under specific anomolous conditions therefore global ice melting under different conditions disproves something else.

I'd like to hear a longer explanation.

We can't discuss it Dave. You have clearly stated before that you do not believe in solar variation. According to you the Sun plays no role. End of story.
 
Quote from TGregg:

Liberals and science is like oil and water, they don't mix...
Yes, that's why conservatives and evolution go hand in hand. It's also why conservative interests saw no connection between smoking and cancer, along with a host of other ailments. The intellectual integrity is breathtaking.
 
Back
Top