"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to 2001
> of -- get this -- NOTHING! Actually, the chart indicates ground
> measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
> measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations more
> than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is the
> margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to measure
> with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global temperatures
> had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased during those
> two-plus decades?
Depends whether you're using the Inductive or Deductive flavor of the
Scientific Method.
http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html
;-)
-- Mark
On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
> See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
> worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
> average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)
>
I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
comment on it.
I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
Powerpoint, but much nicer.)
I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
So...
A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.
What I _do_ know, is that as stewards of our planet we suck. I have
always believed we're irresponsible. I have done a few things, which
if we all did would help, like CFL bulbs. I only use water-based
lacquers now as they are pretty good now. I keep my cars in tune.
Just little bits here and there.----> I'm no tree-hugger, hate tofu.
But I don't hate tofu as much as the 300 pound pig with the cigarette
dangling from its yap, climbing out of a Hummer, parked in the invalid
zone without a permit.
But that's a whole different story.
On Mar 1, 2:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
[SNIPPERECTOMY]
> Ummm.... that would be *you*, not me...
no it's not
>yes it is
no it's not
no it's not
>yes it is
no it's not
>yes it is
no it's not
>yes it is
no it's not
>yes it is
no it's not
>yes it is
>
> PLONK
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller
Move along everybody, nothing to see here....now move along...
On Mar 4, 9:19 am, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
> ice core data.
>...
Thanks.
Is there, at present, any theoretical explanation for the observed
relationship?
--
FF
On Mar 2, 7:03 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a good one:
>
> http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/07_Space/070302.Mars.melting.html
I'm not sure how good it is. The statements attributed to
Abdussamatov seem to contradict each other suggesting
that he has been mistranslated or misquoted.
--
FF
On Mar 19, 4:01 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
> >> western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.
>
> >Neither are we.
>
> Yes, but that's only because we haven't signed and
> ratified it. If we had, we
> would be.
Yes. We'd be restricted to releasing no more than several
times the CO2 emitted by China and India combined, though
5.2% less than we did in 2000.
Objecting to that is rather like objecting that a 55 mph
speed limit for automobiles is unfair when there is no
speed limit for bulldozers.
>
> [snip]
> >> Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
> >> western industrial democracies.
>
> >Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>
> I just *gave* you the evidence: Kyoto exempts India, China, and other
> developing nations from the CO2 restrictions that it imposes on western
> industrial democracies.
>
> Not *my* fault you're willfully blind.
>
The evidence supports the idea that the motivation
for the treaty is EXACTLY what the treaty states.
That makes sense, even if the world is wrong on
the science.
Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.
Does THAT make sense?
--
FF
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>On 28 Feb 2007 15:46:47 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>... snip
>>>>
>>>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>>>>
>>
>>> You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
>>word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
>>doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
>>foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
>>know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
>>when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
>>want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
>>voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
>>people that got elected.
>>
>> ...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.
>>
>> Howzatt?
> Thank-you. That's perfect and provides the data point I was looking for.
>You have established the position from which you are arguing. With that
>worldview there is no reason for further discussion. Thanks for playing,
>please stop by the lobby for your lovely parting gifts.
If you want a serious answer, ask a serious question.
>
> While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
> ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
> temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
> were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.
>
>
>
I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2 increases
by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.
Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
used and calibration methodology.
These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
assumptions.
Watch for the original data and results to "evolve" as more is learned about
the calibration models and parameters used.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:33:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> On Mar 4, 9:19 am, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
>> ice core data.
>> ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Is there, at present, any theoretical explanation for the observed
> relationship?
>
Nothing that I would call definitive in my opinion but there is sure to be
lots of conjecture 8)
> --
>
> FF
>
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:03:36 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote
(in article <IuGGh.579$1C6.7@trndny04>):
> Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
>> Vostok ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed
>> that it was likely the temperature increase was out of phase
>> (preceded) the CO2 increases by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so.
>
> If I'm reading that correctly and my math is right, temperature precedes
> the CO2 increase by 10,000 years, or follows it by 2,000 years. Or so.
Yes, the standard deviation reports that spread but in more layman terms "it
might or it might not".
Certainly it could be argued that some increase in solar activity raised the
temperatures which decreased ocean capacity to absorb CO2 (hence led to a
trailing CO2 increase).
I'm sure as more research is applied to the question, more variables will
emerge and as most science goes, more questions will appear than answers.
On 28 Feb 2007 15:46:47 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
... snip
>>>
>>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>>>
>
>> You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?
>
>
>
> Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
>word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
>doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
>foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
>know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
>when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
>want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
>voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
>people that got elected.
>
> ...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.
>
> Howzatt?
Thank-you. That's perfect and provides the data point I was looking for.
You have established the position from which you are arguing. With that
worldview there is no reason for further discussion. Thanks for playing,
please stop by the lobby for your lovely parting gifts.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
> Vostok ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed
> that it was likely the temperature increase was out of phase
> (preceded) the CO2 increases by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so.
If I'm reading that correctly and my math is right, temperature precedes
the CO2 increase by 10,000 years, or follows it by 2,000 years. Or so.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 08:00:40 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
>> the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
>> increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
>> heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
>> by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
>
>Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
>the CO2 increase.
>http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
>You claim the opposite, based on what?
>
>
While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>>
>>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
>who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
>own economies for no particular reason at all.
>
>Does THAT make sense?
>
Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
have been, yes, it does make sense.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Feb 25, 4:38 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
> >> See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
> >> worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
> >> average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)
>
> >I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
> >comment on it.
> >I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
> >A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
> >excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
> >member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
> >by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
> >Powerpoint, but much nicer.)
>
> >I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
> >So...
>
> What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
> and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
> people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
> different topic. (<http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm>)
>
Ummmm.. that link you provided ends with:
"This election is not an I.Q. test; it is about which candidate has
better judgment. And that is why, despite the media's love affair with
the celluloid image of Al Gore the policy-wonk, it is the affable,
authentic, and sensible Bush who would make the better leader."
Shall I continue?
The bios on Gore, never claimed any stellar academic finishes. His
involvement in many tasks was a clear indicator that he's no dummy.
I'm no huge Gore fan, but he's more than just a wooden face.
http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/gore.html
...and nowhere did this particular bio say that he's a brilliant MBA
and military strategist.
In fact there are many things this bio doesn't say.
But he did put on a uniform. Did go to 'Nam.
----compared to what you got as POTUS now, that's not too shabby.
The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
the Oscars?
Will he wait till he gets drafted?
On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
> they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
> Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.
//there, fixed it for you.
On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
> > they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
> > Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.
>
> //there, fixed it for you.
Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
Allllbert!!!!
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070226/NEWS01/70226055
On Feb 27, 10:25 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies someone to be
> a climate researcher...
>
> --
If a IT worker or a woodworker can be one... why not?
On Feb 27, 6:21 pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
> > about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
> > *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
> > dimmer switch on the sun?
>
> Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
> put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
> even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
>
> Here's an article that discusses this and related concepts.
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/
>
> Chris
On Mar 1, 11:57 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
[snip]
> It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
> list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.
>
I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.
Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?
Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?
Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?
Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
victory?
How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
fucked-up) games of words?
What is wrong with you?
r
On Mar 1, 12:23 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 1, 11:57 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
> >> list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.
>
> >I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.
>
> >Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
> >a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?
>
> Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
> discussions.
>
>
>
> >Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
> >discussion with you always end the same way?
>
> Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
> discussions.
>
>
>
> >Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?
>
> You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember? You
> challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
> wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.
>
> You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
> missed it.
>
>
>
> >Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
> >intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
> >victory?
>
> Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.
>
>
>
> >How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
> >fucked-up) games of words?
>
> >What is wrong with you?
>
> Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Thank you for making my point ... again.
In the art of Jujutsu, the true art is in using the power and weight
of the opponent against himself. Thank you for your help.
On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
> spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
> know.
>
> ...
What would be the motivation? Isn't he free to buy stock in
petroleum companies, just like everyone else?
--
FF
On Feb 25, 4:38 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
> >> See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
> >> worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
> >> average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)
>
> >I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
> >comment on it.
> >I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
> >A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
> >excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
> >member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
> >by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
> >Powerpoint, but much nicer.)
>
> >I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
> >So...
>
> What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
> and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
> people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
> different topic. (<http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm>)
>
>
>
> >A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
> >spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
> >know.
>
> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
> warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
> matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
> "evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
> coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
> extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers than
> normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
> evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
Indeed. So ignore that at look at the rise is atmospheric CO2 over
the
last fifty years. The prediction of global warming follows from the
law
of conservation of energy.
--
FF
On Feb 25, 5:33 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
> the Oscars?
> Will he wait till he gets drafted?
No.
He were going to run for office again he would avoid deep involvement
in any one issue. Single-issue candidacies are never more than
publicity stunts.
He won;t even run as a Green Party candidate as he won't want to
pull votes away from the Democrat.
--
FF
On Feb 25, 7:34 pm, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
> always changing!
>
> Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
> shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
> googling it appears the only constant is *change*!
Google for 'rate of change'.
Also Methane clathrate.
--
FF
On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
> spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
> know.
>
> ...
What would be the motivation? Isn't he free to buy stock in
petroleum companies, just like everyone else?
--
FF
On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
> >> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
> >> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
> >> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
> >> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
> >Facts:
>
> >1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
> OK
>
> >2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
> Well, sort of
>
> >3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
> >rises
>
> >4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
> >sources.
>
> How so?
>
>
>
> >5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>
> So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
> open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
> health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
> decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.
Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.
> The impact
> of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
> not understood.
Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
oceans.
>
> So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
> predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
> even the basic conjecture.
The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.
--
FF
On Mar 4, 10:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2007 07:21:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
> >> >> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
> >> >> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>
> >> >Causality.
>
> >> Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?
>
> >Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
> >the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
> >those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
> >that equilibrium temperature will change.
>
> >> If so, then you
> >> recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
> >> invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
> >> increase.
>
> >What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
> >does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
> >the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
> >are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?
>
> What the data is showing is that rise in CO2 concentration is NOT the
> causal effect of global warming since the data shows that global warming
> preceded the rise in CO2 concentration.
False.
Even if the temperatures and CO2 levels are being correctly inferred
from
the ice core data, they tell us little or nothing about other
parameters.
How do they relate to variation in the solar constant or Milankovitch
cycles?
So even if the observation that warming preceded a rise in CO2, is
correct, it does not justify a conclusion that a rise in CO2 cannot
cause a global temperature rise.
> Thus, for CO2 to have been the
> causative effect of global temperature effect would be a non-causal event
> (in the mathematical sense of the word -- i.e present result being
> dependent upon a future event).
I'm not clear on your opinion. Do you deny the Greenhouse effect
altogether, or do you merely contend that the equlibrium temperature
established by the Greenhouse effect is independent of the
composition
of the atmosphere?
I also do not see that you have explained to us the causative effect
you said was demonstrated by the Vostok data
The causative relationship between global temperature and the
concentrations of water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide in
the Earth's atmosphere is firmly established by the spectral
characteristics of those gases.
>
> >> >Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
>
> >> Um, no, correlation would be different.
>
> >How so?
>
> Correlation shows simply that, how related two things are in a
> statistical sense. Correlation does not imply cause (i.e. the infamous
> "small dogs cause cancer" statistical correlation).
>
I am familiar with the definition of correlation. I was asking how
the Vostok ice core data would be different if there was a
correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
> Now, given that GW theorists are insisting that the increase in CO2 will
> cause global warming when the data cited above shows that CO2 increases are
> preceded by global warming indicates that the premise, based upon past
> data, is incorrect.
Like I said before, relying on correlation without regard to causality
is
perilous.
--
FF
On 4 Mar 2007 07:21:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
... snip
>>
>> >> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
>> >> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
>> >> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>>
>> >Causality.
>>
>> Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?
>
>Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
>the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
>those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
>that equilibrium temperature will change.
>
>> If so, then you
>> recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
>> invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
>> increase.
>
>What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
>does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
>the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
>are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?
>
What the data is showing is that rise in CO2 concentration is NOT the
causal effect of global warming since the data shows that global warming
preceded the rise in CO2 concentration. Thus, for CO2 to have been the
causative effect of global temperature effect would be a non-causal event
(in the mathematical sense of the word -- i.e present result being
dependent upon a future event).
>>
>>
>>
>> >Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
>>
>> Um, no, correlation would be different.
>
>How so?
>
Correlation shows simply that, how related two things are in a
statistical sense. Correlation does not imply cause (i.e. the infamous
"small dogs cause cancer" statistical correlation).
Now, given that GW theorists are insisting that the increase in CO2 will
cause global warming when the data cited above shows that CO2 increases are
preceded by global warming indicates that the premise, based upon past
data, is incorrect.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Feb 26, 12:16 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
> >>>> the
> >>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
> >>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
> >>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
> >>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
> >>>Facts:
>
> >>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
> >>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
> >>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
> >>>temperature rises
>
> >>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
> >>>sources.
>
> >> How?
>
> >Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>
> ><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
> From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
> forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
> atmosphere."
>
> How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
> human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced by
> natural causes?
>
Do you suppose that an accuurate estimation of the ratio of CO2
produced by naturally burning forests to that produced by human
burning might moot that concern?
--
FF
On Feb 26, 6:04 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
> >>>> the
> >>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
> >>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
> >>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
> >>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
> >>>Facts:
>
> >>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
> >>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
> >>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
> >>>temperature rises
>
> >>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
> >>>sources.
>
> >> How?
>
> >Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>
> ><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
> And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
> quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>
> It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
> in CO2 levels in the past 150 years", ..
Indeed. It helps to have data:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/6cc3a146fa7a124a?dmode=source&hl=en
That only covers the last 50 years.
--
FF
On Feb 26, 8:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
> >> past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
> >> period.......Rod
>
> > Rod,
>
> > Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.
>
> Establish that less than a 1 degree increase in a 100 year period results in
> any "unprecedented" weather phenomenon......with 365 days in the year and
> thousands of locations and many variables (rain, drought, wind, storms,
> hurricanes, tornadoes, high and low temps, ice, snow etc.) there are always
> records being broken......and always will be. Rod
Should the rate at which they are being broken decrease as time
goes by?
--
FF
On Feb 26, 10:28 pm, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
> scientists are actually saying. Try starting athttp://www.ipcc.ch.
Having you heard? There is a vast cadre of mainstream scientists
who can disprove global climate change is occurring but their work
is being suppressed. No doubt the same people who suppressed
the 100 mpg carburator, proof of aliens visiting the Earth, the
automobile
engine that runs on water, and the truth behind the Kennedy
assassinations.
are responsible.
--
FF
On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.
>
You are now trying to flatter yourself... anyway, back to my
questions: This time answer them, instead of the usual responses,
which are, as usual, useless.
>>Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
>>a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?
>Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
>discussions.
That is not an answer, That is an evasive piece of Miller crap. I ask
the question. You answer it with a question. That's your style. All
you do is cloud the issues with bullshit. You never step up to the
plate and own up to anything. This must be your entire life, to look
at everybody's point of view, find a comma somwhere and start firing
away your shit.
>>Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
>>discussion with you always end the same way?
>Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.
Again, same sort of low-brand, cheap sandbox-evasive bullshit. I
completely understand the topics being discussed here, what I do NOT
understand is your inability to stop yourself from tossing out red
herrings and erecting strawmen, when you have no real answers. You
just shoot messengers. You have no substance.
When I see people here, one after another, all get the same treatment
from you, eventually tossing their hands in the air in total
disbelief, that makes me think that this place is full of idiots, and
you are the only sane one here?
And you think *I* need a therapist?
Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
Again?
*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
anything positive.*
r
On Mar 1, 1:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:33 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
> > the Oscars?
> > Will he wait till he gets drafted?
>
> No.
>
> He were going to run for office again he would avoid deep involvement
> in any one issue. Single-issue candidacies are never more than
> publicity stunts.
>
> He won;t even run as a Green Party candidate as he won't want to
> pull votes away from the Democrat.
>
That is a good point. That was one of Gore's problems in 2000, Nader,
IIRC.
On Mar 1, 2:42 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote in message
> > And you think *I* need a therapist?
>
> > Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
> > argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
> > Again?
>
> > *there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
> > guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
> > anything positive.*
>
> LOL ... took you long enough!
>
It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. <EG>
On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
> > >> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
> > >> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
> > >> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
> > >> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
> > >Facts:
>
> > >1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
> > OK
>
> > >2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
> > Well, sort of
>
> > >3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
> > >rises
>
> > >4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
> > >sources.
>
> > How so?
>
> > >5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>
> > So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
> > open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
> > health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
> > decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.
>
> Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
> increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.
>
> > The impact
> > of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
> > not understood.
>
> Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
> oceans.
Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
in the atmosphere?
> > So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
> > predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
> > even the basic conjecture.
>
> The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.
How, exactly, does that apply?
On Mar 1, 4:35 pm, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.
>
> > Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
> > It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.
>
> Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
> stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
> vigorous ones. It's a wash.
That's true if by "fully mature" you mean a tree that has
stopped growing. Such trees are DEAD.
Trees are solar powered, the more leaf are they have
the more carbon they fix. The giant Sequoias are the
among the fasted growing organisms on Earth in
terms of mass added per year.
The larger a tree is, the faster it grows in
terms of how much additional weight is added.
--
FF
On Mar 1, 4:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> > > So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
> > > open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
> > > health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
> > > decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.
>
> > Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
> > increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.
>
> > > The impact
> > > of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
> > > not understood.
>
> > Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
> > oceans.
>
> Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
> in the atmosphere?
No. It is caused by development. The same
development that reduces habitat available for
plant growth.
>
> > > So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
> > > predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
> > > even the basic conjecture.
>
> > The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.
>
> How, exactly, does that apply?
If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
produced internally, equals the amount of energy
lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
constant. Otherwise, it changes.
--
FF
On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
> >> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
> >> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
> >> dimmer switch on the sun?
>
> >Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
> >put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
> >even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
> done already.
>
While it is not practical to put a giant venetian blind
in orbit to block sunlight before it reaches the atmosphere
it IS possible to put particulates into the upper atmosphere
to reflect sunlight away. Indeed we have been doing exactly
that with jetliner contrails.
The contrails are formed of ice crystals which, unlike
water vapor, contribute little to the greenhouse effect,
but do add significantly to albedo. The estimate is
that in the last 50 years energy reaching the surface
of the Earth has decreased by a net 2%. That is
way more than enough to offset the effect of any
increase in the solar constant even if we assume
the highest credible estimate of 0.1 W/sqm.
The reality of global dimming is obvious if you look
at a satellite photo of a 'clear' sky. Over much of
the world today, the sky is NEVER clear.
Were global dimming the only factor affecting climate
change we should have noticed a drop in temperature
over the last 50 years. That we have not, is particularly
ominous.
--
FF
On Mar 1, 7:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > > So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
> > > > open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
> > > > health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
> > > > decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.
>
> > > Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
> > > increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.
>
> > > > The impact
> > > > of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
> > > > not understood.
>
> > > Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
> > > oceans.
>
> > Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
> > in the atmosphere?
>
> No. It is caused by development. The same
> development that reduces habitat available for
> plant growth.
>
>
>
> > > > So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
> > > > predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
> > > > even the basic conjecture.
>
> > > The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.
>
> > How, exactly, does that apply?
>
> If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
> produced internally, equals the amount of energy
> lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
> constant. Otherwise, it changes.
okaaaaaaaaaay... what does that tell us about the causes or the widely
predicted cataclysmic effects of global warming?
On Mar 2, 7:58 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> Wrong again.
*LOL*
On Mar 2, 11:45 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
> > saplings to
> > add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.
>
> > Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
> > 100:1.
>
> > You also haven't considered the leaves...
>
> > Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
> > otherwise.
>
> Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.
>
> BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.
Next time you talk to some, how about if you get back to
us with some numbers?
You already mentioned that 17 young trees will grow where
a mature tree grows. Now we just need to know how many
pounds per year of wood each of those adds.
The NPS has figures for the Sequoias, but we want to look
at something like a 70 year old red oak vs 17 five year
olds I would guess.
--
FF
--
FF
On Mar 2, 1:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.
>
> > > How, exactly, does that apply?
>
> > If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
> > produced internally, equals the amount of energy
> > lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
> > constant. Otherwise, it changes.
>
> okaaaaaaaaaay... what does that tell us about the causes or the widely
> predicted cataclysmic effects of global warming?
Have you never heard this explained before?
Basicaly, certain gases block IR radiation from the
surface to space better than others. Water vapor,
carbon dioxide and methane among them.
Of those, Water vapor readily condenses and evaporates
so its concentration in the atmosphere is driven by
temperature gradients. So it is the others that 'force'
the green house effect up or down. Water responds
to that forcing and amplifies the effect.
So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
--
FF
On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
> > the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
> > increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
> > heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
> > by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
>
> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>
Causality.
Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
as the present conditions are unprecedented.
--
FF
On Feb 27, 11:32 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
> >of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>
> Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
>
And global cooling has been happening too. Otherwise there would have
been a much greater temperature rise over the last 40 years. As it
is,
the warming effect have been negating the cooling effect and may soon
win out.
The particulates responsible for global cooling (actually for global
dimming that in turn causes global cooling) have a much shorter
lifetime in the atmosphere than do green house gases.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5338&linkid=mp
When were we first alerted to global warming?
The study of global warming and the greenhouse effect
goes back more than 180 years. But, the international
scientific consensus pointing to humans as a major
cause of global warming was affirmed in 1985 when a
body leading environment and climate scientists formally
recommended a treaty to address global warming.
The concept of the earth's atmosphere acting as a heat
trap was first proposed by French mathematician and
physicist Joseph Fourier in 1824, during the early years
of the Industrial Revolution.
In 1896, Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, one
of the founders of the science of physical chemistry, first
put forward the idea that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
from human activities could raise the earth's temperature.
Six decades later, in 1957, American geophysicist Roger
Revelle coauthored a paper with Hans Seuss finding that
much of the carbon dioxide pollution emitted to the atmosphere
was not absorbed by the oceans as some scientists had argued
- leaving more in the atmosphere, which would eventually warm
the earth.
At about the same time, Charles Keeling set up a long-term
carbon dioxide monitoring site in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. It first
documented the slow but inexorable rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations in response to the emissions from burning
fossil fuels and tropical forests.
[I first saw the Mauna Loa data cited to predict global
warming in the early 1970s--Natural History magazine
I think, FF]
Then, in 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), and the International Council of Scientific
Unions forged a consensus scientific view warning that some
future warming was inevitable due to past emissions. The
conference recommended consideration of an international treaty
to address global warming.
See also:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/global-cooling/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
I presume you are not confusing these issue with 'nuclear winter',
though wouldn't be so generous with some others.
I do remember a movie or two and some other touchy-feely stuff
predicting another ice age.
--
FF
On Mar 1, 12:03 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
> >>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
> >>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
> >>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
> >>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
> >>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
> >>.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
> >>political, not scientific.
>
> > No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
> >increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
> >country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.
>
> Nonsense, absolute and utter nonsense. If Kyoto were about reducing CO2
> emissions, it would have placed restrictions on India and China as well.
>
>
>
> > In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
> >peeing in it.
>
> OK, if that's so -- then why does Kyoto allow China and India to keep peeing
> in the pool?
>
> Like I said -- political basis, not scientific.
>
How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?
Got any numbers?
On Feb 28, 9:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> D Smith wrote:
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
> >>> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
> >>> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
> >>> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
> >>> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
> >> .. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
> >> political, not scientific.
>
> > No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
> > increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
>
> In this case, the "people concerned about increasing carbon dioxide" are principally
> political hacks and other bottom-feeding scoundrels with minimal understanding
> of actual science. This does not in any way speak to whether or not GW is
> a real problem or not. But, Kyoto is a political cesspool, nothing more.
>
> > country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.
>
> > In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
> > peeing in it.
>
> Then why does Kyoto punish the people who are barely in the pool and who never
> pee in it while requiring little or nothing from those using the pool as their
> outhouse?
Kyoto doesn't punish anybody.
A quarter of the pee in the pool comes from North America.
--
FF
On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
> >pool and how much would it allow an American?
>
> >Got any numbers?
>
> The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
> *does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.
>
> Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
> the United States?
>
There is a lot less of it.
That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.
--
FF
On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
> >> >pool and how much would it allow an American?
>
> >> >Got any numbers?
>
> >> The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
> >> *does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.
>
> >> Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
> >> the United States?
>
> >There is a lot less of it.
>
> Got any numbers?
>
> >That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.
>
> All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
> western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.
Neither are we.
I agree that they should be. But it is worthwhile to note
that if they were under exactly the same restrictions, they
could STILL continue to increase their emissions without
violating those restrictions.
It would be like imposing a speed limit of 55 mph for bulldozers,
same as for cars.
>
> Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
> western industrial democracies.
>
Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
--
FF
On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >>Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
> >>western industrial democracies.
>
> > Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>
> Copy, paste, and watch:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
economies of the western democracies.
--
FF
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
>
Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
property in Wyoming.
;-)
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-3, 02/23/2007
Tested on: 2/25/2007 1:08:22 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That is very simple.
>
> If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
> consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
> very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
> already.
>
> Tim w
Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>
>>>
>> Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
>> showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
>> property in Wyoming.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> <http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_lev
> el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm>
> That's a good start but it maxes out at 6 meters worth of rise. I was
hoping to get a look at the effect of a 61 meter (200 ft) rise. So far,
Google is teasing but not delivering the goods.
Bill
--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.
H. P. Lovecraft
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000717-0, 02/26/2007
Tested on: 2/26/2007 3:14:57 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
"Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
>> past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
>> period.......Rod
>
> Rod,
>
> Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.
Establish that less than a 1 degree increase in a 100 year period results in
any "unprecedented" weather phenomenon......with 365 days in the year and
thousands of locations and many variables (rain, drought, wind, storms,
hurricanes, tornadoes, high and low temps, ice, snow etc.) there are always
records being broken......and always will be. Rod
Doug Miller wrote:
> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
> dimmer switch on the sun?
Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
Here's an article that discusses this and related concepts.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/
Chris
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
>> > they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
>> > Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.
>>
>> //there, fixed it for you.
>
>Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
>one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
>Allllbert!!!!
Sure! Makes perfect sense to me... that's why all the *rest* of us have to
scale back our energy usage -- so there will be more left for AlGore.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 1, 12:23 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 1, 11:57 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>>
>> >> It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just
> a
>> >> list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.
>>
>> >I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.
>>
>> >Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
>> >a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?
>>
>> Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
>> discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
>> >discussion with you always end the same way?
>>
>> Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
>> discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?
>>
>> You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember?
> You
>> challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
>> wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.
>>
>> You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
>> missed it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
>> >intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
>> >victory?
>>
>> Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.
>>
>>
>>
>> >How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
>> >fucked-up) games of words?
>>
>> >What is wrong with you?
>>
>> Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
>
>Thank you for making my point ... again.
>
>In the art of Jujutsu, the true art is in using the power and weight
>of the opponent against himself. Thank you for your help.
>
You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:20:57 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
>> get out more.
>>
>If you think it is all about a few coastal floods you need to get your head
>out of the sand.
Well, whether you like it or not that is what it's about. What do
_you_ think it's about?
In article <[email protected]>, Tom
Terrific <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>, D Smith
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
> > >>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
> >
> > >Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
> > media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
> >
> > ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
> > you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
> > feel free to go to the following web page:
> >
> > http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
> >
> > and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
>
> The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
> collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
> to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
> the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
> putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
> rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
> American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
> today. Which movement had more credibility?
Does anyone have a list of the people, scientists, journalists and
politicians, who were screaming about cooling 30 years ago? I wonder
what overlap there is...
--
You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.
>
> Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
> It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.
>>
Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
vigorous ones. It's a wash.
D Smith wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
>> .. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
>> political, not scientific.
>
> No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
> increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
In this case, the "people concerned about increasing carbon dioxide" are principally
political hacks and other bottom-feeding scoundrels with minimal understanding
of actual science. This does not in any way speak to whether or not GW is
a real problem or not. But, Kyoto is a political cesspool, nothing more.
> country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.
>
> In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
> peeing in it.
>
Then why does Kyoto punish the people who are barely in the pool and who never
pee in it while requiring little or nothing from those using the pool as their
outhouse?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:31:43 -0600, Mike Hartigan <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...
>> >
>> > What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
>> > city, New Orleans LA USA.
>> >
>>
>> Or half the country of Holland....
>>
>> Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
>> entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?
>
>Is that one of the cataclysmic results of global warming?
No, that will be one of the cataclysmic events resulting from putting the
people screaming " we must do something about global warming now!" in
charge and/or acquiescing to their wishes.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
>> consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
>> very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
>> already.
>>
>> Tim w
>
> Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
> past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
> period.......Rod
Rod,
Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.
>
>
Damn Republicans caused 6 ice ages and all the global warming in between. I
could be sitting here drinking my beer under 35 feet of ice if it wasn't for
big oil and automakers getting rich for thousands of years. As if that
wasn't enough, they caused volcanic eruptions, because one of those does
more to create GW than humans could possibly do in a million years.
None of this is true now, because they change history and make up new every
week...
Interesting to see what they have added for this month...
Now, back to some wood work talk, please, I'm learning from that, not this
crap...
"Bill in Detroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
>>> showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
>>> property in Wyoming.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> <http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_lev
>> el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm>
>> That's a good start but it maxes out at 6 meters worth of rise. I was
> hoping to get a look at the effect of a 61 meter (200 ft) rise. So far,
> Google is teasing but not delivering the goods.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is
> worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him
> really know what he's talking about.
>
> H. P. Lovecraft
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 000717-0, 02/26/2007
> Tested on: 2/26/2007 3:14:57 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4422 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4422 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
>warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
>matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
>"evidence of global warming".
Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
these based on a single event.
> More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
>coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
>extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.
I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
hurricanes), but:
IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.
...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.
> Hotter summers than
>normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
>evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
with the scientific predictions.
> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
strawman.
> the
>thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
>theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
>questioning the person postulating the theory.
Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.
Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:
- measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)
- measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)
- an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)
- measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)
- an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)
You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?
On Mar 1, 3:16 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote in message
> > It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
> > I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. <EG>
>
> Must be that dratted global warming, eh?
>
> FWIW, it's bright sunshine and 74 degrees here in Big H.
>
> I'll send a toast your way tonight when I'm sitting on the front porch with
> a glass of pinot, swatting mosquitoes.
>
> ... eat your heart out. ;)
>
I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
skeeters I'm not big on.
I absolutely hate the damned things. I think I'm allergic or
something, I can swell up like Elizabeth Taylor's legs. Welts the size
of quarters. They had to cut off my wedding ring one time, was a sign
of things to come, little did I know that THAT welt would grow into
the size of some property.
The old style DEET, like 99% keeps the little sumbitches away... and
scotch helps me deal with the buzzing.
The odd time, I will hike into the bush to a lake to catch me some
bass. My favourite spot requires I walk through a 5 mile path through
swamp.. well.. I tell ya, we know a thing or two 'bout skeeters around
these parts. One time, I saw one take a sip out of a horse's ass, and
by the time that skeeter was done, the rider's legs were dragging on
the ground.
But by the time I get to that lake, the water is cool, and the bass
never wormy, and run 2 to 3 pounds, with the odd bigger one.
I have seen columns of moquitos that made a droning sound like a small
air-plane off in the distance.
Up North...yup we know North, LOL..there are skeeters with navigation
lights and registration numbers. BIG ones.
...but I have said too much...
r
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
> skeeters I'm not big on.
They're not bad, yet ... but we've had a wet winter and with the warming it
is indeed looking like a banner year for 'skeeters.
Being a coonass, they don't bother me too much. The one's I was raised
around in S. Louisiana could stand flatfooted and screw a buzzard.
SWMBO, like you, is allergic to them ... must be a "Northerner" thing, as
she's from way up there in Arkansas. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>>> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
>>> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
>>> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>
>>
>>Facts:
>>
>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>
> OK
Actually CO2 _absorbs_ IR radiation, which can then be re-emitted
(again as IR radiation). Not quite the same as reflection.
>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>
>Well, sort of
Well, yes. It is the ONLY way that the earth can lose energy to space
in any significant quantity. After all, we absorb an average of about 240
W/m^2 globally (from the sun), and we need to get rid of the same amount
if we want to stay in a balance. Increasing atmopsheric CO2 upsets that
balance, and requires some sort of adjustment in the earth-atmosphere
system.
>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
>>rises
>>
>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>sources.
> How so?
Someone pointed out the realclimate.org page. Another place to look is:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
There is a FAQ on the atmospheric CO2 source equstion, as well as some
more general information on climate change.
>>
>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
> So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
>open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop.>
Please define what you mean by "open loop".
> Additional CO2 improves plant
>health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
>decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.
There are limits to increased plant productivity due to increased
atmospheric CO2. There are two simple facts that are observed:
1) burning fossil fuels releases CO2 to the atmosphere. The carbon is
from a source that was originally removed millions of years ago, and we
know how much this relase is (i.e., we know the rate of fuel use, and
simple chemistry tells us how much CO2 will be produced).
2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.
> The impact
>of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
>not understood.
The many oceanographers and carbon cycle scientists that study oceanic
carbon uptake would probably diagree with you.
Or are you just refering to YOUR knowledge?
> So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
>predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
>even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
>dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
>events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
>penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
>(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
>control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.
And there you have it. You've made up your mind, and it's all a plot
against you.
Gotta go: the black helicopter is here to pick me up. Don't forget to
put your tin foil hat back on!
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts:
>>>>
>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>temperature rises
>>>>
>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>>sources.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>
>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>>
>>>
> From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
>forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
>atmosphere."
> How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
>human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced by
>natural causes?
I don't think it is... but the CO2 released from burning forests was
originally removed (by photosynthesis) from the atmosphere fairly recently
- in the lifetime of the tree. (Carbon in the trees from uptake of soil
carbon through roots is small, and also of fairly recent origin -
probbaly a few generations of trees.)
It's the carbon from fossil fuels that hasn't take part in the cycle
for millions of years that is the problem. The natural system is used to
taking out the CO2 added from forest fires and plant, animal, and soil
respiration, and has been in rough balance for centuries. It's not
succeeding in adjusting to the extra CO2 from fossil fuels, though.
And by the way: humans also fight forest fires. I don't know offhand
whether Smokey the Bear or the careless smoker is winning, but globally
forest fires are not a large flux - general plant respiration, soil
respiration, and plant decay dominate, I think.
> Other questions to ask:
>"Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the
>CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
> OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper making
>the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
>increase?
CO2 is well-mixed. Measurements from pole-to-pole and at many locations
show the same trends. Geography does play a minor role is some local
phenomena, but the trends discussed there are global. There is VERY little
wiggle room to argue that the current rise in atmopspheric CO2 is due to
something other than burning fossil fuels.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts:
>>>>
>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>temperature rises
>>>>
>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>>sources.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>
>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
>quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2. So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:
1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.
2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.
3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).
4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)
>It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
>in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?
> and it's an even bigger stretch
>from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>CO2"
Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"
> and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
>"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>CO2
A clear strawman.
>while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
>pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?
Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.
It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
[A one-liner at the bottom. Sorry for leaving so much in, but I'm
going to have to do much the same. DS]
>On 26 Feb 2007 21:28:52 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
>>>warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
>>>matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
>>>"evidence of global warming".
>>
>> Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
>>level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
>>means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
>>these based on a single event.
>>
>>> More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
>>>coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
>>>extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.
>>
>> I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
>>hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
>>warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
>>hurricanes), but:
>>
>> IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
>>from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
>>previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.
>>
>> ...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
>>NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
>>incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
>>looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.
>>
>>> Hotter summers than
>>>normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
>>>evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
>>
>> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>>
>> Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
>>on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
>>analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
>>results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
>>with the scientific predictions.
>>
>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>
>> That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
>>strawman.
>>
>>> the
>>>thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>>>required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
>>>theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
>>>questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>
>> Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
>>scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.
>>
>> Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:
>>
>> - measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
>>is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)
>>
>> - measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
>>measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)
>>
>> - an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
>>surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
>>to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
>>theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
>>to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)
>>
>> - measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
>>for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
>>increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
>>as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
>>there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
>>of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)
>>
>> - an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
>>caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
>>mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
>>hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)
>>
>> You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
>>knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?
>I'm sorry, but none of those address the "anthropogenic" issue. All
>of those points you make are equally consistent with a completely
>natural cause.
All of those address our understanding of climate, in particlar the
role of greenhouse (IR-absorbing) gases.
There is no legitimate scientific debate that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Therefore, the only issues that remain are related to the effects of the
CO2 on climate.
I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:
There is a greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years
The source of that increase is human activity
Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms
The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.
I'll also ask the same question Bob asked when he raised the points:
If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?
[No, I won't have to go back to Bob for answers - I'll respond directly if
you post a followup]
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
cause.
Bob
J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Facts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>>>temperature rises
>>>>>>
>>>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>>>>sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> How?
>>>>
>>>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>>>
>>>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>>
>>>And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
>>>quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>>
>> ...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
>>atmospheric CO2.
>So?
Are you really that dense, or do you just play an idiot on the net?
>>So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
>>the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:
>>
>> 1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
>>fossil fuels is being removed.
>Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
>source?
If you want to pretend that the source (burning fossil fuels) is not
causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, you're going to have to find
somewhere else to put it, which requires removing it from the atmosphere.
You can't just ask Scottie to beam it out of there.
>> 2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
>>to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.
>What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
>the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
I don't care. I dont' have to. We're talking about WHAT IS HAPPENING
NOW. We can take measurements of what is happening now.
>> 3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
>>from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).
>Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
>identifcation of a source?
...because if you want to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is
from a DIFFERENT source, you need to explain why the source from fossil
fuels is NOT a factor (how it gets removed), and the one from your source
IS (why it doesn't get removed).
> This is like examining the functioning of
>the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
>tap or the dog.
...which is exactly what you would have to do if you are claiming that
the drain knows how to get rid of the tap water but isn't removing the
dog's piss (or vice-versa).
Again, if CO2 from fossil fuels IS being removed (all or most, not just
the half I mention) from the atmosphere (which is implicit in your claim
that the observed increase is NOT attributable to fossil fuels), then
where does to extra CO2 come from and why is this other source _not_
subject to the same removal mechanism you postulate for CO2 from fossil
fuels.
>> 4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
>>combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
>>(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
>>that is based on isotope ratios.)
>First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
>atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
>about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
>does not demonstrate this.
1) what do you mean by "complete"?
2) which web site? There have been two given - RealClimate.org, and Bob
Grumbine's. Please be specific with what you diagree with on those sites.
Saying nothing more than "does not demontrate this" just looks like more
"I disgree with the conclusion, so it must be wrong" from you.
>>>It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
>>>in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
>>
>> Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
>>Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
>>tactic?
>Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
>referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.
So saying "massive" was just a debating tactic.
>>
>>> and it's an even bigger stretch
>>>from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>>>CO2"
>>
>> Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>>Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
>>climate science right?"
>Figured that out, did you?
I figured out that you are deliberately obfuscating the two.
>>> and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
>>>"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>>>CO2
>>
>> A clear strawman.
>To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
>warming.
>>>while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
>>>pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
>>
>> The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
>>global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
>>it has taken the lead in creating?
>Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?
...oh, perhaps it is still interested in being a world leader?
>> Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
>>cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
>>He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
>>might steal some later.
>No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
>forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.
Mom has her hands full dealing with the older son. Once he gets his
hand out of the cookie jar, Mom can start trying to sort out distributing
the coolies equally to all. Until then, the oldest son is just being
spoiled and acting like a brat.
>> It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
>>changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
>>up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.
>Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
>up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
>and when challenged then launch a personal attack.
Coming from the person that dismisses anyone that disagrees with him as
"an econut", this is both ironic and hypocritical. Classic.
><plonk>
You're welcome.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>>with:
>>
>> There is a greenhouse effect
>>
>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>>
>> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
>> the past 150 years
>>
>> The source of that increase is human activity
>Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
>activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.
Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>>
>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>> increases, climate warms
>*** That one, right there. ***
>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
>science and enter that of speculation.
Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).
> In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
>of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
>percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
>still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
>warms"?
I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.
In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
constant" in there.
Re-phrase the question:
"In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
cooling...
>>
>> The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
>> been warmer than the previous 100.
>There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
>shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
>monitors show a slight decrease.
That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.
And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
"urbanization".
>And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
>and non-anthropogenic causes.
Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.
For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
>>release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
>>oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.
>It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
>date.
What happens if the ratio gets smaller with time? So that a larger
proportion stays in the atmosphere? Uncertainty cuts both ways.
> Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
>atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?
> it takes a while to grow
>a tree, you know.
...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.
>I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
>have expected it to.
How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.
Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>incentive to outsource.
...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:
>D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been
>>>> one
>>>>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>>
>>>Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global
>>>COOLING.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more
>> than
>> media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
>>
>> ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think
>> that
>> you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the
>> 1970s, feel free to go to the following web page:
>>
>> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
>>
>> and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
>>
>>
><http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/>
You didn't bother looking at the link I gave to William Connolley's web
page, did you?
The Rasool and Schneider paper (from Science in 1971) is already
discussed there. I'm not surprised that you mention it though - I figured
someone would.
I'll bet you haven't read the Rasool and Schneider paper, either. It
does NOT predict a global cooling. It does some speculating, but that's
about it. Connolley's web page has the full citation, unlike the opinion
peice that is at the discover.com site.
Want to try again?
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>>>>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>>>>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>>>>with:
>>>>
>>>> There is a greenhouse effect
>>>>
>>>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>>>>
>>>> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
>>>> the past 150 years
>>>>
>>>> The source of that increase is human activity
>>
>>>Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
>>>activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.
>>
>> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.
Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>>> increases, climate warms
>>
>>>*** That one, right there. ***
>>
>>>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>>>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
>>>science and enter that of speculation.
>>
>> Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
>>that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
>That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
>gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
>might act to cause the climate to cool.
You wish to interpret the question that way.
For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?
>>The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
>>concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
>>non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
>>temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
>>relationship is positive).
>>
>>> In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
>>>of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
>>>percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
>>>still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
>>>warms"?
>>
>> I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
>>that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.
>Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
>decrease in solar output?
Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?
Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?
Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally. For you to
skip over my use of the word "some" makes it look like you want to argue
against a strawman rather than what I'm saying. I'm willing to accept
that you didn't mean to do that, but you're going to have to make a better
effort if you want me to continue to accept that. For that purpose, I am
willing to put some number on what I expect, so...
No, I can't forsee any increase in CO2 that would offset a 50%
reduction in solar output. That does not mean that CO2 does not have an
effect, though. For doubling of atmospheric CO2 (from 300-600 ppm), the
radiative effect (a positive forcing) would be roughly equivalent to
increasing the solar constant by about 23 W/m^2 (given current climate).
So, conversely, doubling CO2 would offset a reduction in solar output of
23 W/m^2 (about 1.7%). This would be a very large change in solar
constant, easily detectable by our space-based instruments. If the solar
constant DID change by this amount (in the absence of any change in
greenhouse gases, or "other external factors") then I would also expect a
change in global mean temperature somewhere in the range of 1-4C.
Now, are you willing to put some numbers on your estimates?
>>
>> In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
>>constant" in there.
>Not at all. In the original assertion, there's an implicit "all other factors
>don't matter" in there.
Let's go back to the original question:
>>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>>> increases, climate warms
The purpose of the sequence of questions is to isolate different parts
of the problem (call it "anthropogenic climate change", or whatever you
will). This is standard scientific method. Once we isolate a component, we
can examine its effect, and once we understand it we can look at it in
conjunction with all the other components again.
It is very difficult to assess the effects of "all factors" if we don't
know what any of them do individually. I am trying to find out what your
level of understanding is on several key components of climate theory.
Please note that this question says nothing about human effects - it
simply asks about "greenhouse gases" and global temperature (with a little
elementary physics qualifier thrown in).
>>
>> Re-phrase the question:
>>
>> "In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
>>cooling...
>That's better -- but it still assumes that you can know, and do know, what
>*all* of those "other external [offsetting] factors" are.
When we eventually get back to the question of "what is happening to
our current climate?", then all those other factors DO come back in. But
at the moment, we are trying to isolate the role of one of those factors.
Does that make sense. Do you agree that isolating factors, for the purpose
of discussion and examiniation of effects, is a reasonable approach?
>>
>>>>
>>>> The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
>>>> been warmer than the previous 100.
>>
>>>There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
>>>shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
>>>monitors show a slight decrease.
>>
>> That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
>>early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
>>pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
>>satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
>>up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.
>Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....
Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.
>> And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
>>also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
>>urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
>>Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
>>"urbanization".
>>
>>>And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
>>>and non-anthropogenic causes.
>>
>> Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
>>distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
>>know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.
>>
>> For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
>>the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
>>are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
>>two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
>>changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
>>do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)
>>
>The point is that even if it is getting warmer, the temperature increase in
>and of itself is proof only of a temperature increase -- not of what caused
>it.
And that is the purpose of trying to isolate components of the system,
and examining eveidence that supports or eliminates a variety of causes.
For example, an argument that "the sun is doing it" is not very strong in
the presence of direct measurements of solar output that do not show an
increase in the past 20 years.
[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>>> Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
>>>atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
>>
>>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
>>
>> Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
>>to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
>>growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?
>Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
>planet-sized test chambers.
What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.
>>
>>> it takes a while to grow
>>>a tree, you know.
>>
>> ...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
>>growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
>>that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
>>stagnates.
>Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
>for emphasizing it.
No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth? What is it
about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
until later?
>>
>>>I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
>>>have expected it to.
>>
>> How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
>>look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
>>optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
>>additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
>>factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.
>That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
>the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
>foliated, than it is now...
Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
vegetation has adapted to the current environment.
[and the "worry" aspect is probably partly the natural scientific
reluctance to ignore the possibliity that thewre will be surprises.]
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
>political, not scientific.
No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.
In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
>>> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
>>> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
>>> dimmer switch on the sun?
>>
>>Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
>>put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
>>even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
>Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
>done already.
I would first argue that the current changes in climate are only
slightly dependent on the observed changes in solar output,
...but treating the question as hypothetical, and accepting that you can't
prevent it, you continue to study climate and predict what the changes
will be, so that you have time to prepare and adapt. If you're lucky,
there won't be much to do, but if the changes are significant and costly,
an early start will help.
Tom Terrific <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>> >>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>>
>> >Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
>> media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
>>
>> ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
>> you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
>> feel free to go to the following web page:
>>
>> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
>>
>> and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
>The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
>collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
>to do the same thing with global warming.
Is "the very same people" meant literally, as in "I have names of
people that said 'cooling' in the 1970s and 'warming' in the 1990s", or do
you mean it figuratively, as in "it's THOSE people - you know the ones".
> Surely you can understand
>the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
>putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
>rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
>American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
>today. Which movement had more credibility?
Hey, can I join "The Movement", too? Where do I get a membership card?
Do I get a discount at Walmart? Or perhaps at LL Bean?
Or do I just get assigned to it by you?
Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> >says...
>> >> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>>
>> >Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>> >calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>> >emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>> >It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>> >the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>> >countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>> >during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>> >incentive to outsource.
>>
>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
until later. Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.
>(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
>Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
>reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
>Democrats would prefer to disregard.
I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
decided to not meet our targets.)
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>>says...
>>>> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>>
>>>Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>>>calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>>>emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>>>It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>>>the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>>>countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>>>during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>>>incentive to outsource.
>>
>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>>
> You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?
Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
people that got elected.
...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.
Howzatt?
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tom
>Terrific <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>> >
>> > >In article <[email protected]>, D Smith
>> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>> > >>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>> >
>> > >Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
>> > media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
>> >
>> > ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
>> > you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
>> > feel free to go to the following web page:
>> >
>> > http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
>> >
>> > and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
>>
>> The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
>> collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
>> to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
>> the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
>> putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
>> rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
>> American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
>> today. Which movement had more credibility?
>Does anyone have a list of the people, scientists, journalists and
>politicians, who were screaming about cooling 30 years ago? I wonder
>what overlap there is...
How much would you expect there to be? 30 years is a long time in any
of these diciplines, and few people remain at the top for that long. Many
of the key scientists today were probably in high school or undergraduates
in the 1970s. Many of the key scientists from the 1970s are probably
slowly returning a lifetime of accumulated carbon back into the ecosystem
now.
If you haven't already got a copy of "the list", then it probably means
they won't let you into the club...
D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[huge snip]
>>>>There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
>>>>shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
>>>>monitors show a slight decrease.
>>>
>>> That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
>>>early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
>>>pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
>>>satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
>>>up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.
>>Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....
> Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
>the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
>look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
>now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
>had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.
Found it.
http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86
Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
details.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>>>>>>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>>>>>>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>>>>>>with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a greenhouse effect
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
>>>>>> the past 150 years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source of that increase is human activity
>>>>
>>>>>Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
>>>>>activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not
>> science.
>>>>
>>>> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>>>>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>>
>>
>>
>> Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>>
>I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
>strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
>activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.
First of all, read over the text above, and note that the question is
about the source of the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
it says NOTHING about global warming or temperature changes. That is a
seperate and distinct component of the overall issue, and is not
addressed in that statement.
The entire sequence of statements does carry the implication that
humans are burning fossil fuels which will have a warming effect, but that
single statement, taken only with the previous statement about atmospheric
CO2 concentration, says nothing at all about ANY sort of climate response.
So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.
In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
we disagree.
Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.
Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?
When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
for that disagreement.
One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
speak.
The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
the same data, different data, etc.
This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>>>>> increases, climate warms
>>>>
>>>>>*** That one, right there. ***
>>>>
>>>>>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>>>>>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm
>> of
>>>>>science and enter that of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
>>>>that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
>>
>>>That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
>>>gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
>>>might act to cause the climate to cool.
>>
>> You wish to interpret the question that way.
>First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.
>Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
>ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
>priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
>to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
>responsibility, not mine, to explain why.
Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?
I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
agree on.
I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.
You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and
this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
disucssion.
>>
>> For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
>>not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
>>the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
>>build it back into the composite system?
>Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
>clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
>factors.
For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?
To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
joint in plywood, do you?
>>
>>
>>>>The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
>>>>concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
>>>>non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
>>>>temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
>>>>relationship is positive).
>>>>
>>>>> In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
>>>>>of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
>>>>>percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
>>>>>still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
>>>>>warms"?
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
>>>>that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.
>>
>>>Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
>>>decrease in solar output?
>>
>> Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?
>OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:
>Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
>decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
>on this planet?
>Sheesh.
Why did you cut out the part where I answered your question?
If you seriously wanted to discuss any of this, you would have
responded to my answer, instead of cutting it and asking the same question
again, as if I hadn't answered.
What is your purpose in doing such a thing?
>>
>> Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?
>>
>> Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.
>No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
>so wildly that it can only be deliberate.
No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
and clarify them, and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
original miscontrued version.
>It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
>the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
>your Faith into question.
Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.
I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.
Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
isn't much more to say.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]
>>
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
>>>>>atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth,
>> and
>>>>
>>>>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>>>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
>>>>
>>>> Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
>>>>to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
>>>>growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?
>>
>>>Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
>>>planet-sized test chambers.
>>
>>
>> What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
>>of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
>>types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
>>trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.
>I guess the concept of scale doesn't have any meaning to you.
Sure it does. Do you want to tell us all what it means to you, and why
you think it makes a difference in this case?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> it takes a while to grow
>>>>>a tree, you know.
>>>>
>>>> ...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
>>>>growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
>>>>that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
>>>>stagnates.
>>
>>>Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
>>>for emphasizing it.
>>
>> No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
>>is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth?
>I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
>there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
>sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
>can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
>takes for the former to become the latter.
Wait a minute:
Are you saying that there is no lag between exposure and growth? (You
might just be saying that you didn't say there was, without asserting the
contrary.) And just what is the difference (to you) between "growth" and
"sequestering carbon". To me, it's pretty much the same - as trees get
bigger, they contain more carbon.
Your original statement (cut and paste from above) was:
>>>>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>>>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
Growth = carbon sequstration. so I STILL don't see how you come to the
conclusion that there is a time lag.
Large trees also lose branches, which is why mature trees (which
continue to photosynthesize and fix carbon) become carbon-stable (little
net change). Sure, they have lots of leaves and can do lots of
photosynthesizing, but much of that is used to replace carbon that is
being lost, so growth is negligible and carbon sequestration is
negligible.
And one more point: when looking at a landscape (i.e., carbon
sequestration over an area), it not only depends on how a single tree
behaves with age, but how many trees there are - we look at the forest,
not just the trees. In a newly forested area, often there are many small
trees, whereas at maturity a lot have died out and there are much fewer
large trees. Over an area, an intermiediate-age forest is the one with the
greatest rate of increase of mass (the most carbon sequestration).
[and this is leaving soil carbon out of the equation, which should be
included for completeness.]
>>What is it
>>about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
>>until later?
>See above.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
>>>>>have expected it to.
>>>>
>>>> How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
>>>>look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
>>>>optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
>>>>additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
>>>>factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.
>>
>>>That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
>>>the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
>>>foliated, than it is now...
>>
>> Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
>>high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
>>vegetation has adapted to the current environment.
>And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.
>So will we.
I hope so.
Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> >says...
>> >> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> >> >says...
>> >> >> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>> >>
>> >> >Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>> >> >calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>> >> >emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>> >> >It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>> >> >the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>> >> >countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>> >> >during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>> >> >incentive to outsource.
>> >>
>> >> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>> >> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>> >> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>> >> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>> >> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>>
>> >If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
>>
>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
>>
>> Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
>> negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
>> until later.
>So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
>for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
>pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
>hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
>they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
>time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
>in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
>world?
That's what the next stages of negotiation are for. I don't know if
they will. I can hope that they will. There is no guarantee that they
will, but I think that it is less likely that they will if we ignore the
promises we make.
>WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
>not explicitly spelled out in the contract.
Agreed.
>> Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
>> like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.
>Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
>India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
>percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
>countries represent?
I haven't bothered checking populations, but Europe is on board. I
think the appropriate measures are the percentage of current
high-per-capita CO2 producers and total CO2 users, rather than just
population, though.
>> >(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
>> >Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
>> >reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
>> >Democrats would prefer to disregard.
>>
>> I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
>> have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
>> decided to not meet our targets.)
>Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
>first place?
Probably less noble.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>D Smith wrote:
>> D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>
>>> Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
>>>the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
>>>look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
>>>now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
>>>had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.
>>
>> Found it.
>>
>> http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86
>>
>> Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
>> analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
>> details.
>>
>>
>Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
>2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING!
If you cherry-pick dates that represent an upward extreme at the start,
and a downward extreme at the end, then I can see how you would come to
that interpretation.
I wouldn't buy a used table saw from you, but I can see how you would
come to that interpretation.
> Actually, the chart indicates ground
>measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
>measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
>more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
>the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
>measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
>temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
>during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
>chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
>5,000 years?
In the satellite record, the short period is indeed a problem, which is
decreasing with time.
Of course, statistic methods such as linear regression let you estimate
uncertainties, too, and when done properly they don't suffer the same bias
as cherry-picking individual years, as you have done.
...and when you have multiple sources of data (land-based surface
records, ocean surface records, satellite data, snow free periods,
last-snow or first-snow dates, frost free periods, leaf-out, etc.) and
they all show a consistent trend, your confidence grows.
The instrumental record only goes back a little over 100 years.
Earlier than that, you have a wide variety of proxy indicators which help
establish what sort of variation there has been. Not as good as direct
readings, but still usefull.
You may wish to look at the following for more information:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
> So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
> the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
> increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
> heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
> by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>
in 1347747 20070227 044834 J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
>>changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
>>up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.
>
>Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
>up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
>and when challenged then launch a personal attack.
Congratulations Mr Clarke - you just lost the argument.
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>>>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>>>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>>>with:
>>>
>>> There is a greenhouse effect
>>>
>>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>>>
>>> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
>>> the past 150 years
>>>
>>> The source of that increase is human activity
>
>>Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
>>activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.
>
> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>
>>>
>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>> increases, climate warms
>
>>*** That one, right there. ***
>
>>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
>>science and enter that of speculation.
>
> Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
>that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.
>The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
>concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
>non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
>temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
>relationship is positive).
>
>> In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
>>of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
>>percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
>>still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
>>warms"?
>
> I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
>that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.
Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?
>
> In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
>constant" in there.
Not at all. In the original assertion, there's an implicit "all other factors
don't matter" in there.
>
> Re-phrase the question:
>
> "In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
>cooling...
That's better -- but it still assumes that you can know, and do know, what
*all* of those "other external [offsetting] factors" are.
>
>>>
>>> The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
>>> been warmer than the previous 100.
>
>>There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
>>shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
>>monitors show a slight decrease.
>
> That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
>early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
>pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
>satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
>up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.
Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....
> And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
>also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
>urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
>Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
>"urbanization".
>
>>And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
>>and non-anthropogenic causes.
>
> Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
>distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
>know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.
>
> For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
>the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
>are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
>two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
>changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
>do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)
>
The point is that even if it is getting warmer, the temperature increase in
and of itself is proof only of a temperature increase -- not of what caused
it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:24:49 -0500, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>>> If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
>>> consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
>>> very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
>>> already.
>>>
>>> Tim w
>>
>> Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
>> past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
>> period.......Rod
>
>Rod,
>
>Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.
"unprecedented" and "unprecedented in the few hundred years that
anybody has been paying attention" are two different things.
Larry Kraus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
> I'd be more impressed if this had not been announced on April Fool's
> Day.
>
How about a couple more:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5674/1141?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10
&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Antarctica+Key+To+Sudden+Sea+Level+Rise&searchid=1
&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT>
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1747?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10
&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Antarctica+Key+To+Sudden+Sea+Level+Rise&searchid=1
&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT>
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>with:
>
> There is a greenhouse effect
>
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>
> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
> the past 150 years
>
> The source of that increase is human activity
Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.
>
> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
> increases, climate warms
*** That one, right there. ***
The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation. In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?
>
> The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
> been warmer than the previous 100.
There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.
And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic causes.
>
>I'll also ask the same question Bob asked when he raised the points:
>
> If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?
See above.
>
>[No, I won't have to go back to Bob for answers - I'll respond directly if
>you post a followup]
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:04 -0600, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
>> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
>> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
>> dimmer switch on the sun?
>
>Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
>put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
>even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
Of course, if you ship that power to the earth you will introduce as
much heat as if you just let the sun shine on the earth directly.
Energy (power) will always end up as heat. (loosely speaking)
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.
>>
>
>You are now trying to flatter yourself... anyway, back to my
>questions: This time answer them, instead of the usual responses,
>which are, as usual, useless.
I did answer them. It's not my fault you didn't like the answers.
>
>And you think *I* need a therapist?
Yes.
>
>Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
>argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
>Again?
>
>*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
>guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
>anything positive.*
Ummm.... that would be *you*, not me...
PLONK
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
>> >pool and how much would it allow an American?
>>
>> >Got any numbers?
>>
>> The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
>> *does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.
>>
>> Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
>> the United States?
>>
>
>There is a lot less of it.
Got any numbers?
>
>That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.
>
All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.
Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>
>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>>> sheets remaining stable."
>>>
>>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
>>> earth
>>> in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
>>> changing.
>>>
>>Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
>>the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
>>20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
>>says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
>>sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
>>sheets.
>
> Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
> 3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
> is "normal"?
>
Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was my
simple point.
Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we have a
pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil records and
the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i are not going to
live that long. Global warming is going to happen this century and rapidly.
Tim w
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
>> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
>> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>
>
>Facts:
>
>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
>rises
>
>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>sources.
How?
>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:22:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>
>>It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
>>the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
>>flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
>>As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
>>and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
>>warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
>>cause.
>
>The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
>about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
>*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
>dimmer switch on the sun?
res ipsa loquitur.
pay attention to the core of the argument.
r.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>> the
>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Facts:
>>>
>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>
>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>
>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>temperature rises
>>>
>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>sources.
>>
>> How?
>
>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>
><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years", and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
>
>>
>>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>>
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>> the
>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>
>>
>>Facts:
>>
>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>
> OK
>
>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>
> Well, sort of
>
>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>temperature rises
>>
>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>sources.
> How so?
>
>>
>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>
> So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
> open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves
> plant health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2,
> causing CO2 to decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from
> understood. The impact of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of
> the earth's surface are also not understood.
>
> So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria
> over
> predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back
> up even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion
> with dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all
> meteorological events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin
> (CO2 production), penance (drastic reduction of industrial
> capabilities), and indulgences (carbon trading). And the high priests
> of this religion are able to control the lives of the peasants over
> whom they hold sway.
While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited above
ARE facts.
>
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>
"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>
>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>> sheets remaining stable."
>>
>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
>> earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
>> still changing.
>>
> Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
> the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
> 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
> says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
> sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
> sheets.
But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but a
fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it Antartica used
to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to Africa and South America.
In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
always changing!
Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
googling it appears the only constant is *change*!
Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the earth's
mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it "cooled." What
a load of nonsense that is.
<AsbestosUnderware=on>
When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is to
rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New Lousiana, USA.
I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades there, but IMO it is
stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the evidence is that NO will be a
whole lot *more* underwater in the next xxxx years.
</>
-- Mark
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> And you think *I* need a therapist?
>
> Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
> argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
> Again?
>
> *there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
> guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
> anything positive.*
LOL ... took you long enough!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> >What do _you_ think it's about?
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
>>
>> So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
>> stuff people find to be worried about.
>
> So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
> like Christmas for liberals.
>
Okay it's boring to post a web link to someon els's article instead of
replying yourself I know, so you can both be forgiven for not bothering to
read the article. the gist of it was: global warming will be a catastrophe
for the already poor regions of the earth, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa.
enough now.
Tim w
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
>It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
>the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
>flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
>As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
>and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
>warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
>cause.
The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:52:12 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global
>>>>>>> warming, the
>>>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
>>>>>>> would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
>>>>>>> cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
>>>>>>> it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating
>>>>>>> the theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Facts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>>>temperature rises
>>>>>>
>>>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
>>>>>>other sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> How?
>>>>
>>>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>>>
>>>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>>>
>>> And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
>>> quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>>>
>>> It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
>>> in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
>>
>>37%
>
> And that is based on isotope ratios? That's not what you link said.
Then go with the link. Or Whatever.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
>> saplings to
>> add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.
>>
>> Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
>> 100:1.
>>
>> You also haven't considered the leaves...
>>
>> Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
>> otherwise.
>
>Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.
If you have some actual figures to show that I'm wrong, post them.
>
>BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.
>
Wrong again. They break down, sure, but a lot of the carbon they contain
enters the soil, not the atmosphere.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
D Smith wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>D Smith wrote:
>>
>>>D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
>>>>the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
>>>>look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
>>>>now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
>>>>had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.
>>>
>>> Found it.
>>>
>>> http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86
>>>
>>> Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
>>>analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
>>>details.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
>>2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING!
>
>
> If you cherry-pick dates that represent an upward extreme at the start,
> and a downward extreme at the end, then I can see how you would come to
> that interpretation.
Well, how do wo know the maker of the chart dudn't cherry pick the start
of the chart? What if the chart started fifty years earlier, what would
it show? The fact is, the chart DOES show no change in global
temperature during the period from 1979 to 2001.
> I wouldn't buy a used table saw from you,
My Delta table saw is not for sale, thank you.
> but I can see how you would come to that interpretation.
>
It's not an interpretation, it's an observation of the reported data.
>
>> Actually, the chart indicates ground
>>measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
>>measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
>>more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
>>the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
>>measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
>>temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
>>during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
>>chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
>>5,000 years?
>
>
> In the satellite record, the short period is indeed a problem, which is
> decreasing with time.
>
> Of course, statistic methods such as linear regression let you estimate
> uncertainties, too, and when done properly they don't suffer the same bias
> as cherry-picking individual years, as you have done.
I wasn't the one who prepared the chart, I just made an observation of
what the chart shows.
>
> ...and when you have multiple sources of data (land-based surface
> records, ocean surface records, satellite data, snow free periods,
> last-snow or first-snow dates, frost free periods, leaf-out, etc.) and
> they all show a consistent trend, your confidence grows.
But the chart shows ground data and satellite data having somewhat
different trends. The chart does show the overall trend for that 22
year period is flat. And I saw nothing to explain the brief upward
spike in 2002-2004. Perhaps that spike is an anomoly.
> The instrumental record only goes back a little over 100 years.
> Earlier than that, you have a wide variety of proxy indicators which help
> establish what sort of variation there has been. Not as good as direct
> readings, but still usefull.
Useful for what? Current leading edge technology only allows
interpolated guestimates about global temperatures over the last 50
years. Can anyone say with reasonable certainty that the margin of
error in these "proxy indicators" is significantly smaller than any
temperature changes interpolated from those indicators?
I'd be interested in someone imputting the available data from, say,
1850 to 1950 into the best available computer models, and comparing the
extrapolated date from those models to actual observations for
1950-2000. If the extrapolations closely matched the observed data, I'd
still like to see some scientifically proven causal relationship between
human technological activity and any changes in the observed temperature
data.
>
> You may wish to look at the following for more information:
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote:
>In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
>cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
>it would be a *bit* more.
Approximately ten percent, I believe.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Take a test:
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
I got 10/10 right. Thanks for the link.
-- Mark
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...
> >
> > What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
> > city, New Orleans LA USA.
> >
>
> Or half the country of Holland....
>
> Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
> entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?
Is that one of the cataclysmic results of global warming?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
> >>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>
> >Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.
>
>
> Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
> media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
>
> ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
> you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
> feel free to go to the following web page:
>
> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
>
> and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>
> >Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
> >calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
> >emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
> >It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
> >the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
> >countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
> >during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
> >incentive to outsource.
>
> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >> >says...
> >> >> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
> >>
> >> >Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
> >> >calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
> >> >emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
> >> >It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
> >> >the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
> >> >countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
> >> >during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
> >> >incentive to outsource.
> >>
> >> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
> >> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
> >> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
> >> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
> >> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
> >If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
>
> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
>
> Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
> negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
> until later.
So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
world?
WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
not explicitly spelled out in the contract.
> Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
> like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.
Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
countries represent?
> >(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
> >Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
> >reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
> >Democrats would prefer to disregard.
>
> I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
> have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
> decided to not meet our targets.)
Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
first place?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >> >says...
> >> >> Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >> >> >says...
> >> >> >> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
> >> >> >calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
> >> >> >emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
> >> >> >It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
> >> >> >the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
> >> >> >countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
> >> >> >during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
> >> >> >incentive to outsource.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
> >> >> meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
> >> >> countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
> >> >> exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
> >> >> temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
> >>
> >> >If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
> >>
> >> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
> >>
> >> Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
> >> negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
> >> until later.
>
> >So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
> >for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
> >pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
> >hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
> >they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
> >time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
> >in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
> >world?
>
>
> That's what the next stages of negotiation are for. I don't know if
> they will. I can hope that they will. There is no guarantee that they
> will, but I think that it is less likely that they will if we ignore the
> promises we make.
What planet are you posting from? They refused to sign on to the
treaty unless it was specifically spelled out that it didn't apply to
them. That sounds a lot like they don't want to meet the targets
that they 'agree' to expect from everybody else.
> >WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
> >not explicitly spelled out in the contract.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >> Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
> >> like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.
>
> >Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
> >India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
> >percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
> >countries represent?
>
> I haven't bothered checking populations, but Europe is on board. I
> think the appropriate measures are the percentage of current
> high-per-capita CO2 producers and total CO2 users, rather than just
> population, though.
Would you agree that perhaps the targets should be relative to
industrial activity? (no, that would reduce the pressure on the US
-- we can't have that!)
> >> >(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
> >> >Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
> >> >reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
> >> >Democrats would prefer to disregard.
> >>
> >> I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
> >> have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
> >> decided to not meet our targets.)
>
> >Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
> >first place?
>
> Probably less noble.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> > >How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
> > >pool and how much would it allow an American?
> >
> > >Got any numbers?
> >
> > The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
> > *does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.
> >
> > Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
> > the United States?
> >
>
> There is a lot less of it.
>
> That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.
According to a report issued by the International Energy Agency in
November, it looks like China is poised to take the lead in 2009 -
about ten years ahead of 'schedule'. But everybody knows their pee
is not as icky because they don't have a Republican at the helm.
"rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?"
Yah, and another global warming guru flying private jets all over the
country lecturing people about their SUVs. No, we don't have one. Of course
a former presidential candidate said that too, turned out they had the use
of several SUVs registered to other family members.
FACT, there was a glacier within 60 miles of where I live a few thousand
years ago. What happened to it? Global warming and there were no SUVs, no
coal burning electic plants, etc. We are likely not having a favorable
affect on the atmosphere at this time but what proportion of change is the
result is very questionable.
They now say cows contribute a lot to "green house gases". They will want to
put catalytic converters on cows. What I what to see is them catching the
squirrels and putting converters on them.
Walt Conner
D Smith wrote:
> D Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>
>> Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
>>the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
>>look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
>>now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
>>had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.
>
> Found it.
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86
>
> Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
> analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
> details.
>
>
Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING! Actually, the chart indicates ground
measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
5,000 years?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>>Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
>>western industrial democracies.
>>
>
> Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>
Copy, paste, and watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
>> western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.
>
>Neither are we.
Yes, but that's only because we haven't signed and ratified it. If we had, we
would be.
[snip]
>> Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
>> western industrial democracies.
>>
>Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
I just *gave* you the evidence: Kyoto exempts India, China, and other
developing nations from the CO2 restrictions that it imposes on western
industrial democracies.
Not *my* fault you're willfully blind.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
> saplings to
> add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.
>
> Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
> 100:1.
>
> You also haven't considered the leaves...
>
> Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
> otherwise.
Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.
BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.
in 1352090 20070322 181427 Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
>>>>>western industrial democracies.
>>>
>>>>Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>>>
>>>Copy, paste, and watch:
>>>
>>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
>>
>>
>> I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
>> economies of the western democracies.
>>
>
>If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
>debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
>scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.
This thread has finally descended into total farce.
"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of
>> global
>> warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that
>> no matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited
>> as "evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal?
>> Global warming
>> coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
>> extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers
>> than normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal?
>> Again, evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
>>
>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>> the
>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>> evidence of a
>> theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
>> questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>
>
> That is very simple.
>
> If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact
> local consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict,
> but it's very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes
> across the globe already.
For the period we have measurements from.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.
>>
>> Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
>> It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.
>>>
>Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
>stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
>vigorous ones. It's a wash.
I disagree. Mature trees don't stop growing; they still add a growth ring
every year. That ring may be only 2mm thick, but when the circumference of the
tree is two meters, that's a liter of new wood for every 250mm of height.
Obviously that won't hold true over the entire height of the tree, due to the
taper of the trunk, but if you assume a uniform taper (yielding a one-meter
average circumference) you still get a liter of new wood for every 500mm of
height. And that's just in the trunk, not even considering the branches.
Now consider a sapling with a trunk 3 meters tall. The circumference is only
1/10 as much. Now young trees add wood at a much faster rate than old ones;
you can see that in the growth rings. So suppose the growth rings are twice as
wide. It's still adding wood at only 1/5 the rate, per unit of height, as the
mature tree. And the mature tree is ten times as tall, too.
So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty saplings to
add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.
Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches 100:1.
You also haven't considered the leaves...
Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
otherwise.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
>>>>> would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
>>>>> cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
>>>>> it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
>>>>> theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts:
>>>>
>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>temperature rises
>>>>
>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
>>>>other sources.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>
>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>>
>>>
>
> From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
> forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
> atmosphere."
>
> How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
> human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced
> by natural causes?
It isn't. But the major human produced CO2 comes from other fuels and is
likely several orders of magnitude more than forest fires.
>
> Other questions to ask:
> "Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as
> the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
> OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper
> making
> the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
> increase?
No idea. Contact the author.
>
>
>>>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>>>
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>
"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
>>>> ice sheets remaining stable."
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Why should they be stable?
>
> [...]
>> Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
>> ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.
>
> Because the consequences are mind boggling.
What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level city,
New Orleans LA USA.
-- Mark
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:AWpEh.1717$N63.1623@trnddc08...
> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>
>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>>> sheets remaining stable."
>>>
>>> Huh? Why should they be stable?
[...]
> Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
> ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.
Because the consequences are mind boggling.
Tim w
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:01:56 GMT, "Tim W"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>>>
>>>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's
>>>>> huge ice sheets remaining stable."
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of
>>>>> the earth
>>>>> in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
>>>>> still changing.
>>>>>
>>>>Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer
>>>>look in the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys
>>>>early in the 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the
>>>>20th century which says that we are no witnessing a gradual change
>>>>over a long period but a sudden dip in temperatures and a possible
>>>>collapse of the sea-born ice sheets.
>>>
>>> Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is
>>> what, 3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we
>>> know what is "normal"?
>>>
>>Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was
>>my simple point.
>>
>>Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we
>>have a pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil
>>records and the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i
>>are not going to live that long. Global warming is going to happen
>>this century and rapidly.
>
> And?
>
> Are you just proclaiming doom and gloom or is somebody supposed to do
> something about it?
>
Buy property in the Ozarks before the rush!
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Schneider is regularly sought-out by journalists
Once this sets in, almost anyone is doomed.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>> the
>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>
>>
>>Facts:
>>
>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>
>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>
>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>temperature rises
>>
>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>sources.
>
> How?
Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>
On Mar 20, 9:06 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, [email protected] (DougMiller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
> >> >who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
> >> >own economies for no particular reason at all.
>
> >> >Does THAT make sense?
>
> >> Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
> >> have been, yes, it does make sense.
>
> >So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
> >their economies, knowing that no good would come
> >of it?
>
> >THAT makes sense?
>
> You have to understand that in the minds
> of the socialists, crippling the industrial
> democracies is a *good* thing because it
> advances the cause.
Is Tony Blair a socialist?
> ...
> >Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
> >really been released over the last 50 years?
>
> What's your point here? AFAIK, Kyoto doesn't apply to volcanos...
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/d08d292ed1ac5364?dmode=source&hl=en
--
FF
On Mar 23, 6:35 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote:
> > This thread has finally descended into total farce.
>
> The idea of ecological disaster resulting from man-made GW is a total farce.
The idea that Margaret Thatcher popularized concern over
anthropogenic global warming because of a coal miners'
strike is beyond farcical.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]
>
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>>> Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
>>>>atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth,
> and
>>>
>>>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
>>>
>>> Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
>>>to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
>>>growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?
>
>>Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
>>planet-sized test chambers.
>
>
> What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
>of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
>types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
>trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.
I guess the concept of scale doesn't have any meaning to you.
>
>
>>>
>>>> it takes a while to grow
>>>>a tree, you know.
>>>
>>> ...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
>>>growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
>>>that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
>>>stagnates.
>
>>Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
>>for emphasizing it.
>
> No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
>is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth?
I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
takes for the former to become the latter.
>What is it
>about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
>until later?
See above.
>
>
>>>
>>>>I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
>>>>have expected it to.
>>>
>>> How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
>>>look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
>>>optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
>>>additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
>>>factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.
>
>>That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
>>the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
>>foliated, than it is now...
>
> Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
>high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
>vegetation has adapted to the current environment.
And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.
So will we.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
>release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
>oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.
It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
date. Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years: it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know. I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>
> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
> sheets remaining stable."
>
> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
> in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
> changing.
>
Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.
Tim w
In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
>> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
>> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
>> dimmer switch on the sun?
>
>Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
>put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
>even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
done already.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 1, 11:57 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
>> list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.
>>
>
>I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.
>
>Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
>a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?
Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.
>
>Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
>discussion with you always end the same way?
Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.
>
>Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?
You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember? You
challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.
You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
missed it.
>
>Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
>intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
>victory?
Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.
>
>How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
>fucked-up) games of words?
>
>What is wrong with you?
Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:38:05 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" wrote in message
>
>> I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
>> skeeters I'm not big on.
>
>They're not bad, yet ... but we've had a wet winter and with the warming it
>is indeed looking like a banner year for 'skeeters.
>
>Being a coonass, they don't bother me too much. The one's I was raised
>around in S. Louisiana could stand flatfooted and screw a buzzard.
>
So, are you like the guy in the Tabasco commercial? [I always got a
chuckle out of that one]. For those what haven't seen it:
<http://youtube.com/watch?v=R62Vzp4bXmA>
>SWMBO, like you, is allergic to them ... must be a "Northerner" thing, as
>she's from way up there in Arkansas. ;)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."
Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.
-- Mark
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:40:18 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> >What do _you_ think it's about?
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
>>>
>>> So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
>>> stuff people find to be worried about.
>>
>> So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
>> like Christmas for liberals.
>>
>Okay it's boring to post a web link to someon els's article instead of
>replying yourself I know, so you can both be forgiven for not bothering to
>read the article. the gist of it was: global warming will be a catastrophe
>for the already poor regions of the earth, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa.
>
>enough now.
The gist of it is that peoples' income would be 20% less than it would
otherwise be, and they from there he jumps to "it would be a
catastrophe" in areas where people don't have much income today.
>
>Tim w
>
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>
>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
>>> ice sheets remaining stable."
>>>
>>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
>>> earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The
>>> earth is still changing.
>>>
>> Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer
>> look in the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys
>> early in the 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the
>> 20th century which says that we are no witnessing a gradual change
>> over a long period but a sudden dip in temperatures and a possible
>> collapse of the sea-born ice sheets.
>
> But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but
> a fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it
> Antartica used to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to
> Africa and South America.
>
> In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's
> weather -- always changing!
>
> Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features
> like ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and
> melting. Based on my googling it appears the only constant is
> *change*!
>
> Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the
> earth's mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it
> "cooled." What a load of nonsense that is.
>
> <AsbestosUnderware=on>
> When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is
> to rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New
> Lousiana, USA. I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades
> there, but IMO it is stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the
> evidence is that NO will be a whole lot *more* underwater in the next
> xxxx years. </>
> -- Mark
>
>
And a whole lot more cities to boot.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Douglass
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
>>cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
>>it would be a *bit* more.
>
> Approximately ten percent, I believe.
If a floating iceberg is 90% under water...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:59:20 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Thank god we only elected him once.
: )
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>What do _you_ think it's about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
Tim w
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
> get out more.
>
If you think it is all about a few coastal floods you need to get your head
out of the sand.
tim w
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:05:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
From the article:
************
What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
ice sheets remaining stable. The West Antarctic ice sheet is thought
to be potentially unstable, and if it collapsed sea levels around the
world would rise almost 20 feet. The melting of the larger and more
stable East Antarctic ice sheet would raise Earth's sea levels another
200 feet.
***********
That 200 feet number seemed high to me, so I sat down and did a bit of
calculation. After a lot of hunting to find any sort of figures for
the amount of ice in Antarctica and various other things I settled on
just using the total area of Antarctica and the total area of all the
oceans then working backwards to find out how much ice it would take
to raise sea levels 200 feet (not quite the 220+ mentioned, but close
enough).
The world's oceans comprise roughly 139,480,000 square miles.
Antarctica is 5,405,430 square miles.
In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
it would be a *bit* more.
That works out to a layer of ice over Antarctica averaging 5,160 feet
thick, which is pretty close to the generally reported one mile (5,280
feet) average ice thickness.
So, if the edges of all the world's oceans were vertical cliffs you
could gain pretty close to 200 feet if all the ice in Antarctica were
to melt. If you factor in coastline slope, so that the surface covered
keeps expanding I doubt you will come close to that. There is a *lot*
of land that is less than 200 feet above sea level.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:oBOEh.2656$KE2.1036@trnddc06...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
> >
> >> While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited
> >> above ARE facts.
> >
> > Here are more for you to give some thought to:
> >
> > http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
> >
>
> Good link. I worked on a project with Schneider many, many years ago.
My sympathies ... :
Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider
"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National Center
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades. Schneider is
one of the most ardent advocates of the Global Warming Theory, the
proposition that a build-up of CO2, methane and refrigerant gases in the
atmosphere could lead to a cataclysmic rise in earth's temperature. He
joined the faculty of Stanford University in 1991.
Schneider is regularly sought-out by journalists to comment on climate
matters despite the fact that his analyses are unreliable. In the early
1970s, for example, Schneider rejected the Global Warming Theory, writing,
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in
CO2." He even went as far as to predict that a "Little Ice Age" would
occur -- It didn't. The Global Warming Theory, which Schneider currently
endorses, now also appears to be incorrect. The most recent data suggests
that the planet is in fact cooling, not warming.
Schneider's blunders are not surprising. He once commented, "Looking at
every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time... So, I don't set
very much store by looking at the direct evidence."
Selected Schneider Quotes
"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." -
Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in
CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than
two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several
thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in
Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)
"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a
scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming
there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January
23, 1989
""It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global
warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the
Boston Globe, May 31, 1992
"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very
much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington
Times, June 12, 1992
"[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Quoted
by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)"
Too damn bad you just can't be "honest".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >What do _you_ think it's about?
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
>
> So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
> stuff people find to be worried about.
So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
like Christmas for liberals.
todd
"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
> Pretty obvious agenda on the front page:
>
> "This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore
> contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good
> grade in political correctness."
Only a problem if political correctness is a necessary part of your debate.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:10:08 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>in 1347747 20070227 044834 J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
>>>changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
>>>up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.
>>
>>Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
>>up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
>>and when challenged then launch a personal attack.
>
>Congratulations Mr Clarke - you just lost the argument.
I see that you are not familiar with the expression <plonk>.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:34:40 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>
>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>>> sheets remaining stable."
>>>
>>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
>>> earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
>>> still changing.
>>>
>> Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
>> the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
>> 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
>> says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
>> sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
>> sheets.
>
>But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but a
>fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it Antartica used
>to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to Africa and South America.
>
>In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
>always changing!
>
>Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
>shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
>googling it appears the only constant is *change*!
The reason you should be concerned is that if there is a significant
change in sea level there will be economic consequences for a lot of
people, not all of whom live close to the ocean--flood the ports and
no more Chinese tools or exotic woods until new ports are built.
But being concerned about climate change and trying to fix it with a
possibly ill-considered panic-stricken change in industrial policy are
not the same things.
>Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the earth's
>mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it "cooled." What
>a load of nonsense that is.
>
><AsbestosUnderware=on>
>When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is to
>rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New Lousiana, USA.
>I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades there, but IMO it is
>stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the evidence is that NO will be a
>whole lot *more* underwater in the next xxxx years.
></>
> -- Mark
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:45:47 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
>
>> Pretty obvious agenda on the front page:
>>
>> "This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore
>> contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good
>> grade in political correctness."
>
>Only a problem if political correctness is a necessary part of your debate.
Any time you use a statement like "political correctness" in
describing your poll you have clearly stated that you have a
particular bias. The entire paragraph I quoted is unnecessary and only
serves as a caution that if you want an unbiased survey you should
look elsewhere.
Try this version:
"This section contains sound science, not conservative political
denial, and may therefore contain material not suitable for people
trying to maintain the economic status-quo."
See, they are both equally biased, just in opposite directions. If the
poll is reasonable it doesn't need any disclaimer of that sort.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
> >What do _you_ think it's about?
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
stuff people find to be worried about.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>>Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
>>>>western industrial democracies.
>>
>>>Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>>
>>Copy, paste, and watch:
>>
>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
>
>
> I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
> economies of the western democracies.
>
If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
> I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. <EG>
Must be that dratted global warming, eh?
FWIW, it's bright sunshine and 74 degrees here in Big H.
I'll send a toast your way tonight when I'm sitting on the front porch with
a glass of pinot, swatting mosquitoes.
... eat your heart out. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 2, 7:58 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> *LOL*
>
>
>
Me too.
Trouble is, managing for greatest increase in biomass conflicts with
managing for greatest yield of high-grade sawlogs. The compromise currently
in force obliges the jobber to make the sawlogs pay for the thinning
operations which produce little valuable product. For sawlogs we want
trees to be close and growth slowly as a consequence. If you've ever
harvested hardwood, you know how little foliage on few branches a mature
forest tree really has. A tree with a 14" MBH trunk diameter has the about
the same amount of carbon-fixing foliage as a 2" MBH of the same species
occupying the same ground area. The upper branches shade and cause the loss
of lower, which increases the grade of the subsequent lumber, but not the
quantity of wood mass produced per acre.
The lesson for carbon fixation is obvious when observing that as mature
trees are harvested, they release the stunted saplings of the same species,
as well as enable the growth of shade-intolerant varieties which are more
efficient at carbon fixing.
If we grow trees in a monoculture environment, as is currently done with
softwoods here, and with hardwoods elsewhere, we can carefully balance the
desire for timber with the need for light in thinning and harvesting. In a
more diverse forest we have to be more selective, harvesting by species and
not just by size.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:29:56 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Take a test:
>
>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
Pretty obvious agenda on the front page:
This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore
contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good
grade in political correctness.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Hartigan <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>says...
>>> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>
>>Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>>calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>>emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>>It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>>the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>>countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>>during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>>incentive to outsource.
>
> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
D Smith wrote:
> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
> 1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>
"Accept" is not a scientific notion, it is a religious one. You might "accept" the teaching
of Jesus, Buddah, or Al Gore, but science is expected to *demonstrate* its findings such that
they can be *verified* by other specialists in the field in an open and transparent way.
Science does not depend on "consensus" or "acceptance". In fact, it is actually rooted in
*falsification* (at least in principle). So, when you ask questions like the one posed above,
you expose your position as being essentially mystical, not scientific.
I do not "accept" your line of argument. I await scientific confirmation and demonstration
which has yet to happen at anything near the breathtaking levels of confidence that
the rectal parasites like Gore trumpet...
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>>>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>>>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>>>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>>>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
>
>>.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
>>political, not scientific.
>
> No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
>increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
>country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.
Nonsense, absolute and utter nonsense. If Kyoto were about reducing CO2
emissions, it would have placed restrictions on India and China as well.
>
> In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
>peeing in it.
OK, if that's so -- then why does Kyoto allow China and India to keep peeing
in the pool?
Like I said -- political basis, not scientific.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been
>>> one
>>>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>
>>Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global
>>COOLING.
>
>
> Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more
> than
> media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.
>
> ...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think
> that
> you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the
> 1970s, feel free to go to the following web page:
>
> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
>
> and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.
>
>
<http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
>> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
>> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>
>
>Facts:
>
>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>
OK
>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>
Well, sort of
>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
>rises
>
>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>sources.
How so?
>
>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood. The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.
So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:07:18 -0600, Mike Hartigan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> [...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>
>Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
>calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
>emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
>It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
>the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
>countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
>during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
>incentive to outsource.
And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist for not signing Kyoto.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider
>>
>>"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
>>Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National
>>Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades.
>
> Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies
> someone to be a climate researcher...
>
Fluid Dynamics.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>> the
>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Facts:
>>>
>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>
>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>
>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>temperature rises
>>>
>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>sources.
>>
>> How?
>
>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>
><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
>>
From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
atmosphere."
How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced by
natural causes?
Other questions to ask:
"Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the
CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper making
the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
increase?
>>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
>meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
>countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
>exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
>temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.
.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:AWpEh.1717$N63.1623@trnddc08...
>> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>>
>>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>>>> sheets remaining stable."
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Why should they be stable?
>
>[...]
>> Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
>> ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.
>
>Because the consequences are mind boggling.
If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
get out more.
On 26 Feb 2007 21:28:52 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
>>warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
>>matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
>>"evidence of global warming".
>
> Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
>level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
>means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
>these based on a single event.
>
>> More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
>>coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
>>extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.
>
> I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
>hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
>warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
>hurricanes), but:
>
> IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
>from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
>previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.
>
> ...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
>NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
>incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
>looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.
>
>> Hotter summers than
>>normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
>>evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
>
> Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
>of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
>
> Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
>on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
>analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
>results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
>with the scientific predictions.
>
>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>
> That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
>strawman.
>
>> the
>>thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
>>required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
>>theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
>>questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
> Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
>scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.
>
> Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:
>
> - measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
>is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)
>
> - measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
>measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)
>
> - an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
>surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
>to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
>theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
>to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)
>
> - measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
>for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
>increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
>as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
>there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
>of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)
>
> - an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
>caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
>mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
>hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)
>
> You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
>knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?
I'm sorry, but none of those address the "anthropogenic" issue. All
of those points you make are equally consistent with a completely
natural cause.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:38:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
>and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
>people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected.
Thank god we only elected him once.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:52:12 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
>>>>>> would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
>>>>>> cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
>>>>>> it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Facts:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>>temperature rises
>>>>>
>>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
>>>>>other sources.
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>
>>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>>
>>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>>
>> And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
>> quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>>
>> It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
>> in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
>
>37%
And that is based on isotope ratios? That's not what you link said.
>> and it's an even bigger stretch
>> from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>> CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
>> "The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>> CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
>> pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
>
>Not that I said that ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>>>>
>>
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
I'd be more impressed if this had not been announced on April Fool's
Day.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
>
>> While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited
>> above ARE facts.
>
> Here are more for you to give some thought to:
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
>
Good link. I worked on a project with Schneider many, many years ago.
On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
>>>>>> be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
>>>>>> evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
>>>>>> needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Facts:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>>temperature rises
>>>>>
>>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
>>>>>sources.
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>
>>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>>
>>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
>>And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
>>quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>
> ...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
>atmospheric CO2.
So?
>So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
>the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:
>
> 1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
>fossil fuels is being removed.
Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
source?
> 2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
>to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.
What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
> 3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
>from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).
Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
identifcation of a source? This is like examining the functioning of
the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
tap or the dog.
> 4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
>combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
>(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
>that is based on isotope ratios.)
First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
does not demonstrate this.
>>It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
>>in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
>
> Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
>Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
>tactic?
Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.
>
>> and it's an even bigger stretch
>>from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>>CO2"
>
> Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
>Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
>climate science right?"
Figured that out, did you?
>> and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
>>"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
>>CO2
>
> A clear strawman.
To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
warming.
>>while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
>>pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
>
> The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
>global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
>it has taken the lead in creating?
Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?
> Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
>cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
>He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
>might steal some later.
No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.
> It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
>changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
>up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.
Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.
<plonk>
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:06:03 -0800, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:04 -0600, Chris Friesen
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
>>> about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
>>> *entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
>>> dimmer switch on the sun?
>>
>>Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
>>put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
>>even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.
>
>Of course, if you ship that power to the earth you will introduce as
>much heat as if you just let the sun shine on the earth directly.
>Energy (power) will always end up as heat. (loosely speaking)
However if the conversion to electric power takes place in space then
any waste heat due to inefficiency in that process will stay there.
This may be anything from a little to a lot depending on how the
conversion is performed.
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
>>there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
>>sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
>>can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
>>takes for the former to become the latter.
>
> Wait a minute:
>
> Are you saying that there is no lag between exposure and growth? (You
>might just be saying that you didn't say there was, without asserting the
>contrary.) And just what is the difference (to you) between "growth" and
>"sequestering carbon". To me, it's pretty much the same - as trees get
>bigger, they contain more carbon.
Missed the phrase "significant ability" the first time through, didja?
>
> Your original statement (cut and paste from above) was:
>
>>>>>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>>>>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
>
> Growth = carbon sequstration. so I STILL don't see how you come to the
>conclusion that there is a time lag.
OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.
Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.
>
> Large trees also lose branches, which is why mature trees (which
>continue to photosynthesize and fix carbon) become carbon-stable (little
>net change). Sure, they have lots of leaves and can do lots of
>photosynthesizing, but much of that is used to replace carbon that is
>being lost, so growth is negligible and carbon sequestration is
>negligible.
How is that carbon being "lost"? When a branch falls off of a tree, the carbon
it contains is *still* sequestered from the atmosphere. Likewise the leaves:
when they fall off, the carbon is no longer part of the tree, but it isn't
released into the atmosphere, either.
Looks like you have *another* unsupported [and, IMO, unsupportable] assertion
to defend now, namely the one that mature trees are carbon-stable, with
"negligible" sesquestration of atmospheric carbon. The mature oaks and maples
in my yard drop at least several hundred pounds of carbon onto the lawn every
October. That carbon's coming from somewhere -- gee, do you suppose it's the
atmosphere? -- and it's *not* being released.
>>And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.
>
>>So will we.
>
> I hope so.
If we can't, then we're obviously an evolutionary failure.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>
>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>> sheets remaining stable."
>>
>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
>> in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
>> changing.
>>
>Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
>the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
>20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
>says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
>sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
>sheets.
Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
is "normal"?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
>pool and how much would it allow an American?
>
>Got any numbers?
The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.
Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:01:56 GMT, "Tim W"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
>>>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
>>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>>>
>>>> "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
>>>> sheets remaining stable."
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
>>>> earth
>>>> in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
>>>> changing.
>>>>
>>>Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
>>>the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
>>>20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
>>>says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
>>>sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
>>>sheets.
>>
>> Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
>> 3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
>> is "normal"?
>>
>Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was my
>simple point.
>
>Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we have a
>pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil records and
>the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i are not going to
>live that long. Global warming is going to happen this century and rapidly.
And?
Are you just proclaiming doom and gloom or is somebody supposed to do
something about it?
On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>
>> See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
>> worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
>> average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)
>>
>
>I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
>comment on it.
>I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
>A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
>excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
>member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
>by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
>Powerpoint, but much nicer.)
>
>I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
>So...
What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
different topic. (<http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm>)
>
>A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
>spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
>know.
>
Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mar 3, 10:43 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
> >> > the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
> >> > increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
> >> > heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
> >> > by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
>
> >> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
> >> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
> >> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>
> >Causality.
>
> Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?
Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
that equilibrium temperature will change.
> If so, then you
> recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
> invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
> increase.
What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?
>
>
>
> >Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
>
> Um, no, correlation would be different.
How so?
>
> >Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
> >is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
> >on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
> >as the present conditions are unprecedented.
>
> Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
> [OP meant global warming preceeded increased CO2]
> [given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
> indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
> GW theorists, things are different.
>
> Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
> no indication of future results.
Can you point to any time in the Earth's past when CO2 levels in the
atmosphere have risen at the presently observed rate, while at the
same time plant life has decreased at the present dramatic rate?
_Rate_ is the operant word here.
> Colder than average temperatures are
> indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
> *I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?
Just tune in to the 700 Club.
--
FF
On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
>> > the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
>> > increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
>> > heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
>> > by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
>>
>> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
>> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
>> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>>
>
>Causality.
Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right? If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.
>
>Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
Um, no, correlation would be different.
>Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
>is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
>on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
>as the present conditions are unprecedented.
Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
[given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
GW theorists, things are different.
Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
no indication of future results. Colder than average temperatures are
indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
*I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
>>>release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
>>>oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.
>
>>It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
>>date.
>
> What happens if the ratio gets smaller with time? So that a larger
>proportion stays in the atmosphere? Uncertainty cuts both ways.
>
>> Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
>>atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
>
>>the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
>>the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:
>
> Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
>to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
>growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?
Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
planet-sized test chambers.
>
>> it takes a while to grow
>>a tree, you know.
>
> ...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
>growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
>that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
>stagnates.
Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
for emphasizing it.
>
>>I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
>>have expected it to.
>
> How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
>look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
>optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
>additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
>factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.
That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
foliated, than it is now...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm>
>>
>>
>
> Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
> showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
> property in Wyoming.
>
> ;-)
>
> Bill
>
<http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_lev
el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm>
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
>>>>> would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
>>>>> cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
>>>>> it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
>>>>> theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts:
>>>>
>>>>1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
>>>>
>>>>3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
>>>>temperature rises
>>>>
>>>>4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
>>>>other sources.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>Determining the carbon isotope ratios.
>>
>><http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87>
>
> And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
> quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.
>
> It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
> in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",
37%
> and it's an even bigger stretch
> from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
> CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
> "The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
> CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
> pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.
Not that I said that ...
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
>>>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider
>
>"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
>Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National Center
>for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades.
Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies someone to be
a climate researcher...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
>>>>>Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
>>>>>another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
>>>>>with:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a greenhouse effect
>>>>>
>>>>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
>>>>>
>>>>> Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
>>>>> the past 150 years
>>>>>
>>>>> The source of that increase is human activity
>>>
>>>>Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
>>>>activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not
> science.
>>>
>>> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>>>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>
>
>
> Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.
>
>
>
> Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
>1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?
>
I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>>>> increases, climate warms
>>>
>>>>*** That one, right there. ***
>>>
>>>>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>>>>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm
> of
>>>>science and enter that of speculation.
>>>
>>> Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
>>>that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
>
>>That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
>>gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
>>might act to cause the climate to cool.
>
> You wish to interpret the question that way.
First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.
Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.
>
> For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
>not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
>the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
>build it back into the composite system?
Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.
>
>
>>>The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
>>>concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
>>>non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
>>>temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
>>>relationship is positive).
>>>
>>>> In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
>>>>of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
>>>>percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
>>>>still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
>>>>warms"?
>>>
>>> I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
>>>that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.
>
>>Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
>>decrease in solar output?
>
> Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?
OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:
Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
on this planet?
Sheesh.
>
> Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?
>
> Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.
No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.
It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
> warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
> matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
> "evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal? Global
> warming
> coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
> extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers than
> normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
> evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
>
> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of
> a
> theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
> questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
That is very simple.
If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's very
clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
already.
Tim w
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...
>
> What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
> city, New Orleans LA USA.
>
Or half the country of Holland....
Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
> thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
> required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
> of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
> start questioning the person postulating the theory.
>
Facts:
1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.
2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.
3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises
4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
>> ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
>> temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
>> were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.
>>
>>
>>
>I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
>ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
>likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2 increases
>by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
>impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
>applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
>prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.
>
>Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
>The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
>used and calibration methodology.
I have no doubt about that.
>These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
>of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
>conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
>accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
>derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
>assumptions.
That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.
However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.
>Watch for the original data and results to "evolve" as more is learned about
>the calibration models and parameters used.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mar 4, 5:25 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
> >of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
> >conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
> >accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
> >derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
> >assumptions.
>
> That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
> have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
> experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
> of years.
And yet those concerns don't seem to matter to you
when you want to use the data to 'disprove' the relationship
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature that is
predicted by spectroscopy and the law of conservation of
energy.
>
> However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
> estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
> factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
> able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
> to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.
>
Agreed.
Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.
Note that the present rate of rise of the concentration of
CO2, from 1960 to present is about 1.5 ppm/year. The
scale of the plot for the Vostock data on that page makes
it a bit hard to estimate slope but it looks like in the past
the highest rate of rise was 0.01ppm.year.
Now it would be silly to mindlessly extrapolate the current
rate on indefinitely into the future. But we DO know that
burning fossil fuels removes oxygen and puts CO2 into the
atmosphere. Making cement and a few other processes
also put CO2 into the atmosphere (albeit without removing
oxygen). We can readily estimate how much that is, and
it is more than enough to account for the observed rate of
increase.
In short, we can be confident that the present rate of increase
will not change if we continue to produce CO2 at the present
rate.
The CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is already
nearly 30% higher than in the last half million years AND the
current rate of rise is 1500 times greater than any time in that
same record. We cannot forecast the future from the geological
record because the present conditions are wildly different from
past conditions. Now that astronomically high rate of rise of CO2
concentration is an artifact of the very short time span of the
data. Obviously we will not sustain that rate. But what will
we do differently to change it? Will we do it voluntarily to
preserve the habitability of the Earth, or will that change be
forced on us?
The relationship between atmospheric gases and the equilibrium
temperature of the Earth is well-understood (Greenhouse effect).
There is no doubt that adding any gas to the atmosphere, or
replacing oxygen with CO2 INCREASES the greenhouse effect.
We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.
We know that jet aircraft have been putting particulates and ice
crystals into the stratosphere increasing the Earth's albedo by
nearly 2% over the last 50 years (Global Dimming). Such a
dramatic change SHOULD have resulted in noticeable cooling.
Yet global temperatures have not dropped and may even have
increased.
I want to thank Mark or Juanita, and you others for this discussion.
I never quite realized how extreme the situation is, until I looked
at these numbers.
--
FF
On Mar 4, 5:25 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
> >of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
> >conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
> >accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
> >derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
> >assumptions.
>
> That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
> have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
> experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
> of years.
And yet those concerns don't seem to matter to you
when you want to use the data to 'disprove' the relationship
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature that is
predicted by spectroscopy and the law of conservation of
energy.
>
> However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
> estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
> factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
> able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
> to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.
>
Agreed.
Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.
Note that the present rate of rise of the concentration of
CO2, from 1960 to present is about 1.5 ppm/year. The
scale of the plot for the Vostock data on that page makes
it a bit hard to estimate slope but it looks like in the past
the highest rate of rise was 0.01ppm.year.
Now it would be silly to mindlessly extrapolate the current
rate on indefinitely into the future. But we DO know that
burning fossil fuels removes oxygen and puts CO2 into the
atmosphere. Making cement and a few other processes
also put CO2 into the atmosphere (albeit without removing
oxygen). We can readily estimate how much that is, and
it is more than enough to account for the observed rate of
increase.
In short, we can be confident that the present rate of increase
will not change if we continue to produce CO2 at the present
rate.
The CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is already
nearly 30% higher than in the last half million years AND the
current rate of rise is 1500 times greater than any time in that
same record. We cannot forecast the future from the geological
record because the present conditions are wildly different from
past conditions. Now that astronomically high rate of rise of CO2
concentration is an artifact of the very short time span of the
data. Obviously we will not sustain that rate. But what will
we do differently to change it? Will we do it voluntarily to
preserve the habitability of the Earth, or will that change be
forced on us?
The relationship between atmospheric gases and the equilibrium
temperature of the Earth is well-understood (Greenhouse effect).
There is no doubt that adding any gas to the atmosphere, or
replacing oxygen with CO2 INCREASES the greenhouse effect.
We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.
We know that jet aircraft have been putting particulates and ice
crystals into the stratosphere increasing the Earth's albedo by
nearly 2% over the last 50 years (Global Dimming). Such a
dramatic change SHOULD have resulted in noticeable cooling.
Yet global temperatures have not dropped and may even have
increased.
I want to thank Mark or Juanita, and you others for this discussion.
I never quite realized how extreme the situation is, until I looked
at these numbers.
--
FF
On Mar 6, 2:31 am, "Will" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> ...
>
> > Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting
> > "problems"
> > the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
> > They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have
> > to
> > essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2
> > gets
> > involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation
> > less
> > than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a
> > representative
> > sample to analyze.
>
>
> What caused the end of the last ice age?
It is generally accepted that Milankovitch cycles cause the ice ages
and
inter-glacial epochs.
Why is it that CO2 concentrations are now 30% higher than during
any previous inter-glacial epoch of the las half-million years? Why
are
they rising faster than at any time during the last half-million
years?
> If there were animals around then,
> was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
> rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
> Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
> methane from livestock.
I'd REALLY like to see where you got that figure, and also what
chemistry
text you used in High School.
--
FF
On Mar 6, 7:37 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
> >up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.
>
> Oddly enough, in a different thread, you wrote:
>
> "... solar irradiance has been decreasing:http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
> "
>
Not odd at all. Context is everything.
There is an eleven year solar cycle. We are near a
minimum so that solar irradiance has been decreasing
for the last five years--the same period over which global
warming has been observed on Mars. Other studies
have shown that the last minimum, in the early 1990s,
was at most very slightly higher than the previous.
Solar variation over times less than ten years are dominated
by the eleven year cycle. A determination of longer-term
trends requires observations over several cycles. We are
nearing the third minimum since such measurements have
been possible by satellite.
Ground-based observations are confounded by global
dimming, something that might explain Dr Abdussamatov's
statement that the sun has been dimming since the early
1990s. During that time,contrary to how he has been quoted,
solar irradiance dropped a bit, then rose again to the peak
in 2000-2001 and has since dropped as part of the 11-year
cycle. It is also possible that Dr Abdussamatov has already
concluded that the current minimum is lower than the previous
one, most others in the field appear to be waiting a bit
longer to be sure the current minimum is past. He also
has made predictions for the next couple of decades which
implies that he is working from a theoretical model.
Solar maxima are poorly defined and noisier than
solar minima so the period is defined as the time
between successive minima, not successive maxima,
and attempts to determine long term trends con-
centrate on the the differences between minima,
not maxima.
There are people who claim that the global warming observed
on Mars over the last 5 terrestrial years (about three Martian
years or 35 dog years) shows that global warming on both
the Earth and Mars is due to an increase in solar irradiance.
Those people ignore the actual solar measurements over
the same period of time and instead conclude that the
solar irradiance has increased from the observed warming,
putting the cart before the horse and ignoring the other
data.
The spectroscopy of atmospheric gases is well understood.
Conservation of energy is well established. The Greenhouse
effect is clearly established. There is no question that current
trends in atmospheric composition are forcing the equilibrium
temperature upwards. To deny that is to deny basic Physics.
The Greenhouse effect is NOT the only mechanism that
determines temperature. The others need to be studied
as well.
> Reference:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/85ec1074423ef4a0
>
Thanks.
Do you understand now?
--
FF
On Mar 6, 7:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Will" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
> >was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
> >rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
> >Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
> >methane from livestock.
>
> This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
> that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
> least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.
>
I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the
CO2
in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?
--
FF
On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
> > million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
> > is 380 ppm.
>
> IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
> it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
> that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.
Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.
You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
discussion.
Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
established--see Global dimming.
--
FF
On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
> > > million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
> > > is 380 ppm.
>
> > IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
> > it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
> > that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.
>
> Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.
>
> You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
> and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
> cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
> Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
> to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
> discussion.
That's true only if, by 'global temperature', you include geothermal
energy (that's probably where your often repeated 'conservation of
energy' non-sequitur came from). To his credit, even Al Gore doesn't
take the argument to that level of absurdity (although it wouldn't
surprise me if that was the Ace up his sleeve). In the context of the
controversy of global warming (man's contribution to the causes of
*atmospheric* warming), one must acknowledge that periods of increased
volcanic activity and the resulting increase in atmospheric greenhouse
gases - the likes of which would put our best efforts to pollute to
shame - are neither the result of human activity, nor the result of
atmospheric composition. Would you agree?
And I'm confused as to why you dismiss increased solar output as a
contributor to the observed increase in global temps. (Actually, I'm
not confused by your dismissal, at all. I'm just trying to keep the
discussion lively)
> Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
> an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
> established--see Global dimming.
>
> --
>
> FF
On Mar 7, 9:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
> > > > million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
> > > > is 380 ppm.
>
> > > IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
> > > it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
> > > that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.
>
> > Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.
>
> > You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
> > and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
> > cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
> > Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
> > to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
> > discussion.
>
> That's true only if, by 'global temperature', you include geothermal
> energy (that's probably where your often repeated 'conservation of
> energy' non-sequitur came from). To his credit, even Al Gore doesn't
> take the argument to that level of absurdity (although it wouldn't
> surprise me if that was the Ace up his sleeve).
Sadly, you canno tmake that same claim.
> In the context of the
> controversy of global warming (man's contribution to the causes of
> *atmospheric* warming), one must acknowledge that periods of increased
> volcanic activity and the resulting increase in atmospheric greenhouse
> gases - the likes of which would put our best efforts to pollute to
> shame - are neither the result of human activity, nor the result of
> atmospheric composition. Would you agree?
>
> And I'm confused as to why you dismiss increased solar output as a
> contributor to the observed increase in global temps. (Actually, I'm
> not confused by your dismissal, at all. I'm just trying to keep the
> discussion lively)
It is apparent that you came late to this discussion, and therefor do
not understand some of what I say. There are two valid ways to
inform yourself that are immediately obvious. The first, would be
to review the thread. The other would be to ask me. That you
eschew either method and instead chose the invalid approach
of assuming I am a crackpot leads me to certainly conclusions
about yourself that I prefer to not articulate in order to reduce the
liveliness of the discussion.
I use the addmitedly ill-defined term 'global temperature' in much
the same way as everyone else, meaning some sort of ground
level 'average' air temperature.
I did refer to radioactive decay and tidal friction when pointing out
the role of the conservation of energy, and lest you be confused,
I did so only for the sake of completeness and do not contend that
either plays a role in short-term climate change though either or
both may have dominated long-term change at other times.
Conservation of energy requires that the temperature of a body
change whenever the energy absorbed by that body plus the
energy generated within does not equal the energy emitted
by it.
Regarding the present effects of volcanism on climate change:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at
the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T
his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
times."
and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who
are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5271302
"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22% of anthropogenic
emissions but may have contributed to significant greenhouse` effects
at times in Earth history"
Would you agree that volcanic eruptions in the distant past are
non-sequitur as they have no effect on future short-term climate
changes?
I dismiss increased solar irradiance as a factor in the recent global
warming on _Mars_ because solar irradiance has decreased over the
three Martian years during which that temperature increase has been
observed. Pleas try to maintain an awareness of what planet you
are on.
I've also noted that studies of variation in solar irradiance over
more than
one solar cycle establish an upper limit on any increase that
corresponds
to a a forcing of about 0.1 W/sqm, about one quarter of the forcing
attributed to increasing CO2 over the same period of time.
>
> > Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
> > an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
> > established--see Global dimming.
>
FF
On Mar 6, 3:07 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 6, 7:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Will"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
> >> >was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
> >> >rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
> >> >Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
> >> >methane from livestock.
>
> >> This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
> >> that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
> >> least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.
>
> >I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the CO2
> >in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?
>
> Well, I'm a little puzzled by that too -- my best guess is that CO2 and
> methane are probably released simultaneously when a cow farts, and the OP is a
> little confused about the exact mechanism.
Evidently methane in the atmosphere decomposes to CO2 and water.
OP was just being succint.
>
> My point was that it's not accurate to regard livestock emissions as being
> unrelated to human activity -- surely there wouldn't be nearly as many bovines
> on the planet were it not for human agriculture.
Yes it reminds me of a cartoon of someone who
looked like Chief Dan George standing on a cliff i
overlooking a herd of bison and saying to his young
son, "Someday these buffalo will all be gone. The
white man will replace them with cattle that will
belch a lot and cause global warming."
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
The court case that prompted you to put that in your .sig was
remarkable only in that the defendant was able to get his
case to the USSC. The (ab)use of eminent domain to transfer
property from one private party to another has been settled law
for centuries. Being a liberal, I would have liked it if the BOR
had always been interpreted so as to put an end to the practice
on our side of the pond but I'm pretty sure it was never so.
--
FF
On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
> >who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
> >own economies for no particular reason at all.
>
> >Does THAT make sense?
>
> Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
> have been, yes, it does make sense.
>
So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
their economies, knowing that no good would come
of it?
THAT makes sense?
Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
really been released over th elast 50 years?
Have you found any data that says the sun really did
grow brighter in the last five years?
What color is the Kool-Aid you've been drinking?
--
FF
On Mar 22, 6:14 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >>>>Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
> >>>>western industrial democracies.
>
> >>>Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?
>
> >>Copy, paste, and watch:
>
> >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
>
> > I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
> > economies of the western democracies.
>
> If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
> debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
> scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.
I did watch it and do not recall seeing any references
to anything indicating a motive to gut the economies of
the western democracies.
I do recall an unsupported claim about Margaret Thatcher,
I do not think she is one of Mr Miller's alleged socialists,
or that she engaged in a conspiracy to gut the economies
of the western democracies.
--
FF
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:25:57 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
>>>> ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
>>>> temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement
>>>> capabilities
>>>> were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings
>>>> indicate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
>>> Vostok
>>> ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it
>>> was
>>> likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2
>>> increases
>>> by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics
>>> really
>>> impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
>>> applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
>>> prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.
>>>
>>> Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
>>> The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the
>>> equipment
>>> used and calibration methodology.
>>
>> I have no doubt about that.
>>
>>> These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual
>>> year
>>> of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently
>>> understood
>>> conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.).
>>> The
>>> accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the
>>> information
>>> derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived
>>> notions
>>> and
>>> assumptions.
>>
>> That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
>> have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
>> experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
>> of years.
>
> Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting
> "problems"
> the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
> They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have
> to
> essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2
> gets
> involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation
> less
> than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a
> representative
> sample to analyze.
>
>
>
> ---
>> ---+
What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
>> >who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
>> >own economies for no particular reason at all.
>>
>> >Does THAT make sense?
>>
>> Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
>> have been, yes, it does make sense.
>>
>
>So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
>their economies, knowing that no good would come
>of it?
>
>THAT makes sense?
You have to understand that in the minds of the socialists, crippling the
industrial democracies is a *good* thing because it advances the cause.
>
>Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
>really been released over th elast 50 years?
What's your point here? AFAIK, Kyoto doesn't apply to volcanos...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:25:57 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
>>> ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
>>> temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
>>> were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
>> ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
>> likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2
>> increases
>> by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
>> impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
>> applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
>> prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.
>>
>> Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
>> The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
>> used and calibration methodology.
>
> I have no doubt about that.
>
>> These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual
>> year
>> of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
>> conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
>> accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
>> derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions
>> and
>> assumptions.
>
> That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
> have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
> experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
> of years.
Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting "problems"
the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have to
essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2 gets
involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation less
than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a representative
sample to analyze.
---
> ---+
In article <[email protected]>, "Will" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
>was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
>rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
>Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
>methane from livestock.
This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
> million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
> is 380 ppm.
>
IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
> was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
> rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
> Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
> methane from livestock.
But if we blame the livestock, that would remove the convenient soul
cleansing that can only be achieved through collective guilt. I'm
dying to hear how the currently increasing temps on Mars are going to
be pinned by our rovers.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:27:57 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
>>> > they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
>>> > Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.
>>>
>>> //there, fixed it for you.
>>
>>Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
>>one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
>>Allllbert!!!!
>
>Sure! Makes perfect sense to me... that's why all the *rest* of us have to
>scale back our energy usage -- so there will be more left for AlGore.
Bingo! Once again proves the statement that whenever one of these people
make a statement, you always need to add some variant "for me" to the end
in order to get their true meaning and intent.
Al Gore: "The US needs to reduce its output of CO2 and carbon footprint,
so that I can maintain and expand mine."
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
>up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.
Oddly enough, in a different thread, you wrote:
"... solar irradiance has been decreasing:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
"
Reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/85ec1074423ef4a0
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:43:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
>>> > the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
>>> > increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
>>> > heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
>>> > by radioactive decay and tidal friction.
>>>
>>> Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
>>> the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
>>> You claim the opposite, based on what?
>>>
>>
>>Causality.
>
> Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right? If so, then you
>recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
>invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
>increase.
>
>>
>>Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
>
> Um, no, correlation would be different.
>
>>Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
>>is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
>>on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
>>as the present conditions are unprecedented.
>
> Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
should have said, "global warming preceeded increased CO2 concentrations.
>[given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
>indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
>GW theorists, things are different.
>
> Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
>no indication of future results. Colder than average temperatures are
>indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
>*I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?
>
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 6, 7:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Will"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
>> >was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
>> >rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
>> >Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
>> >methane from livestock.
>>
>> This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
>> that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
>> least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.
>>
>I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the CO2
>in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?
Well, I'm a little puzzled by that too -- my best guess is that CO2 and
methane are probably released simultaneously when a cow farts, and the OP is a
little confused about the exact mechanism.
My point was that it's not accurate to regard livestock emissions as being
unrelated to human activity -- surely there wouldn't be nearly as many bovines
on the planet were it not for human agriculture.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, D Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
>result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.
Excuse me? Look at what you wrote: "The source of that increase is human
activity."
>
> In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
>is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
>completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
>really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
>think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
>we disagree.
What part I think is due to human activity is not relevant. What's relevant is
your claim that it's *all* due to human activity. You made the assertion; now
defend it.
>
> Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
>warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
>nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.
I can't imagine where you got the idea that I think that.
>
> Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?
My answer to that question is irrelevant. You asserted that the increase is
due to human activity. It's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that
assertion.
>
> When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
>indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
>for that disagreement.
>
> One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
>wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
>speak.
>
> The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
>see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
>the same data, different data, etc.
>
> This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.
Scientists normally are prepared to defend their assertions. I'm still waiting
for you to produce evidence in support of your claim that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is due entirely to human activity.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
>>>>>>> increases, climate warms
>>>>>
>>>>>>*** That one, right there. ***
>>>>>
>>>>>>The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
>>>>>>argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
>>>>>>science and enter that of speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
>>>>>that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
>>>
>>>>That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
>>>>gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
>>>>might act to cause the climate to cool.
>>>
>>> You wish to interpret the question that way.
>
>>First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.
>
>>Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
>>ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
>>priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
>>to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
>>responsibility, not mine, to explain why.
>
> Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
>if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
>about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?
Why do you need to know *my* position in order to explain your own?
It's real simple: you asserted that increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases necessarily cause the climate to warm. Now defend that assertion.
Explain why it's true, despite the existence of any other factors.
> I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
>agree on.
You don't seem interested in spending any time giving any explanations,
lengthy or otherwise.
>
> I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.
In my original response to you, I explicitly disagreed with one of your
assertions, and explicitly stated only partial agreement with another. And
you're still wondering where we disagree??
>You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and
I've certainly concluded that global warming is principally a political
agenda. The science behind it is pretty thin, and by no means settled.
>this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
>disucssion.
Your unwillingness, or inability, to defend your assertions which I have
challenged is what's impeding any sort of a scientific discussion.
>
>>>
>>> For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
>>>not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
>>>the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
>>>build it back into the composite system?
>
>>Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
>>clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
>>factors.
>
> For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
>to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?
Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion clearly implies
the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant factors -- and that
assumption is what I'm questioning. Defend it.
>
> To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
>decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
>the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
>any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
>strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
>dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
>joint in plywood, do you?
Not relevant at all....
[major snippage]
>>> Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.
>
>>No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
>>so wildly that it can only be deliberate.
>
> No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
>the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
>you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
>and clarify them,
What you conspicuously *haven't* done is to defend any of those assertions.
>and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
>original miscontrued version.
I'm asking you to defend your assertions and a priori assumptions.
>
>>It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
>>the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
>>your Faith into question.
>
>
> Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
>this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.
That's pretty funny, really. If *you* were interested in discussing it, you'd
provide some foundation for your assertions. You made them. It's not up to me
to show that they're wrong, it's up to you to show that they're right.
>
> I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
>you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.
I have explicitly stated what I disagree with, and asked you to defend it.
>
> Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
>isn't much more to say.
It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.