Excerpt from book: Taken by Storm--The Troubled Science [of GW]
raylopez99
Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr. Christopher Essex (Applied
Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr. Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof.
Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Preface
"In the realm of the seekers after truth there is no human authority.
Whoever attempts to play the magistrate there founders on the laughter
of the Gods. "
-Albert Einstein
You've heard it, we've heard it: Global warming is the greatest threat
facing humanity. One hundred Nobel laureates recently signed a
statement saying so. A UN panel of scientists says so. Our governments
say so. Can all these people be wrong?
Of course they can. Whether the earth is warming or not is a scientific
question, not a political one. The scientists who have spoken out about
global warming understand this. They know that they can be wrong, and
they know that what they believe is not necessarily the same as what is
true, no matter how passionate their feelings may be.
If you believe that Nobel laureates can never be wrong, or that UN
panels never make mistakes, then be advised that science doesn't work
that way. Our first task in this book is to convince you that those
Nobel laureates are probably wrong about global warming and that most
of what you have been hearing about it is wrong. That will actually be
the easy part. The claim that there is a global warming crisis
threatening to bring chaos and destruction upon the world is so feeble
you were probably feeling somewhat skeptical anyway. You were right-and
we'll show you why.
Our second task is to try and explain why so many people, including
many smart, famous and high-profile individuals, have gotten so
confused on this topic. This will be somewhat more difficult, wrapped
up as it is in the complex dynamics at the interface of politics and
science, while submerged in a soup of pseudo-science and fear. We
believe there has been no conspiracy to dupe the public and the people
in question have nothing but the best of intentions. It appears instead
that a lot of well-meaning people got locked unwittingly into a game
that requires them to speak as if they are absolutely certain about
matters upon which certainty is inherently impossible. Many prominent
players have staked their reputations on positions that cannot be
supported by science or sound policy analysis. Consequently a debate in
a free and open marketplace of ideas can't happen. Instead, what we get
looks more like a fortress, heavily defended by an arsenal of
authoritarian pronouncements designed to intimidate outsiders into
staying away.
Rhetorical weapons like the statement of the 100 Nobel laureates, and
others we have seen like it in the past year, would never be used in a
real scientific debate. That big players in this issue feel a need for
this sort of cannonade just shows how far we have departed from
sensible intellectual practice on what remains, even today, an open
scientific question.
This leads us to our third and most difficult task. We will try to look
beyond the global warming issue itself and ask how we should make
public policy in cases where the underlying science is uncertain. What
we end
up suggesting will not look anything like the process used around
global warming. That will serve as an example of what not to do. We
will argue for a new approach in which non-scientists stop looking for
shortcuts around the hard work of learning the science, and
high-ranking scientists stop resorting to authoritarian grandstanding
as an easy substitute for the slow work of research, debate and
persuasion.
Global warming ceased to be a subject of scientific debate years ago.
Watch how critics jump straight to an examination of motives or
credentials rather than the substance of an author's argument whenever
books like this one are published. The argument, it seems, is that what
you say, whether it is true or not, matters less than why you say it or
who you are.
Scrutinizing the messenger rather than the message may be an effective
political ploy, but what we are engaged in is not, at its heart, a
political
question. Our society has already done substantial harm to itself by
not
grasping this crucial point.
For those who will find this book threatening, and instinctively grasp
for this sort of defence, you're in luck. While we have neither sought
nor received any industry funding for writing this book, the fact is
our "green" credentials are pretty pathetic. We like civilization and
all its artificial material comforts. Trees and lakes are nice to have
around, bur so are paved roads and warm buildings. We find recycling
and the whole blue box thing a bit of a sacred cow. We generally prefer
driving to walking, especially when transporting kids, except for very
short distances. We don't care if people drive subcompacts or
SUVs-that's their business. Live and let drive. We eat meat, use
pesticides on our lawns and avoid using public transit if possible. We
think people who pay extra to buy "organic" vegetables are basically
suckers. One of us even smoked cigarettes (for a while, anyway). We
have no idea when Earth Day is, nor do we care, as long as the malls
stay open.
So there. If you are worried that this book may unravel some of your
cherished beliefs about global warming, just gently close the cover and
put it back on the shelf. Tell yourself these two horrible people are
so out of touch with nature they couldn't possibly be trusted.
For those of you who choose to read on, you still might wonder why we
wrote this book. Not that it matters in deciding whether we're right,
but one is just naturally curious.
We wrote this book because we got tired of seeing irrational fears
about global warming cause nations and their leaders to rush around in
a panic about a crisis that in all probability does not exist and enact
obscenely expensive policies that would not fix anything even if it
did. All the money spent on giant conferences to sign meaningless
treaties, and to implement policies that arise from these treaties,
could have done so much more good if only people had stopped to think
about priorities.
Think about basic things. We live in a world in which people in poor
countries die from drinking contaminated surface water. We can't find
the money to drill wells for them, yet we pour billions of dollars each
year into global-warming-related projects that benefit no one. We live
in a world in which people suffer lung diseases from breathing air
contaminated by indoor dung fires-a common method of heating and
cooking in Third World villages-yet we waste our money worrying about a
harmless gas in the lower troposphere. One of us lives in a city in
which a fifth of the residents have no family doctor because there
isn't enough money to recruit new general practitioners, yet our
government has budgeted over a billion dollars to "fight" global
warming on the absurd belief that such spending will prevent
"wide-ranging and mostly harmful effects on human health" due to
climate change.
We wrote this book because we got tired of seeing science twisted into
a prop for political ideology. We have seen the work of intelligent and
skilled scientists get attacked as "marginal" and "skeptical" and
thereby get forced out of mainstream academic publications, for no
reason other than that it raises questions about global warming. We
have also seen extremely weak studies sounding the global warming alarm
get a red-carpet welcome into top journals.
We wrote this book because we got tired of opening the newspaper or
turning on the TV news and seeing a river of idiotic, alarmist nonsense
rushing out at the public, and of knowing that there is no way to
challenge these reports within the media themselves. We have learned
from experience that letters to the editor, and even carefully
documented factual challenges to individual journalists, are simply
ignored.
We wrote a book because nothing else seemed to work. We got tired of
making technical presentations to politicians and bureaucrats who claim
they want to get informed about the issue, only to have them resort to
phony evasions like the "precautionary principle" to rationalize
dismissing evidence and arguments they don't like or don't understand.
And, finally, we wrote this book because we got tired of waiting for
someone else to do it. Frankly, good scientists and economists
naturally
stay away from this sort of project, for understandable reasons. Global
warming is a topic that sprawls in a thousand technical directions.
There is
no such thing as an "expert" on global warming, because no one can
master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change
everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics,
including ourselves. Since academics do not like writing on subjects
outside their areas of expertise, this has been enough to convince many
of our colleagues to quit the field altogether, hoping someone else
will come along to clean up the mess.
One hundred Nobel laureates: That's pretty impressive. However, we were
not told how many Nobel laureates declined signing the letter. It is
very doubtful that all of the big prize winners (and there are quite a
few) would agree to sign, as there are many divergent opinions among
any such group. Still, it seems almost a sacrilege to take a position
against so many of them, especially on a motherhood issue like global
warming.
But this is a foolish notion. There is nothing sacred here. In terms of
global warming, aside from the other issues they discuss, it is clear
that they
were motivated by moral concerns. They got the science wrong: "Of these
poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in
equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but
originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies
most." Yet it's the polar and not the equatorial regions that are most
affected in the forecast. Oops!
We can all easily become distracted from the truth of a thing by pomp
and majesty. Here is a true story to illustrate.
A few years ago, a Nobel laureate made some gratuitous political
remarks that were highly offensive to people at his table at a dinner
party. Perhaps the laureate had had too much to drink, or maybe he was
just spoiling for an argument. A number of guests were appalled. But
the scientists gathered there were so intimidated by the fact that it
was a Nobel laureate speaking that they froze like deer in the
headlights of a car. A young woman-she was barely 20-at the table, a
guest of one of the other delegates, boldly spoke up and sharply
rebuked the Nobel laureate. By the time she was done, she had shamed
them all, reminded as they were by her courage that people with grand
honours are no more than human after all.
Her courage leads the way. We are all just humans together whenever we
try to deal with nature. We all face the laughter of the gods when we
try to pretend otherwise. That is the spirit in which we write. We make
no promises that this will be easy to read, nor do we promise to cover
every topic or do justice to every point of view. This is our view. But
you will not find it dull. Get ready for a ride into the thunderstorm.
d...@dan.com
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
> >From the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and
> Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr. Christopher Essex (Applied
> Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr. Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof.
> Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175
Ross McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=383
Ross McKitrick
> Of course they can. Whether the earth is warming or not is a scientific
> question, not a political one. The scientists who have spoken out about
> global warming understand this.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=6609_0_5_0_C
Global Warming Bombshell Smells Fishy
Richard Muller artfully unveils McIntyre & McKitrick's undressing of
Mann's landmark 1998 case for human-induced global warming. After doing
my own unveiling of M&M's background, I'm inclined to be suspect of
their work due to their lack of scientific backgrounds, their ties to
right-wing think tanks, and business interests.
Joe Vassallo [JV Group] | POSTED: 10.23.04 @02:52
If true, M&M's discovery would stand a lot of other research (not to
mention world government policy) on its head. On the other hand, I have
read about repeated attempts to debunk the infamous hockey stick and
each is eventually disproven and/or suspiciously linked to conservative
think tanks or oil/power companies.
To a non-scientist like me the information provided sounds compelling,
but there are always two sides to every coin. When confronted with
content that is out of my area of expertise, I will often try to
evaluate the source of the information. One should be highly suspect of
information that comes from someone who may have an ulterior motive or
bias.
A bit of goggling reveals that Stephen McIntyre isn't a practicing
scientist. In fact he is President of a
Canadian mining company. It does make you wonder if he has the
scientific background to be making his claims.
Ross McKitrick is Associate Professor of Economics and a senior fellow
at the right-wing Fraser Institute in Vancouver. Apparantly the Fraser
Institute is so conservative, 5 public school principals refused upto
$3k grants from the organization. Not suprisingly, he claims to be a
policy advisor to US and Canadian governments. Not exactly the
non-partisan scientific pedigree I was hoping to find.
M&M didn't get any grants to do the research; that's how they can claim
independence. They sure seem to be cleaning up now - McKitrick has put
out the book Taken by Storm and they're regular paid guests at
conservative think tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute.
Who funds the George C. Marshall Institute? wealthy, conservative oil
company heirs
A little more web research reveals that Energy & Environment, the
magazine M&M's research was published in, should be really called
Energy "over" Environment as it is a scientific journal that despite
it's name appears dedicated to promoting research that refutes the
theory that Global Warming is due to human influence.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001407
But it's unfair to just pick on Bush; other conservatives are funny
liars too. For example, on Tim Lambert's excellent weblog you can
watch as he debunks Ross McKitrick, a prominent global warming skeptic.
So desperate is McKitrick to find some way to disprove global warming,
that he's gone thru a variety of increasingly desperate tactics. Once
he simply made up an excuse why the data was wrong which was disproved
as soon as it was tested. Then he tried something a little more complex
but which was still disproved after a little bit of serious analysis.
But then things get really weird. He made up new rules of physics,
treated missing data as a temperature of zero, and failed to convert
between degrees and radians. Finally, in an almost inspired bit of
deception, he invented his very own temperature scale to try to prove
his point. You almost feel sorry for the guy.
> Global warming ceased to be a subject of scientific debate years ago.
> Watch how critics jump straight to an examination of motives or
> credentials rather than the substance of an author's argument whenever
> books like this one are published. The argument, it seems, is that what
> you say, whether it is true or not, matters less than why you say it or
> who you are.
> We wrote this book because we got tired of seeing science twisted into
> a prop for political ideology.
> They got the science wrong: "Of these
> poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in
> equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but
> originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies
> most." Yet it's the polar and not the equatorial regions that are most
> affected in the forecast. Oops!
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Oops! McKitrick...
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/10/08/Guatemala_floods20051008.html
1,400 dead in one Guatemala village as Stan blasts Central America
Hurricane Stan has had a devastating impact on the central american
country of Guatemala. A mudslide from torrential rains from Stan killed
1,400 people in the highland village of Panabaj.
Rescue workers carry the body of a child that was found dead after a
mudslide in Panabaj, Santiago Atitlan. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo)
Search and rescue workers said there were no survivors. The landslide
engulfed the village on Wednesday, burying 1,400 people in the mud, in
places more than 12 metres thick.
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12847223.htm
Hurricane Stan leaves 300,000 needing help in Mexico
MEXICO CITY - (KRT) - Rescuers with emergency supplies of food and
water can't reach more than 300,000 people in mountainous regions of
Mexico's Chiapas state cut off by flooding and mudslides in the
aftermath of Hurricane Stan, officials said Friday.
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/09/content_3595621.htm
Death toll from Hurricane Stan rises to 508 in Guatemala
www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-09 00:57:37
MEXICO CITY, Oct. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Death toll from Hurricane Stan
has reached 508 in Guatemala, according to reports reaching here from
Guatemalan on Saturday.
The previous death toll in Guatemala was set at 353 on Saturday
morning, when 200 more bodies were found in the mud in a village of San
Marcos Province near the border with Mexico.
Guatemalan President Oscar Berger has cancelled a trip to Spain for
the 14th Ibero-American Summit because of the disaster.
The president said Friday that more than 4,400 houses had been
flooded and up to 178,000 people were affected.
Guatemala declared a state of "public disaster" on Wednesday after
huge damage caused by Stan.
Guatemala is one of the worst-hit countries by Hurricane Stan,
which has killed 610 people in southern Mexico and Central America.
The storm has also killed 65 people in El Salvador, 11 in Nicaragua
and 18 in Mexico, 26 in Colombia, according to authorities in those
countries. Enditem
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-6GXLR3?OpenDocument
Central America, Mexico and Haiti: Floods from Hurricane Stan Emergency
Appeal No. 05EA021
The Federation's mission is to improve the lives of vulnerable people
by mobilizing the power of humanity. It is the world's largest
humanitarian organization and its millions of volunteers are active in
over 181 countries.
In Brief
THIS EMERGENCY APPEAL SEEKS CHF 1,568,000 (USD 1,230,694 OR EUR
1,012,648) IN CASH, KIND, OR SERVICES TO ASSIST 10,250 FAMILIES (SOME
51,250 BENEFICIARIES) FOR 6 MONTHS
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops!
McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick... Oops! McKitrick...
Roger Coppock
Carl Powell
their problem, GW or no GW, is that if you live in an area that experiences
torrential rains, DON'T CLEAR-CUT!
The areas are Very steep and they have either clearcut or decided beforehand
to build on the worlds biggest mudslide.
See for yourself, earth.google.com , western side of the country north of
the capital is the region affected. Note, this is also the continental
divide area, where you would expect a tropical storm from either ocean basin
to become a rainout event.
At any rate it is tragic, the US bandaid box is beginning to rattle quite a
bit, hold on to your paychecks, I expect the hit will come right after the
Nov. elections.
Carl
Melchizedek
that many avail themselves of. To the same extent, there is much known
on geopolitics and global economics that one would have to make some
effort to acquire, assuming they had moral fiber that prompted them to
understand questions of social justice.
In other words, I could explain that the same families who are
profiting the most from global pollution of greenhouse gases have 100
years of recorded history of interference in Latin America, exploiting
the poor, supporting death squads and upholding anti-democratic
totalitarial military domination. I couls explain the lack of
alternatives available.
I could. But i won't because you wouldn't appreciate my effort. Casting
Pearls before Swine comes to mind.
raylopez99
to Chap. 5 here). These are the points I find of interest, not
necessarily what was emphasised.
Chapter 1:
- the problem of 'sub-grid scale' discussed--generally climate models
do not have a small enough grid.
- IPCC "doctrines" discussed (e.g., "earth is warming")
Chapter 2:
- Emission data for common air contaminants since 1970 to 1997 show,
with the exception of NOx, all pollution is down despite GDP increasing
by over 100%
- bias of "Nature" journal discussed; bias of media, "Big Science" and
government discussed; snub by Canadian Minister of Environment of 2001
lecture by Prof. Singer
Chapter 3:
--why turbulence is a non-linear, and/or fractal and/or chaotic and
intractible problem to solve: Navier-Stokes equation discussed (on
layman's terms); Kolmogorov theory re whorls discussed, and why it is
inadequate
--Lorenz equations discussed and why they are relevant to weather and
highly dependent on initial conditions ("butterfly - hurricane" analogy
drawn)
--GCMs (Global Climate Models) cannot adequately model turbulence,
including tornadoes and hurricanes, and are consequently very weak in
convection flows. This results in the GCMs being weak in aerosol
dispersion and in cloud cover (which affects the energy balance
equation for the earth)
--how "0", "1", "2" and "3" dimensional models are not necessarily any
better--just give more detail of essentially something that may or may
not represent reality [An aside: I cannot help but comment this remark
echoes the debate we had earlier this year on this NG about the 'cut
and paste' nature of these GCMs]
--How there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
developed in later chapters, and also echos some of the 'debates' we
had on this NG]
--How actual glass greenhouses really work (they suppress the fluid
dynamics, e.g., convective flows) but not the radiation flows, and how
the earth's 'greenhouse effect' is the opposite (radiation suppressed
but fluid dynamics are not--and the GCM models are weak in the fluid
dynamics part). This "greenhouse effect" is a poor analogy except to
the unsophisticated targeted by the media.
Chapter 4
- Further elaboration of why there is no such thing as an "average"
temperature
- whether a temperature is above or below "average" depends on the time
period in question
- how "gridding" (scaling of temperature measuring stations) is flawed:
no compelling physical reason to weigh temperatures this way, it's just
a reasonable convention
- UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect for cities discussed (authors do not
take a position whether UHI is a factor in temperatures); authors
mention that for the 'global' temperature UHI has to be "adjusted for",
which is also arbitrary (albeit reasonable)
- How oceans are getting warmer but surface above ocean at same buoy
getting cooler--the famous paper by Christy et al. "Differential Trends
in Tropical Sea Surface and Atmospheric Temp since 1979" _Geophysical
Research Letters_, 28(1), 2001, 183-186 discussed.
- How satellite data, surface temp and water temp data do not all
measure the same thing and show different trends. National Academy of
Science refuses to take "sides" as to who is "right" (again, the
authors note "global temperature" is essentially meaningless, so the
Nat. Academy was correct)
--Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-77 discussed
--dramatic chart showing temperature measuring stations have been
closed over the years (in particular since late 1980s--the author does
not say why, but I would bet these stations were in the former USSR),
and how these station closures would bias the "average" temperature
measured by the remaining stations
--"simulacrum fallacy" described (a philosophical construction: very
briefly, for something that does not actually exist--in this case a
'global temperature' - adding more data to find such an imaginary
constuct will not make the construct more 'real')
--Media hype over 'global temperature' discussed; how a media report
predicting melting of Himalaya mountains was printed despite that
region of the world showing increased cooling (albeit with the flaws of
temperature discussed in this chapter)
I stopped here.
When I have time I'll post on Chapters 5+
Ray Lopez
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674016378/qid=1128924305/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Discovery of Global Warming : , (New Histories of Science,
Technology, and Medicine) (Paperback)
by Spencer R. Weart
Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press (September 30, 2004)
ISBN: 0674016378
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521528747/qid=1128924305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming : The Complete Briefing (Paperback)
by John Houghton
Paperback: 382 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 3 edition (August 5, 2004)
ISBN: 0521528747
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1403966982/qid=1128924305/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming : Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet (Hardcover)
by Chris Spence
Hardcover: 208 pages
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (July 15, 2005)
ISBN: 1403966982
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0582381673/qid=1128924305/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming: The Hard Science (Paperback)
by Danny Harvey
Paperback: 408 pages
Publisher: Prentice Hall; 1 edition (April 6, 1999)
ISBN: 0582381673
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415931029/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (Paperback)
by Jeremy K. Leggett
Paperback: 341 pages
Publisher: Routledge; 1st Routledge ed edition (April 1, 2001)
ISBN: 0415931029
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300102321/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment
(Hardcover)
by James Gustave Speth
Hardcover: 320 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press (February 9, 2004)
ISBN: 0300102321
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046502761X/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and
Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert
Disaster (Hardcover)
by Ross Gelbspan
Hardcover: 254 pages
Publisher: Basic Books (August, 2004)
ISBN: 046502761X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764122193/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Coming Storm: The True Causes of Freak Weather-And Why It's
Getting Worse (Paperback)
by Mark Maslin
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Barrons Educational Series (August 10, 2002)
ISBN: 0764122193
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713467/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming (Hardcover)
by Gale E. Christianson
Hardcover: 305 pages
Publisher: Walker & Company
ISBN: 0802713467
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583224777/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming (Paperback)
by Tom Athanasiou, Paul Baer
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Open Media; 1st edition (June 15, 2002)
ISBN: 1583224777
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1851097422/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Global Warming : A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues)
(Hardcover)
by Gary Bryner, Mildred Vasan (Editor)
Hardcover: 250 pages
Publisher: ABC-CLIO (December 12, 2005)
ISBN: 1851097422
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807085030/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Greenhouse Trap (A World Resources Institute Guide to the
Environment) (Paperback)
by Francesca Lyman
Paperback: 212 pages
Publisher: Beacon Press (April 1, 1990)
ISBN: 0807085030
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567512844/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Arctic Melting : How Global Warming is Destroying One of the World's
Largest Wilderness Areas (Paperback)
by Chad Kister
Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: Common Courage Press (November 15, 2004)
ISBN: 1567512844
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738200255/ref=pd_sbs_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Heat Is on: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription
(Paperback)
by Ross Gelbspan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742512967/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
American Heat: Ethical Problems With the United States' Response to
Global Warming (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy)
(Paperback)
by Donald A. Brown
Paperback: 320 pages
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (June, 2002)
ISBN: 0742512967
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559638818/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change Policy: A Survey (Paperback)
by Stephen H. Schneider (Editor)
Paperback: 563 pages
Publisher: Island Press (September, 2002)
ISBN: 1559638818
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312303653/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
High Tide : The Truth About Our Climate Crisis (Paperback)
by Mark Lynas
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Picador (June 1, 2004)
ISBN: 0312303653
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415946565/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Feeling the Heat: Dispatches from the Frontlines of Climate Change
(Paperback)
by Sally Deneen et al
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Routledge (March, 2004)
ISBN: 0415946565
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691102961/ref=pd_sbs_b_3/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Two-Mile Time Machine : Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our
Future (Paperback)
by Richard B. Alley
Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: Princeton University Press; Reprint edition (July 1, 2002)
ISBN: 0691102961
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385416040/ref=pd_sbs_b_5/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The End of Nature : Tenth Anniversary Edition (Paperback)
by Bill Mckibben
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Anchor; 10th Anniv edition (August 5, 1997)
ISBN: 0385416040
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072838450/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence (Paperback)
by Susan J Armstrong, Richard G Botzler, Susan Armstrong, Richard
Botzler
Paperback: 624 pages
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 3 edition
(August 28, 2003)
ISBN: 0072838450
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393325393/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
State of the World 2004 (Paperback)
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company (January, 2004)
ISBN: 0393325393
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807689/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability :
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 1042 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12, 2001)
ISBN: 0521807689
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807697/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Mitigation : Contribution of Working Group III to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 702 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12, 2001)
ISBN: 0521807697
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807700/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report : Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 408 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (March 4, 2002)
ISBN: 0521807700
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1597260312/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
One With Nineveh : Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future
(Paperback)
by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich
Paperback: 472 pages
Publisher: Island Press (August 22, 2005)
ISBN: 1597260312
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393325237/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble
(Paperback)
by Lester R. Brown
Paperback: 320 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition (September, 2003)
ISBN: 0393325237
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465022820/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization (Paperback)
by Brian Fagan
Paperback: 284 pages
Publisher: Basic Books (December, 2004)
ISBN: 0465022820
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1840645938/qid=1128924404/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming and the American Economy: A Regional Assessment of
Climate Change Impacts (New Horizons in Environmental Economics)
(Hardcover)
by Robert Mendelsohn (Editor)
Hardcover: 209 pages
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing (December 30, 2001)
ISBN: 1840645938
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/155963068X/qid=1128927372/sr=1-24/ref=sr_1_24/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Rising Tide: Global Warming and World Sea Levels (Hardcover)
by Lynne T. Edgerton
Hardcover: 157 pages
Publisher: Island Press (April, 1991)
ISBN: 155963068X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521823862/qid=1128927372/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_26/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Economic Theory and Global Warming (Hardcover)
by Hirofumi Uzawa
Hardcover: 292 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (August 14, 2003)
ISBN: 0521823862
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560229136/qid=1128927372/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Crops And Environmental Change: An Introduction To Effects Of Global
Warming, Increasing Atmospheric CO2 And O3 Concentrations, And Soil
Salinization On Crop Physiology And Yield (Paperback)
by Seth G., Ph.D. Pritchard, Jeffrey S., Ph.D. Amthor
Paperback: 421 pages
Publisher: Haworth Press (February 2, 2005)
ISBN: 1560229136
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0292755554/qid=1128927437/sr=1-36/ref=sr_1_36/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Impact of Global Warming on Texas (Harc Global Change Studies)
(Hardcover)
by Gerald R. North (Editor), Jurgen Schmandt (Editor), Judith Clarkson
(Editor)
Hardcover: 254 pages
Publisher: University of Texas Press; 1st ed edition (1995)
ISBN: 0292755554
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0789484196/qid=1128927437/sr=1-40/ref=sr_1_40/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming (Essential Science Series) (Paperback)
by Fred Pearce, Fred Pearce, John Gribbin
Paperback: 72 pages
Publisher: DK ADULT; 1st edition (April 1, 2002)
ISBN: 0789484196
Coby Beck
news:1128922826....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> --How there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
> statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
> quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
> square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
> two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
> developed in later chapters, and also echos some of the 'debates' we
> had on this NG]
Thanks for the synopsis, Ray (no sarcasm).
With regards to the above, can you please read this:
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/mckitrick3/
and defend what seems to me either incredible incompetence or intellectual
dishonesty.
I will confess up front, that having read that page and all of the linked
materials (including the excerpts from "Taken by Storm") I immediately
decided I would not take anything else published by McKitrick very
seriously. If you can explain the above, I will revise that decision.
And I agree, it echoes many of the debates we have on this newsgroup.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
raylopez99
Coby--thanks for the reply (no sarcasm)
I read the rebuttal by poster Tim Lambert at the link you provided (the
old Ray would have said something like 'the Buttal (im)poster Tim
Lambert' LOL)
Tim Lambert misses the point of Essex and McKitrick's Taken by Storm.
Tim focues on a math error in computing temperature by geometric
average and/or RMS rather than arithmetic average (BTW, in financial
circles, when computing rate of investment return, a big debate was
whether to try and maximize geometric rather than arithmetric return,
and it turns out the former is preferred, see "Fortune's Formula" but I
digress)
This is decidedly NOT the point of Essex and McKitrick's chapter. I
cannot overemphasise this point.
The point in Taken by Storm is the following, best illustrated by
analogy.
Suppose the question is: is the world stock market getting hotter
(rising) or colder (falling) over time? The best way to measure this
would be to compute, for any given time period, what all the world's
stocks are doing (perhaps weighted by market capitalization, with
bigger companies getting more weight, or perhaps not). But suppose
this is impractical, analogous to having a thermometer on every square
meter of the earth. The next best thing would be to construct an
artificial index to represent the stock market. Suppose you select the
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) as this index. Your logic (which
has some truth to it) is that the USA is the world leader in the world
economy and public stock exchanges, and if the DJIA is up, likely most
of the rest of the world stock exchanges, and consequently most of the
other stocks, will also be up. Somebody else disagrees, saying the
DJIA is not representative, and thereby picks the "Nasdaq" index. A
third person disagrees, and picks the "Wilshire 3000" index. A fourth
person disagrees, and picks the "S&P 500" index A fifth person
disagrees with all of the above, and picks the "Morgan Stanley World
Stock Market Index", which suppose consists of an index of 2000 of the
world's 10000+ publically traded stocks.
Now suppose the DJIA is up for 1 year by 175%, because a biotech
company came up with a way to extend human life by 100 years and
productivity soars. Chances are, the rest of the world's stock markets
will also be up, so the DJIA is a good index to answer the question
whether the 'world stock market is getting hotter'. No argument there.
But suppose the DJIA is up by 0.25%. And the Nasdaq is _down)_ by
0.10%. And the Wilshire index, the SP500 and the MS World Index are:
+0.14%, -0.11% and -0.18%, respectively. Is the world stock market
getting hotter or colder? You cannot tell. And 'averaging all of the
above indices' will not give you a better index. Averaging all of the
indices is analogous to getting a 'world temperature' from averaging
all temperatures collected, which is not meaningful anymore than a
representative world telephone number (author's arguments), or
averaging all the indexes above to get a world stock market index, to
tell you whether the all of the public stocks in stock markets around
the world are (overall) getting hotter (gaining) or getting colder
(losing), as a whole.
To answer whether the world's stock markets (all companies) are getting
hotter or colder (up or down), you really have to take more
measurements--a lot more--perhaps averaging all 10000+ stocks. How you
average is not that important (agreed that arithmetic average makes
more sense for most calculations, over RMS or geometric averaging--and
of course you have to use consistent units too, say Celcius for
temperatures)
An index of temperatures to come up with a 'representative world
temperature' is not physically meaningful since temperatures do not add
up in thermodynamics, since they are, unlike energy, an intrinsic
quality (not statistics mind you, but thermodynamics). Note if you
could somehow measure total thermal energy (which does add up), then
say "I computed total energy for 95% of the earth's surface and found
the earth's surface is heating up, therefore, I can be confident the
remaining 5% is also heating up, and/or not going to affect the overall
100% total", then you can rightfully say the world is indeed getting
hotter. But simply summing and averaging pointwise temperatures from
stations all over the world--while important--will not definitively
tell you the world is getting hotter, anymore than using the DJIA to
predict the world stock market in a 'close case'. You might at this
point argue--and the authors explicity mention this point--that while
temperatures cannot physically add up from a thermodynamics viewpoint,
energy is proportional to temperature, so implicitly energy is being
added up. However, the authors point out that only radiative energy is
clearly linked to temperature (the famous Maxwell blackbody equation,
T^4), and convective (fluid dynamics) energy transfer is only weakly
linked to temperature (they are less explicit in this argument about
convective transfer, but it is clearly present IMO.
Also, implicitly the authors would probably agree (I would imagine),
that if 'world temperature' showed a +15 C higher change then chances
are the world is getting hotter (from a thermodyamics point of view);
but the current problem is the degree change is in fact pretty small,
less than 1 degree (I believe) over the last couple of decades.
That is the central message of Essex and McKitrick's Taken by Storm,
regarding the temperatures (they make a lot of other good points too,
but this post is about their temperature argument).
Ray
PS--You might wonder whether I think Essex and McKintrick has refuted
the case for global warming, even AGW. So far, as of Chapter 5, in my
mind they have not, but have raised excellent points. In short, I
still think "further research is required"
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
trails of conclusive evidence which make anthropogenic (Man-Made)
definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temeratures. The best fossils are all
within 6000 years and they are clear and unambiguous. There never was a
worse coral bleaching event in 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nursaries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious storms
have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so that
oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year coral
bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death of
higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confonding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which cahanged rever
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest opulation gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It occurred an average of ten year
intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased in
frequency. Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but
there is earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snwmelt coincides with the
monsoons and historically severe flooding is the result. Nothing this
severe is known for hundreds of years, and the frequency of repetition
is a physical impact requiring a physical explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate exlpanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nin leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater thermal
storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have been forced to 2-3
year intervals. Physical events require physical exlanations -- none of
Stuart Grey's Leprechans doing it. The explanation which fits the
measurements is Global Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. This evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Roger Coppock
many gross errors in McKitrick's publications here:
http://timlambert.org/category/science/mckitrick/
I don't know which is more funny, McKitrick's attempt
to average temperatures with harmonic means, or
his confusing radians and degrees. McKitrick and
Co. aren't source to be trusted.
Carl Powell
evils in the world....ALL storms, misfortunes, inequalities, eco-problems,
ALL OF IT IS MY PERSONAL FAULT.....
People who lived on the Northern Neck of Virginia for generations since
before the revolutionary war get told flat out, "You can't rebuild here, nor
can you sell your land, you can only get a loan for the 'fair market' value
of the house alone.", after Isabelle, but Noooooo, since New Orleans is
majority minority we must rebuild it in total, regardless of it being BELOW
SEA LEVEL. So,Let's Get This Straight NOW....
People who have one loss in 300-400 years, who don't want a hand out, who
PAID their GOV'T MANDATED flood insurance, GET NOTHING.
People who PAID NOTHING, ('Oh,we're deprived, you don't give us
jobs....'),get fully rebuilt BELOW SEA LEVEL TO BE WASHED OUT AGAIN!
People who clear cut and then build on mud, I SOMEHOW FORCED them to do
this....
BUT, I almost forgot 'Mel'....
NO, you can't build wind power on the Eastern Shore because it will hit a
few sea gulls.....
(Despite GW will eventually kill them all as the menhaden in the bay
die....)
NO, you can't build wind power in Medley Valley, owls might be upset by the
noise of the blades.....
(Despite GW is killing ALL of the Shenandoah Valley....)
NO, you can't build nuclear cells 3&4 at Surry or 3&4 at North Anna....
(Despite that cells 1&2 at both stations must go offline by 2020 having
reached their 50 year limits. Slack being taken up by older still coal fired
plants....)
NO, you can't update Smith Mountain Lake.....
(Despite the entire lake being man made anyway.....)
NO, you can't build a 'CleanCoal' plant in Windsor, too much dust from
passing coal cars on the train.....
(Despite the same train being the supplier of Chesapeake station, which has
one of the worst radioactive plumes on the east coast....)
SO...'Mel'...tell this poor uneducated hotel maintenance man one thing....
as imperial righteous leader, what do you do?
WHAT DO YOU DO?
I'm waiting for your answer, because you are getting DAMN heavy on my
paycheck.
Carl
"Melchizedek" <Melch...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:1128888333....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
raylopez99
source is conveying, you run the risk of prejudice, which Essex and
McKintrick say is common in this field.
The Lambert site basically talks about the fall off of measuring
stations as not showing a decrease in temperatures recorded, as
speculated (not proved, merely speculated) to be the case by Essex and
McKintrick. Lambert deserves credit for debunking whether a decrease
in stations would affect temperatures recorded, but Lambert not address
the theme that temperature is a vector field that cannot easily and
meaningfully be reduced to one scalar, a "world temperature" for the
reasons given earlier today by myself.
Thanks for your post. See how much nicer we can be when we debate
civilly?
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
Your point here actually plays into the hands of the authors of "Taken
by Storm":
you say: "So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as
it can get
with oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious storms
have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so that
oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year coral
bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death of
higher life in the seas. "
Believe it or not, the authors also say this, but cast in a different
light. They say that the GCMs, the computer simulations that model the
earth, are extremely weak in the "fluid dynamics" (mainly convective)
portion of heat transfer (while excelling in the CO2/radiative aspects
of heat transfer). The consequence is that they do not model
convective/ fluid dynamic aspects correctly--and if we did not have
convective transfer the earth would be much much hotter.
If heat builds up, it can be released by, as you say, vicious storms.
These storms can also release aerosols and create cloud cover, which
the GCMs are weak at predicting.
Finally (my theory here, not the authors) suppose the heat generated in
the lower latitudes is transfered, convectively, to the poles, and
heats the ice therein from say -10C to -5C (still solid, below
freezing, but heats them up). It might be possible the poles are
acting as 'heat capacitors', saving the earth from warming up, in the
same way that oceans store excess CO2 (and perhaps cold portions of the
ocean also absorb, convectively, extra heat generated through
CO2-blocked radiative heat. Just a thought.
See how much nicer we can debate when we act civilly? Hope this is a
lesson to both of us.
Regards
Ray Lopez
Melchizedek
anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temeratures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations -- none of Stuart Grey's Leprechans doing it are allowed.
The explanation which fits the measurements is Global Warming from
Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
Joshua Halpern
A geometric average of a quantity in a situation where zero is possible
is not even wrong, it is stupid. (What happens if you have a zero in
the series to the average). McKitrick was not smart enough to avoid
this by proper choice of his temperature scale.
josh halpern
Melchizedek
weapons of your choice. If you choose civility, I can live with that,
so long as you can live with ultimate defeat in every eventuality.
There are SIX main trails of evidence stated previously:
+++ Coral Bleaching.
+++ Flooding rate in Bangladesh.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe.
+++ El Nino Increaded regularity.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency.
Any one of these should cause a rational person to to pause and ponder.
A "possibility" that any one of these is correct ought to invoke the
"Precautionary Principle" in moral beings.
Any inability to propose a viable alternative which explains ALL of the
evidence invokes a duty to act as if the data is "provionally proven
true" until otherwise disproven by further study.
The fact that convection has not been exceptionally well modelled is no
surprise. Albert Einstein spent his later decades trying and failing to
create a mathematics which can summarize vortices into simple
equations. His son has followed in the field and followed in failure. I
have a friend whom has devoted 40,000 to 50,000 hours over the past 30
years attempting to reduce to math equations what goes on in vortices.
In the lack of precision we need to err on the side of safety and
perpetuation of the world. The 1998 coral bleaching event should sober
any doubting Thomas who bothers to read how essential living coral
reefs are to the health of the oceans. It never gets 2 degrees hotter
than 1998 in the seas or the oceans die -- simple as that, undeniable,
inescapable. The fires in Indonesia in 98 put up 40% as much CO2 as
all the other man-made sources in that year. That is the margin we have
between life and death -- tha 40% more than normal.
Tell the kiddies that Global Warming means bad things in the future, so
they don't suffer impotent anxiety, but adults should understand tha GW
is here, now, it's ugly, mean, without mercy, and God is not going to
clean up our shite.
The red lights on the control panel are all flashing red. We are way
over into the RED ZONE. WE need not panic, but we need to expeditiously
without delay proceed to the ameloration plan.
The amount of superficial education is astonishing. We need people to
dive deep but also span wide. Somebody needs to know more chemistry
than Stuart Grey to argue his folly, but they need to know more about
oceanography at the same time. They need marine biology and marine
ecology. They need industrial production, economics, political science,
sociology, psychology (including abnormal and criminal psychology).
They need paleontology, physics, deep ecology (meaning more than "paper
or plastic" depth of understanding. The list goes on.
Climatologists without the rest are blindsided by Pat Michaels and Fred
Singer using the U of Virginia as credentials for a platform of fraud.
U of Guelph is anothe fraud platform, with Frasier Institute as corrupt
as they come. A climatologist with normal good manners, without a
political history and economic history, is a sheep surrounded by
vicious wolves. Kids on the internet are even less equipped to survive
in the psychopathic world that the Rockefellers and Kochs built.
Rich people are surrounded by YES men. Nobody wants to tell them the
bad news -- Global Warming means the death of all rich men. Not one
stronghold anywhere, not one island retreat, or Rocky Mountain Command
center will survive the apocalypse they are creating. They have to stop
fighting this changeover. You need to tell me how we communicate to
them through the layers of YES men they have as buffers from the truth.
Ironically it was Olin Corporation who invented EMC smelting, the
technology which will change the energy base for the human race
forever. They have a chance still left to switch from being the satanic
villians to being heros remembered as contributing saviors of the human
race.
I see the funds from Exxon have been drying up over the past year to
the think tanks. Good. We need to turn off the spigots of the
propaganda they have been pouring out. We need Rush off the air. Let's
see some positive behaviors of contributing to the next era of greatest
prosperity the human race has ever experienced. Get the vampire fangs
out of the necks of the sheeple and we can talk probation and something
similar to forgiveness. Look where hardball has gotten you (them).
Billionaires have lost $120,000,000,000 of real wealth (their personal
shares) in the past 40 days. Want to try for double or nothing?
raylopez99
in the series occur routinely in financial analysis, with no adverse
effects.
Respectfully,
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
any
weapons of your choice. If you choose civility, I can live with that,
so long as you can live with ultimate defeat in every eventuality."
You are not very civil Mel. Why must my defeat be inevitable? Are you
claiming to be infallible?
"There are SIX main trails of evidence stated previously:
+++ Coral Bleaching.
+++ Flooding rate in Bangladesh.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe.
+++ El Nino Increaded regularity.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency. "
Every one of these trails of evidence can be disputed. In the interest
of staying on topic, since this thread is about the book Taken by
Storm, let us defer discussing them here.
"Any one of these should cause a rational person to to pause and
ponder.
A "possibility" that any one of these is correct ought to invoke the
"Precautionary Principle" in moral beings."
I disagree with your "Precautionary Principle". The principle that
should be in place is what the philosopher Kuhn pointed out: the
burden of proof on a new paradigm shift lies with the proponent of the
new theory. It is up to you to prove we need to act now, rather than
research global warming further, as I and most others in the mainstream
propose.
Respectfully,
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
>From the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and
Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr. Christopher Essex (Applied
Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr. Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof.
Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Chapter 5 -
-- IPCC graph showing temperature changes from 1000 to 2000 AD is based
on two fallicies: that proxy data (for instance data from tree rings)
is representative of worldwide rather than local conditions, and that
satellite and other 20th century data can be married onto such proxy
data by "curve fitting". Hence the infamous 'hockey stick' graph.
-- regarding proxy data, the data was normalized to modern satellite
data using 'singular value decomposition', which producing a mapping (a
sort of lookup table). This technique is implied to be somewhat
suspect. Apparently (this was not made clear) this mapping was done
because modern data is from locations slighly different than the proxy
data (e.g., what is now an airport was once a wilderness, and the
closest equivalent wilderness having proxy data is perhaps a couple of
hundred kilometers away from the airport).
-- some proxy data very sparse: only 12 data points before 1400. The
error before 1820 is stated by the original "hockey stick" paper to be
too large to be reliably used.
-- in a whimsical and unpersuasive example, the authors stich together
proxy data of tree rings with US real GDP, to come up with an
impressive looking 'model' for US GDP growth from 1000 to 2000 AD. (If
I could interject, these two authors are not that good at using their
best arguments in a book, or putting their best foot foward, and tend
to use supercilious arguments together with the good arguments, which,
together with the math mistakes they sometimes make, gives plenty of
ammunition to their critics for superficial attacks against them.
Chapter 6 -
--A very interesting (to me) discussion of how detecting AGW in a graph
of temperature is like trying to reconstruct the intelligent signal
from a spread-spectrum (SS) communication signal. This is hard to
explain to somebody not familiar with sS communications, but suffice to
say that phones like the kind made by Qualcomm use "pseudo-random
noise" as the carrier signal, not a clean sine wave, so the transmitted
message looks very much like noise, unless you have the "key" to
demodulate the signal. The author is claiming that the proponents of
AGW (that man is creating GW) do not have this key, but instead are
looking at a truly noisy signal and mistaking it for a pseudo-random
signal that contains a signature of information (man's fingerprint).
--IPCC assumes climate is stable, when it is not
-- In a play on "the lineup of suspects at a police lineup" (that
reminds me of what James Hansen did on his webpage, that Rodger found,
but apparently is an IPCC graph), the authors describe on a bar graph
the relative forcing (cooling or warming) for various "suspects".
The ONLY suspects that clearly cause warming are: Halocarbons, N2O,
CH4, CO2, tropospheric ozone and solar. All other 'suspects' CAN CAUSE
COOLING. They include: statospheric ozone (cooling only), Spilphate
(cooling only), carbon from fossil burning; biomass burning (coolng
only), mineral dust, aerosol indirect effect (block sun; cooling only),
contrails/cirrus clouds, land use (albedo; listed as cooling only but
the graph is perhaps wrong, since I've heard albedo can cause
warming?).
--nobody knows how many of these agents transfer energy from one form
to another to produce cooling or warming, yet the IPCC talks about
"Watts per sq. meter" as if they do.
--IPCC leaves out water from the equation of cooling/warming agents.
The claim is that water is not a 'forcing' agent but a property.
-- "The Aerosol Brothers" - as a suspect discounted by the IPCC since
it would contradict the warming caused by CO2. Thus aerosols
deliberately downplayed by the IPCC since it would defeat the AGW
hypothesis (that is, it would essentially say that any increase in
temperatures is not due to CO2 but is simply chance)
--solar cycles ignored by IPCC
--the moon is ignored by the IPCC; the moon (a 200 year cycle imbedded
inside a 1800 yer cycle) affects tides, by drawing more water out of
the deep layers
--various meteorological oscillations affect the 'long-term baseline'
which is assumed by the IPCC to be constant. These include (acronyms
only, since it is tedious to write them out): ENSO, PDO, NAO, IPO,
COWL, AO.
--various chaotic equations can give 'random' output but be very simply
described in a closed-form equation, not unlike the Navier-Stokes
equation, but which also have solutions (unlike the Navier-Stokes
equation). The "Poodle Attractor" is discussed. The reason this is
discussed is because these chaotic equations "look like" human activity
(they have 'jumps' periodically, like a spike from human activity), but
in fact the 'jumps' are not from any 'cause' but completely random.
Likewise any 'jump' in temperature can be completely random.
Mathematically, even two unrelated such dynamical systems can have
"autocorrelation functions" (which usually are used to show a cause and
effect relationship between two functions), even though they are
clearly not related. Science magazine refused to publish Prof. Singer
on this point (but did publish two other critics, along the same lines,
named Tsonis and Elsner)
Ray Lopez
Roger Coppock
Attacking the character of an author is. Had you followed
the link I gave you, you would have seen Lambert expose
one McKitrick blunder after another another. So far,
McKitrick has not published any conclusion that wasn't
tainted by a major error.
Roger Coppock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean
McKitrick's attempt to average temperatures with geometric means
with zero's in the data fails because if any data item "a" is
zero, the entire geometric mean is also zero, regardless of what
the other data items are. An odd number of negative data values
can also cause the geometric mean to be an imaginary number.
These problems could be corrected if one used the Kelvin absolute
temperature scale, K.
McK is just as wrong about the attempt to average temperatures
with geometric mean as he is with his example calculation. The
whole thing is just so much cakcka.
(Correct me if I am wrong, but don't creationists try to make
there is no arithmetic mean of temperatures argument, too. I
remember them using when they make a lame attempt to attack
the fact that the earth was once molten.)
Psalm 110
raylopez99 wrote:
> "I am prepared to meet you on the field of intellectual combat using
> any
> weapons of your choice. If you choose civility, I can live with that,
> so long as you can live with ultimate defeat in every eventuality."
>
> You are not very civil Mel. Why must my defeat be inevitable? Are you
> claiming to be infallible?
Because if you win we are all dead and a beautiful world is destroyed.
It's a cheaper price to pay to get rid of you.
> "There are SIX main trails of evidence stated previously:
>
> +++ Coral Bleaching.
> +++ Flooding rate in Bangladesh.
> +++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks.
> +++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe.
> +++ El Nino Increaded regularity.
> +++ Storm intensity and frequency. "
>
> Every one of these trails of evidence can be disputed. In the interest
> of staying on topic, since this thread is about the book Taken by
> Storm, let us defer discussing them here.
This thread is not about that. Not one person took your bait and
discussed one point of the book -- they discussed you.
> "Any one of these should cause a rational person to to pause and
> ponder.
>
> A "possibility" that any one of these is correct ought to invoke the
> "Precautionary Principle" in moral beings."
>
> I disagree with your "Precautionary Principle". The principle that
> should be in place is what the philosopher Kuhn pointed out: the
> burden of proof on a new paradigm shift lies with the proponent of the
> new theory. It is up to you to prove we need to act now, rather than
> research global warming further, as I and most others in the mainstream
> propose.
The Coral Bleaching is not in dispute. In 1998 87% of all corals
worldwide bleached because they exceeded their heat tolerence. Many
corals died, which is permanent. Neither Kuhn nor you can resurrect the
dead.
The post-mortums of the 1998 event revealed two facts of significance:
(1) The corals were within two degrees of their rrespective species
heat-death point where death by overheating is inevitable, and
(2) Although they were below their heat death point by two degrees (and
many did die), they were stressed near death. Maintanence of the same
temperature 2 degrees below their heat death for two more weeks would
have had the same effect as raising the temperature 2 degrees.
This is an astonishing close call, a near death experience for the
nurseries of the seas. Likewise we have human-caused spread of the
dinoflagellate piscicida pfiesteria being human-distributed to
estuaries around the planet, the other main nurseries of the seas.
Here's a creature so deadly equipped with 20 nerve poisons that fishers
drop unconscious just boating over waters where this thing thrives.
Human negligence is reckless to the extremes and it is closing in on
the limits of tolerance that nature has to repair it. The
interdependent webs of life, the life-support system of the planet
which sustains human life, has been ruptured in many places already. We
need to back off from the total assault on nature. ALL non-psychopaths
understand that.
YOU owe me a legal duty to not cause ME any injury by your negligence
or ignorance. Once you have been informed by "notice" coming to your
attention that your behaviors may have adverse impacts, a legal
responsibility adheres. Kuhnian philopshy does not have legal mandatory
status. The "Precautionary Principle" has legally binding precedent in
our court system.
You keep trying to jetison legal responsibility to obtain priviledges
of irresponsibility. You are not even making a pretense of good
citizenship. You seek to continue negligence and ignorance after
receiving legal notice that your behaviors have adverse effects which
kill and injure others.
YOU have aligned yourself with career criminals. Starting with S. Fred
Singer it is possible that we can establish, through evidence educed in
court records passing due process of law, that he orchestrated felony
criminal frauds and science hoaxes. Everybody with integrity would shun
him. His continuing association with others employed in science
warrants investigation of those others. We find similar evidence passed
through due process of law as court records on those close associates.
So the trail fans out. We find CATO and Competitive Enterprise
Institute in the exact same court evidence records. These are the
people publishing the authors you rely upon, even after their history
has been furnished to you, and you responded, in messages published in
public places, informed that these are career criminals.
You have not shunned the criminals but you have shunned those with no
stain on their record. This cannot occur by accident. You have had a
mandatory duty required by California law where you post from to act as
a reasonable person would act and investigate the information put into
your notice published in a public place and to which you responded. Now
you are liable for your behaviors in California court.
One assumes you estimate a good likelihood that you will never be
confronted in court. You may not have reckoned that an indirect assault
on the lie factories would be to sue a collaborator to use discovery to
obtain information not otherwise available to the general public
without subpoena ducas tecum power. You might be correct in your gamble
that you are not the best positioned pawn to use overwhelmng force upon
to batter in the paymaster's door. On the other hand a few knockoffs of
weaklings in a series of court actions can set the stage of prescedents
which takes the big fish unprepared. You "million dollar Beverly Hills
house" has been put up as collateral on the integrity of your
statements made here.
Roger Coppock
The claim is that water is not a 'forcing' agent but a property. "
That is because water vapor has a short atmospheric lifetime, days.
The amount of global water vapor is determined by the earth is.
Warm the earth's surface up, and you get more water vapor.
It's called, "Water Vapor Feedback" it is a major factor, and it
is a positive feedback.
Roger Coppock
inside a 1800 year cycle) affects tides, by drawing more water out of
the deep layers "
HO HO! How many W/m^2 does mechanism account for?
Supermodels in thong bikini underwear cause heating too.
My rod gets hot when I see one of those nearly naked girls.
But, I am not about to propose this latest fashion as a
cause of global warming.
Moral of the story:
There are a lot of things that can heat or cool the
climate, BUT, THERE ARE VERY FEW SIGNIFICANT CLIMATE
FORCING FACTORS, less than a dozen. The rest are
noise.
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing easily dominates all other
potential causes of the observed warming. Please see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
and
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
and
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
Steve Bloom
Ray, it's almost frightening that you would choose a stock market analogy
for this temperature discussion.
Anyway, of course temperature isn't the same thing as thermal energy, nor
did anyone ever claim it was. Consider this less-obfuscatory analogy: Take
a pot of water. Put a thermometer in it and get a reading. Heat the pot up
a bit. Take another reading. Now, of course that difference won't give you
the thermal energy added. What it will do is allow you to tell that thermal
energy has in fact been added. If you want to know how much, you need to
know how big the pot is and run the numbers. That's easy for a pot, a
little trickier for a planet with oceans. What M&E were banking on is that
it would be too hard to come up with a measured global number. With such a
number available, they would be exposed as flim-flam artists.
(I should add that while we didn't have a directly measured number for the
planet, we could compare current temperatures and climate conditions with
past temperatures and climate conditions and draw some pretty useful
conclusions. Thus the attacks on paleoclimatology.)
But back to the present: Ironically, even as the amateurs M&E wrote,
scientifically-qualified gnomes in deepest upper Manhattan were running the
numbers for Earth: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/ . So,
irony of ironies, we have increased thermal energy to go with those pesky
temperature readings, and the numbers are reasonably in line with theory and
the dreaded models.
Oh, and a quick one about those Himalayan glaciers that M&E said aren't
warming or melting:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/24/content_427609.htm .
Why, they're... warming and melting. Go figure.
Ray, the rest of the book is similarly bogus. If you're interested in the
details, Google and Google Scholar await you. Kindly try to find some less
warmed-over talking points.
Joshua Halpern
> Outline of chapters 5 and 6:
>
>>From the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and
> Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr. Christopher Essex (Applied
> Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr. Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof.
> Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
>
>
> Chapter 5 -
>
> -- IPCC graph showing temperature changes from 1000 to 2000 AD is based
> on two fallicies: that proxy data (for instance data from tree rings)
> is representative of worldwide rather than local conditions, and that
> satellite and other 20th century data can be married onto such proxy
> data by "curve fitting". Hence the infamous 'hockey stick' graph.
>
> -- regarding proxy data, the data was normalized to modern satellite
> data using 'singular value decomposition', which producing a mapping (a
> sort of lookup table). This technique is implied to be somewhat
> suspect. Apparently (this was not made clear) this mapping was done
> because modern data is from locations slighly different than the proxy
> data (e.g., what is now an airport was once a wilderness, and the
> closest equivalent wilderness having proxy data is perhaps a couple of
> hundred kilometers away from the airport).
The MSU satellite data was not used. Period. Full Stop. As a matter
of fact it could NOT be used because there was no overlap with the proxy
data. (The scientist in my says use essentially no, or no useful, but
WTH).
So GIGO.
josh halpern
raylopez99
You raises some good points, but I will reply in the spirit of this
thread, which is to stay focused on the book "Taken by Storm" by Essex
and McKitrick. Otherwise we go off on 1000 tangents and this thread
becomes unruly. Quick note to Roger: thanks for the explanation of
geometric series having problems with zero, unless you convert degrees
to Kelvin. Makes sense, though again it's of tangential importance to
what the book is saying about temperature being a vector field and
"world temperature" being a zero dimensional scalar that possibly
cannot capture the entire vector field adequately, for the reasons
discussed in the book (chap 4).
OK you said "What M&E were banking on is that it would be too hard to
come up with a measured global number. With such a number available,
they would be exposed as flim-flam artists" and you point out that
James Hansen et al (Hansen is the father of AGW btw, so let's keep his
motives in the back of our mind) in
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/ actually calculated
energy absorbed by the earth, and found warming. Good point, as you
acknowledge implicitly the argument that temperature by itself has no
real meaning in the debate, but one BIG problem remains (several
actually, but interrelated), Hansen et al, in their paper, which I
downloaded and read, make a rather startling admission: that they
depend on the IPCC report for a critical parameter, the so-called
"aerosol indirect effect". If you are in this field (and BTW I am
not), you should know if you look at the IPCC report as well as read
Essex & McKitrick's book that this parameter is the biggest global
COOLING parameter of them all. So it is vital that this parameter be
correctly accounted for.
Yet what does Hansen et al say about this parameter? First, they
reference the IPCC 2001 report for this parameter, which the authors of
"Taken by Storm" say is suspect. Then, Hansen et al states this in
their paper: "Atmospheric aerosols cause climate forcings by reflecting
and absorbing radiation, as well as through indirect effects on cloud
cover and cloud albedo (11). The aerosol scenario in our model uses
estimated anthropogenic emissions from fuel use statistics and includes
temporal changes in fossil-fuel use technologies (13). Our
parameterization of aerosol indirect effects (9, 14) is constrained by
empirical evidence that the aerosol indirect forcing is -1 W/m2 (9).
The effective aerosol forcing in 2003 relative to that in 1880,
including positive forcing by absorbing black carbon aerosols, is
-1.39 W/m2, with a subjective estimated uncertainty of ~50%. "
Questions: what happens if the "aerosol indirect forcing" is LESS THAN
-1 W/m2? Why does Hansen et al include "positive forcing by absorbing
black carbon aerosols... with subjective estimated uncertainty of 50%",
when this will decrease the cooling effect of the aerosol indirect
effect? Why is Hansen et al referencing the year 1880 as baseline?
Could they be "mapping" (discussed in the book Taken by Storm; mapping
creates possible distortions)? What happens if, by the authors own
admission, the uncertainty puts the parameter at the upper range of the
"50%"? Why don't Hansen et al run their simulation at this upper
range, and see if the earth warms as dramatically as shown in their
color PDF graphics?
You seem an intelligent person and I am not going to talk down to you
(like the Old Ray would, if you've seen some of my earlier posts in
this newsgroup), but I'm afraid I may have lost some of the other
readers of this thread, so let me somewhat crudely summarize:
0. The 2001 IPCC paper is biased, and all data therein is suspect, in
particular about the critical global cooling parameter, the Aerosol
Indirect Effect (AIE).
1. the Hansen paper is biased. Hansen is the father of AGW.
2. the Hansen paper uses for the biggest 'suspect' in GW, the one that
COOLS, not heats, the so-called "Aerosol Indirect Effect" (AIE), a
value for it that might be too low, since it was computed by the IPCC
report (see point 0. above)
3. the Hansen paper brings down the AIE (and makes the model more
likely to show warming) by mixing it with a known 'heater' parameter,
so-called "black carbon". Further, the Hansen paper may be distorting
AIE by a modeling effect known as "mapping"
4. Even if we accept the Hansen paper data for AIE, the Hansen paper
did not calculate what would happen if the AIE were 50% more favorable
for global cooling, as the Hansen paper says is possible (see quote
above).
Steve--I am not a meteorologist, but I can pick holes in your argument.
Not too good for your point of view.
Oh--the site chinadaily.com is run by the PRC and suspect, and the news
article on the melting Himalayas quotes the World Wildlife Fund, a
known propagandist for AGW.
Respectfully,
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
--IMO this might be the best chapter in the book, along with chapters 4
(on temperature) and 6 (on GCMs)
--defines modeling GW as nescience (ignorant) science, akin to the
question "How many aliens are on earth?" to be distinguished from
uncertainty, as in "How many people live on earth?" (which can be
estimated)
--shows a graph of CO2 concentrations over millions of years (Note: we
have discussed in this NG how at some levels, humans would die at
concentrations found during peaks of CO2)
--cites a PUTATIVELY refuted study from 1982 (Neftel et al. "Ice Core
Sample Measurements", Nature 295 (1982) that showed CO2
concentrations of 400 ppm from a ice core sample from 1700 AD. This
is important because the claim made by AGW proponents is today's 380
ppm CO2 concentrations are unprecedented. The authors of Taken by
Storm then attempt to rehabilitate this paper, which apparently had
their ice core samples contaminated by drilling fluid.
--Authors blast a very controversial but apparently universal practice
of dating air from ice core samples that essentially 'smoothes
over' the data and shifts the year by a mapping technique that
assumes any high readings of CO2 trapped in air from 100s of years ago
simply cannot happen, and these high readings are thrown out.
Essentially, 'throwing out' the too high data points for trapped
CO2, under the theory they simply cannot be true. Obviously very
disturbing if, as the authors claim, this practice is universal in ice
core sampling of CO2 in trapped air.
--a study from 1999 is cited that shows trapped air in ice undergoes
chemical changes that will give a lower CO2 level now than actually was
trapped, in particular if the ice is under pressure. Reference:
Indermuhle et al. "Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics on CO2 trapped in
Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica", Nature 398 (1999)
-- ice bubbles under pressure and in the presence of liquid water will
deplete the CO2, so samples from hundreds of years ago that show lower
CO2, which is the baseline used by the IPCC report, are not necessarily
reliable. Thus today's "high" 380 ppm CO2 readings are not
necessarily high from a historic point of view-and not just when
dinosaurs roamed the earth, but in the near historical era
--a 1999 alternative technique for measuring CO2 levels based on how
many "stomata"(plant cell wall pores) are present in leaves
recovered from peat bogs showed that between 11300 BC to 10700 BC, CO2
concentrations ranged from 250 to 350 ppm, which is not that different,
at the high end, from today's 380 ppm. These numbers are also larger
than the IPCC 'approved' CO2 historical levels such as found in
certain ice. Reference: Friederike Wagner et al. of Utrecht Univ
(1999)
--in a shocking section, that is buried in the middle of the chapter
(almost too good to be true IMO) the authors question the radiative CO2
model of global warming (that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain
wavelengths of light radiation, that normally would have escaped to
outer space, thus contributing to radiative global warming), by
questioning the so-called U.S. Standard Atmosphere emission altitude of
6.5 C per km as a unvarying constant. Rather, the emission altitude is
not a constant claim the authors, but varies between 4 C to 10 C per
km. I could spend an entire page explaining this, but in the interests
of time, please simply Google it. Essentially, picking a lower number
will give GLOBAL COOLING rather than Global Warming in many GCM models
(!). In fact, in one model, simply using a value of 6.1 C/km rather
than the 'approved' constant of 6.5 C/km will give global cooling
at the surface of the earth. (Amazing! Anybody else seen this?)
--a number of pages is devoted to the fact that while nearly any series
of data points can be force fitted onto a "normal" Gaussian
distribution, in fact climate (rainfall, temperatures, etc) are more
likely to be 'fractal' and lend themselves to a distribution that
may be non-Gaussian, such as: Levy (including Cauchy) distributions.
The distinction is important because Levy-family distributions have
"fat tails", making "one in a million" occurrences much more
common than in a Gaussian distribution. Thus today's
"unprecedented" high temperatures have happened many times in the
past, if temperatures are a Levy density function rather than a
Gaussian density function. The IPCC models, as expected, are modeled
on conventional Gaussian distributions.
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
You said: "The MSU satellite data was not used. Period. Full Stop.
As a matter of fact it could NOT be used because there was no overlap
with the proxy data. (The scientist in my says use essentially no, or
no useful, but WTH). "
I think the point of Essex and McKitrick is that data from the 20th
century is grafted onto proxy data, using interpolation and a force fit
(mapping).
I looked carefully at Chapter 5 for "satellite" and found that I
misunderstood: E & W did not specifically mention satellite data was
grafted to proxy data, but they did mention 20th century data was
grafted onto the proxy data. I assumed such 20th century data included
(or was primarily) satellite data, but if you are saying it was not, I
am prepared to believe you.
It does not change the thrust of E&W's arguments however, but thanks
for that clarification.
Respectfully,
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
Your first link
("http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm") is also
discussed in the book "Taken by Storm", in particular (no pun intended)
the Aerosol Indirect Effect, which, as you know, contributes to global
cooling. See my post in this thread.
Your second link was broken.
As for what forcing factors are significant, I think I agree with you,
and so do the authors, because they listed the "moon" factor, along
with the other factors mentioned below that bullet, as "Minor" in a
subheading in the book.
Let me ask you point blank--have you read this book? It's really an
eye opener. If you cannot find it in your library, or otherwise afford
it (no offense intended), I can mail you my copy. Just email me with a
mailing address in the next week or so (I'm off traveling again soon).
Respectfully,
RL
David G. Naugler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674016378/qid=1128924305/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Discovery of Global Warming : , (New Histories of Science,
Technology, and Medicine) (Paperback)
by Spencer R. Weart
Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press (September 30, 2004)
ISBN: 0674016378
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521528747/qid=1128924305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming : The Complete Briefing (Paperback)
by John Houghton
Paperback: 382 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 3 edition (August 5, 2004)
ISBN: 0521528747
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1403966982/qid=1128924305/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming : Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet (Hardcover)
by Chris Spence
Hardcover: 208 pages
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (July 15, 2005)
ISBN: 1403966982
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0582381673/qid=1128924305/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming: The Hard Science (Paperback)
by Danny Harvey
Paperback: 408 pages
Publisher: Prentice Hall; 1 edition (April 6, 1999)
ISBN: 0582381673
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415931029/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (Paperback)
by Jeremy K. Leggett
Paperback: 341 pages
Publisher: Routledge; 1st Routledge ed edition (April 1, 2001)
ISBN: 0415931029
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300102321/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment
(Hardcover)
by James Gustave Speth
Hardcover: 320 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press (February 9, 2004)
ISBN: 0300102321
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046502761X/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and
Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert
Disaster (Hardcover)
by Ross Gelbspan
Hardcover: 254 pages
Publisher: Basic Books (August, 2004)
ISBN: 046502761X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764122193/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Coming Storm: The True Causes of Freak Weather-And Why It's
Getting Worse (Paperback)
by Mark Maslin
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Barrons Educational Series (August 10, 2002)
ISBN: 0764122193
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713467/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming (Hardcover)
by Gale E. Christianson
Hardcover: 305 pages
Publisher: Walker & Company
ISBN: 0802713467
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583224777/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming (Paperback)
by Tom Athanasiou, Paul Baer
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Open Media; 1st edition (June 15, 2002)
ISBN: 1583224777
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1851097422/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Global Warming : A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues)
(Hardcover)
by Gary Bryner, Mildred Vasan (Editor)
Hardcover: 250 pages
Publisher: ABC-CLIO (December 12, 2005)
ISBN: 1851097422
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807085030/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
The Greenhouse Trap (A World Resources Institute Guide to the
Environment) (Paperback)
by Francesca Lyman
Paperback: 212 pages
Publisher: Beacon Press (April 1, 1990)
ISBN: 0807085030
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567512844/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance
Arctic Melting : How Global Warming is Destroying One of the World's
Largest Wilderness Areas (Paperback)
by Chad Kister
Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: Common Courage Press (November 15, 2004)
ISBN: 1567512844
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738200255/ref=pd_sbs_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Heat Is on: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription
(Paperback)
by Ross Gelbspan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742512967/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
American Heat: Ethical Problems With the United States' Response to
Global Warming (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy)
(Paperback)
by Donald A. Brown
Paperback: 320 pages
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (June, 2002)
ISBN: 0742512967
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559638818/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change Policy: A Survey (Paperback)
by Stephen H. Schneider (Editor)
Paperback: 563 pages
Publisher: Island Press (September, 2002)
ISBN: 1559638818
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312303653/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
High Tide : The Truth About Our Climate Crisis (Paperback)
by Mark Lynas
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Picador (June 1, 2004)
ISBN: 0312303653
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415946565/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Feeling the Heat: Dispatches from the Frontlines of Climate Change
(Paperback)
by Sally Deneen et al
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Routledge (March, 2004)
ISBN: 0415946565
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691102961/ref=pd_sbs_b_3/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Two-Mile Time Machine : Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our
Future (Paperback)
by Richard B. Alley
Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: Princeton University Press; Reprint edition (July 1, 2002)
ISBN: 0691102961
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385416040/ref=pd_sbs_b_5/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The End of Nature : Tenth Anniversary Edition (Paperback)
by Bill Mckibben
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Anchor; 10th Anniv edition (August 5, 1997)
ISBN: 0385416040
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072838450/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence (Paperback)
by Susan J Armstrong, Richard G Botzler, Susan Armstrong, Richard
Botzler
Paperback: 624 pages
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 3 edition
(August 28, 2003)
ISBN: 0072838450
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393325393/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
State of the World 2004 (Paperback)
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company (January, 2004)
ISBN: 0393325393
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807689/ref=pd_sim_b_6/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability :
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 1042 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12, 2001)
ISBN: 0521807689
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807697/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Mitigation : Contribution of Working Group III to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 702 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12, 2001)
ISBN: 0521807697
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521807700/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report : Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hardcover)
Hardcover: 408 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (March 4, 2002)
ISBN: 0521807700
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1597260312/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
One With Nineveh : Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future
(Paperback)
by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich
Paperback: 472 pages
Publisher: Island Press (August 22, 2005)
ISBN: 1597260312
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393325237/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble
(Paperback)
by Lester R. Brown
Paperback: 320 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition (September, 2003)
ISBN: 0393325237
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465022820/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-1844528-0348955?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization (Paperback)
by Brian Fagan
Paperback: 284 pages
Publisher: Basic Books (December, 2004)
ISBN: 0465022820
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1840645938/qid=1128924404/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming and the American Economy: A Regional Assessment of
Climate Change Impacts (New Horizons in Environmental Economics)
(Hardcover)
by Robert Mendelsohn (Editor)
Hardcover: 209 pages
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing (December 30, 2001)
ISBN: 1840645938
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/155963068X/qid=1128927372/sr=1-24/ref=sr_1_24/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Rising Tide: Global Warming and World Sea Levels (Hardcover)
by Lynne T. Edgerton
Hardcover: 157 pages
Publisher: Island Press (April, 1991)
ISBN: 155963068X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521823862/qid=1128927372/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_26/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Economic Theory and Global Warming (Hardcover)
by Hirofumi Uzawa
Hardcover: 292 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (August 14, 2003)
ISBN: 0521823862
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560229136/qid=1128927372/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Crops And Environmental Change: An Introduction To Effects Of Global
Warming, Increasing Atmospheric CO2 And O3 Concentrations, And Soil
Salinization On Crop Physiology And Yield (Paperback)
by Seth G., Ph.D. Pritchard, Jeffrey S., Ph.D. Amthor
Paperback: 421 pages
Publisher: Haworth Press (February 2, 2005)
ISBN: 1560229136
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0292755554/qid=1128927437/sr=1-36/ref=sr_1_36/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
The Impact of Global Warming on Texas (Harc Global Change Studies)
(Hardcover)
by Gerald R. North (Editor), Jurgen Schmandt (Editor), Judith Clarkson
(Editor)
Hardcover: 254 pages
Publisher: University of Texas Press; 1st ed edition (1995)
ISBN: 0292755554
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0789484196/qid=1128927437/sr=1-40/ref=sr_1_40/102-1844528-0348955?v=glance&s=books
Global Warming (Essential Science Series) (Paperback)
by Fred Pearce, Fred Pearce, John Gribbin
Paperback: 72 pages
Publisher: DK ADULT; 1st edition (April 1, 2002)
ISBN: 0789484196
David G. Naugler
raylopez99 wrote:
> --Authors blast a very controversial but apparently universal practice
> of dating air from ice core samples that essentially 'smoothes
> over' the data and shifts the year by a mapping technique that
> assumes any high readings of CO2 trapped in air from 100s of years ago
> simply cannot happen, and these high readings are thrown out.
> Essentially, 'throwing out' the too high data points for trapped
> CO2, under the theory they simply cannot be true. Obviously very
> disturbing if, as the authors claim, this practice is universal in ice
> core sampling of CO2 in trapped air.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175 Singer McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=383 Ross McKitrick and others
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=388 Ross McKitrick overlap
Singer
Map 175 looks like there is no connectedness between McKitrick and arch
science criminal S. Fred Singer.
Map 383 looks at some of the Key People involved in the two
organizations that McKitrick shows on his map. Suddenly we find him
connected to a large web of liars, whom are themselves connected
together daisy chains of organized crime webs.
Map 388 looks deeper into that circle with McKitrick and Singer.
Singer's partner in SEPPtic Tank is bruce Ames involved in Marshall
inst. Singer's othe partner in SEPPtic Tank is Fred Seitz, also
important in Marshall Inst.
Balliunas and Soon are connected to Marshall Inst., where they
participated in felony fraud with OISM over a countefeit NAS petition
that fooled a lot of people. Legates also turns up on this map of
people connected to McKitrick and connected to Singer.
TASSC was a criminal fraud organization from inception. Court papers
demonstrated it was conceived by APCO associates, a PR firm, sold to
Philip Morris Tobacco Company as a means to commit fraud, and then was
funded and operated for purposes of fraud for several years. There are
five Key People associated with the two branches of TASSC: Singer,
Malloy, Michaels, Seitz and Cohen. This fraud was exposed in court in
1998 in federal court. The judge ordered the documents posted online.
Honest scientists would shun those participating in frauds. Honest
businessmen would too.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=391 TASSC
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=392 TASSC plus
Map 391 is the simple view ot TASSC. Map 392 traces the organizations
hiring known felony fraud science hoaxers. Map 392 shows 26
organizations or think tanks which hire known science fraud operatives.
We see McKitrick keeps company with known science frauds and scam
artists. It is safe to assume he will use sophisticated techniques to
lie to people who are trusting him to tell the truth.
Fraser Institute is funded by lots of small grants from the Bradley
(ultra-right-wing) Foundation, but fewer large grants from Scaife.
Scaife is inherited Mellon banking and Gulf Oil money. Gulf Oil has
been mergered out of business but the stocks from the new owner must be
in his portfolio.
In 1984 Gulf Oil Company was absorbed by Chevron (Standard Oil of
California), which means that Scaifie's stock were traded in on a
Standard Oil Company stocks. Exxon, Mobil and others are all in the
Standard Oil ownership family. Scaife became an "in-law" through
corporate marriage with the Rockefeller Heirs behind ExxonMobil.
http://www.oiltrash.com/mergers/mergerlist.cfm
The Marshall Institute is also funded by oil heir Scaife:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=137
So all of McKitrick's money comes from oil stocks maintaining maximum
value by keeping a deception going to support a monopoly on fuels and
power.
Considering that McKitrick works for science corrupters, his science is
far more suspect. And it his job to insert doubts about corruption in
his opponents he is out to defeat.
> --a study from 1999 is cited that shows trapped air in ice undergoes
> chemical changes that will give a lower CO2 level now than actually was
> trapped, in particular if the ice is under pressure. Reference:
> Indermuhle et al. "Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics on CO2 trapped in
> Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica", Nature 398 (1999)
>
> -- ice bubbles under pressure and in the presence of liquid water will
> deplete the CO2, so samples from hundreds of years ago that show lower
> CO2, which is the baseline used by the IPCC report, are not necessarily
> reliable. Thus today's "high" 380 ppm CO2 readings are not
> necessarily high from a historic point of view-and not just when
> dinosaurs roamed the earth, but in the near historical era
You cannot sweep hurricanes under the rug with insinuations:
Spreaders of criminal felony fraud are plaguing the body politic.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE STORMS.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Hurricanes below 115 mph.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Hurricanes above 115 mph.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Expensive Storms causing more grief.
GLOBAL WARMING causes HOTTER Heat Waves.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE droughts.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE floods.
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
Here's the stats on the storm totals.
1933 was the highest year for numbers of storms on the record. The
decade, 10-year stretch, that puts that year in the middle is 1928-1937
Compare: 1928-1937 = 10 years
17 Strong Hurricanes
32 Weak Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
123% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
25% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
The 1950s had a lot of storms:
Compare: 1950-1959 = 10 years
35 Strong Hurricanes
29 Weak Hurricanes
64 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
8% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
37% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
22% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
The 1960s were turbulent in their way:
Compare: 1960-1969 = 10 years
28 Strong Hurricanes
35 Weak Hurricanes
63 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
36% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
14% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
24% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
For every 4 strong hurricanes in the decade which had the biggest peak
year ever for hurricanes (1928-1937), there were 9 strong hurricanes of
115 mph winds or greater. This doesn't even count THIS YEAR with five
major hurricanes so far as part of the 10-year stretch of recent
decade.
If you add one more year to each of those older 10-year stretches and
add 2005 to the previous decade the news is worse.
Those three older decades are the worst of the worst over 154 years
since 1850-2004. And it is still getting worse.
HURICANE STAN definately was added by surplus heat fuel stored in the
waters. There is no alternate explanation. There is no 30-40 year cycle
of increasing hurricanes -- that is totally bogus, not found in the
history. It is urban myth. There is no 100 year cycle found in the
record -- another bogus myth. 1994-2004 is UNIQUE in the record.
It absolutely matches the predictions, absolutely matches the
temperature records (which are also record-breakers for hottest years,
hottest months), and it absolutely matches the GREENHOUSE GASES
accumulating in the atmosphere.
You owe an alternate explanation which explains ALL the evidence, these
and much more evidence. Heat TRAPPED in the system is killing us.
raylopez99
How many of these books have you actually read?
Can you kindly summarize them in a seperate thread, one per book, like
I have for this thread?
Regards,
Ray
David G. Naugler
You set up the thread as a "gingerbread house" to snare innocent Hansel
and Gretal. You even offered one of the 400 copies Marshall Institute
or Fraser Institute provided you to Coppock.
There are things too big for liars like McKitrick to lie away...
El Ninos, caused by heat change to 2.2 year intervals, exactly during
hottest years on record, exactly when most CO2 in air on record,
exactly when decade of most hurricanes on record...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageseas/weather-side-elnino.html
El Nino and Global Warming
Seems like in the '90s, El Niño just didn't want to go away. El Niño,
an unusual rise in sea-surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific
Ocean, visited three times from 1990 to 1995. In between, temperatures
never went quite back to normal, as if it were all one long El Niño.
This has led to some intriguing but speculative discussion about the
possible link between rising global temperatures and the apparent
increase in El Niños.
El Nino
A weather map reveals the wide range and impact of El Niño.
One respected climate scientist who has gone out on a limb about the
global warming-El Niño connection is Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist
at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
He thinks that El Niño may function as a kind of pressure release
valve on the tropics. In an era of global warming, Trenberth says,
ocean currents and weather systems might not be able to bleed off all
the heat pumped into the tropical seas. Periodically, it has to get rid
of the excess that builds up, he suggests, and that safety valve is El
Niño.
Since 1976, there have been seven El Niños. Based on the most reliable
records, which go back 120 years, we would have expected to see only
five, Trenberth says.
http://www.awitness.org/journal/el_nino.html
Since the late 1970s the pattern of El Nino oscillations have become
more frequent (9 El Ninos, occuring on average every 2.2 years) while
the opposite phenomena, La Nina, which cools the water in the region,
has only occured once (it used to be that there were equal numbers of
El Ninos and La Ninas, which is why the phenomena was referred to as
the Southern Oscillation in the past, but changes in the last couple of
decades have caused the frequency of El Nino to increase (now coming
every two years instead of the average rate of 7 years in the past) and
the La Nina phenomena has almost disappeared, which means that the
southern oscillation is no longer an oscillation. The period from the
late 1970s to the present time is unlike any other period in history in
this regard, and thus is of great interest to scientists. This same
time period also corresponds to a rise in global temperatures of half a
degree in the last three decades, and is an indication of how
astonishly sensitive the global climate is to even small alterations.
Just a tiny change of temperature in a tiny patch of ocean (the El Nino
warming) causes repeating patterns of droughts and flooding in
different places all over the world. It really is a remarkable
phenomena, and the frequency has increased in the two decades while la
Nina has disappeared, all of this happening concurrent with a one half
a degree in global temperature change that has occurred in just the
last 30 years.
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
read reviews from professional writers, plus reviews by regular people
probably just like you.
Many of these books have the "Look Inside" feature. You can read a
sample chapter, look at the front and back covers, read the table of
contents and the index. You can search for facts in the books.
You will get better, unbiased, information, without the poison-pills
embedded in Ray Lopez's deception trap.
Remember these things:
The world has had it's hottest decade over the past ten years. Coral
Bleaching proves that no hotter year than 1998 ever happened in the
last 65,000,000 years of the seas would have died by failure of the
coral nurseries -- no mass oceanic extinction is recorded in any fossil
records since 65mya. El Nino is coming every 2.2 years now -- it is
driven by heat. Nothing in the 120 year record of El Ninos matches
this. Bangladesh is flooding every 2 years, and they are historically
great floods caused by Global Warming melting the Himalaya snows too
early too fast. There have been 25% more hurricanes, both big ones and
smaller ones, since 1995 than any comparible length of time since
records started in 1850.
El Ninos
Roger Coppock
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
I actually glanced at "Taken By Storm" found three or more
howling errors. one ow which was the nonsense about
averaging temperatures, then put it back on the shelves
of my local library. My E-mail archive has me mentioning
it, when I complained to the librarian that the library was
wasting tax dollars on pseudoscience books. In a return
E-mail, the librarian agreed that the recent purchases I
named where all in his own words, "junk science."
hanson
you, <Melch...@USA.com>, have spewed "MilkSheissdreck" in your
news:1128991350.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There are SIX main trails of evidence advcocated by Melch that are sorely
in need of editing (which has been done here) for the sake of selfevident facts:
> +++ Coral Bleaching... a natural cycle by micro-org predation/infestation.
> +++ Flooding rate in Bangladesh... a natural consequence of soil compaction.
> +++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks... a natural Maunder type cycle.
> +++ Increased temps recorded across the globe... 'cuz of better metrology.
> +++ El Nino Increaded regularity... 'cuz of more accu observatn. techniques.
> +++ Storm intensity & frequency... 'cuz of better record- & measuring methods.
> ----------------- MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED -------------------
>
> NOT one of these should cause a rational person to pause nor
> ponder whether it has anything to do with any man made cause(s).
> It has not and it does not.
>
> For Melch to invoke the "Precautionary Principle" in moral beings...
> is the typical cover story by class 1 & 2 enviros to extort money from
> hard working people via permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes
> and the carbon tax....
>
> For Melch to invoke Albert Einstein summarizes the desires of
> Melchizedek to produce his green own MilkSheissdreck. But of course
> Melch is incapable to solve nonlinear chaos-, turbulence- & diffusion-
> equations himself that he is bragging about. (and even if he could it
> wouldn't affect any event even by a iota in the natural world anyway)
> So, surprisingly, in a rare momentary flash of lucidity Melch adds that
> his God is not going to clean up his "shite". Ahahaha, Melch, there's a
> clinical word for people like you who talk to God this way... ahahaha...
BTW, Melch, you are one of the phonier green shits I have had the
pleasure of meeting at these crazy 24/7 green cyber parties here,
because you are allowing yourself to use and post the word "shite",
yet you rail against me when I use it and you retort with long dictionary
searches of "shit matters", apparently in your Freudian excuse to cover
up your deep seated coprophiliac & anilinguistic yearnings & desires....
AHAHA.. So, with your splendid environmental actions here you have
demonstrated that you are a disciple of the green bible which says:
>
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
> Melch insists that Global Warming means the death of all rich men:
> Not one stronghold anywhere, not one island retreat, or Rocky
> Mountain Command center will survive the apocalypse they are
> creating... ahahaha.... Rich people like the class 2 enviro-millionaires
> are surrounded by YES men, Melch says. Of course they are...
> surrounded by class 3 enviros, those hordes of cajoling little green
> idiots, like you Melch, you, a sore loser & an embittered pauper
> exhibiting YOUR envy & jealously over rich farts, green & otherwiose.
----------------- NO MORE RESEARCH NEEDED -----------------
>
> Melch insists that ironically it was Olin Corporation who invented EMC
> smelting, the technology which will change the energy base for the
> human race forever.... but not ironically at all Melch, you, a typical class
> 3 enviro, has -lusions of the del- & il- kind... as is seen here by your
> buzzwords over a corp and a process you know nothing about...ahaha..
>
> Says Melch: I see the funds to the think tanks from Exxon have been
> drying up over the past year. Good. We need to turn off the spigots
> of the propaganda they have been pouring out... and leave the decision
> making up to little green idiots who in their state of doom & mentation
> of fear are unfit to survive any on/upcoming hardship from the outset...
> .ahahaha... BTW, who is that "we" you are referring to, Melch?... more
> green lunatics like you or the 4 members of RBC, VD-Scott Nudds's
> *reality based community* which stands for *Re-Born Communists*?
>
> We need Rush off the air, urges Melch.... because you, Melch, are
> grieveously jealous of Limbaugh since he reaches with his own spew
> more people in one single day than you ever will over your entire
> own sorry lifetime, trying to deliver your silly green MilkSheissdreck...
>
> Melch urges: Let's see some positive behaviors of contributing to the
> next era of greatest prosperity the human race has ever experienced.
> Get the vampire fangs out of the necks of the sheeple & we can talk
> probation & something similar to forgiveness... AHAHAHAHA... ahaha...
> Forgiveness?... forgiveness?... for you greenies?...after you green shits
> have looted the public treasuries (Superfund etc.) on a global scale for
> 2 generations now...? Melch, you've got a hard Sell on your greedy
> hands here with that, you trying to convince a public that you greenies
> have fucked over so hard & for so long now... and all you have to show
> for is your whining that it is getting worse... ahahaha....AHAHAHA...
>
> Celebrates Melch: Look where hardball has gotten you (them).
> Billionaires have lost $120,000,000,000 of real wealth (their personal
> shares) in the past 40 days. Want to try for double or nothing?
>
Yes, Melch, let's see some positive behavior from you. Buy one single
share of stock in/from the assets your "Billionaires who have lost" and
then deliver your messianic green tunes to them. Yes, go ahead and
"try for double or nothing" instead of just spewing your MilkSheissdreck
into cyber space here. ...ahahaha...But, thanks for the laughs, Schmuck!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
ahaha... AHAHA... Melch, so that you may continue with your wussy &
hilarious pinko-green rants,... real gems for my amusement.. ahahaha..
I will repost post here your full original toilet essay which you wrote to
the wise Dr. Ray Lopez "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> who said
news:1128988246.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..
to which you "Melchizedek" <Melch...@USA.com> retorted in message
news:1128991350.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I am prepared to meet you [Ray] on the field of intellectual combat using
Roger Coppock
to have a copy, you could have bought one for a quarter
at rummage sale. You'd find it between the unread
creation science books and the old Playboy Magazines
with the centerfolds removed.
Roger Coppock
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"I am prepared to meet you on the field of intellectual combat using
>any
>weapons of your choice. If you choose civility, I can live with that,
>so long as you can live with ultimate defeat in every eventuality."
>
>You are not very civil Mel. Why must my defeat be inevitable? Are you
>claiming to be infallible?
>
>"There are SIX main trails of evidence stated previously:
>
>+++ Coral Bleaching.
>+++ Flooding rate in Bangladesh.
>+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks.
>+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe.
>+++ El Nino Increaded regularity.
>+++ Storm intensity and frequency. "
>
>Every one of these trails of evidence can be disputed.
So sayeth the creationists. "God put the fossils there. Things decayed at a
different rate back then. The flood carved the Grand Canyon."
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Outline of chapters 5 and 6:
>
>>From the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and
>Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr. Christopher Essex (Applied
>Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr. Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof.
>Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
>
>
>Chapter 5 -
>
>-- IPCC graph showing temperature changes from 1000 to 2000 AD is based
>on two fallicies: that proxy data (for instance data from tree rings)
>is representative of worldwide rather than local conditions, and that
>satellite and other 20th century data can be married onto such proxy
>data by "curve fitting". Hence the infamous 'hockey stick' graph.
>
>-- regarding proxy data, the data was normalized to modern satellite
>data using 'singular value decomposition', which producing a mapping (a
>sort of lookup table). This technique is implied to be somewhat
>suspect.
By whom?
>Apparently (this was not made clear) this mapping was done
>because modern data is from locations slighly different than the proxy
>data (e.g., what is now an airport was once a wilderness, and the
>closest equivalent wilderness having proxy data is perhaps a couple of
>hundred kilometers away from the airport).
>
>-- some proxy data very sparse: only 12 data points before 1400. The
>error before 1820 is stated by the original "hockey stick" paper to be
>too large to be reliably used.
>
>-- in a whimsical and unpersuasive example, the authors stich together
>proxy data of tree rings with US real GDP, to come up with an
>impressive looking 'model' for US GDP growth from 1000 to 2000 AD. (If
>I could interject, these two authors are not that good at using their
>best arguments in a book, or putting their best foot foward, and tend
>to use supercilious arguments together with the good arguments, which,
>together with the math mistakes they sometimes make, gives plenty of
>ammunition to their critics for superficial attacks against them.
If I may interejct: They're scientists; they published in Nature. You're not
a scientist, but a right-wing wacko. 'Nuff said?
>
>Chapter 6 -
>
>--A very interesting (to me) discussion of how detecting AGW in a graph
>of temperature is like trying to reconstruct the intelligent signal
>from a spread-spectrum (SS) communication signal. This is hard to
>explain to somebody not familiar with sS communications, but suffice to
>say that phones like the kind made by Qualcomm use "pseudo-random
>noise" as the carrier signal, not a clean sine wave, so the transmitted
>message looks very much like noise, unless you have the "key" to
>demodulate the signal. The author is claiming that the proponents of
>AGW (that man is creating GW) do not have this key, but instead are
>looking at a truly noisy signal and mistaking it for a pseudo-random
>signal that contains a signature of information (man's fingerprint).
>
>--IPCC assumes climate is stable, when it is not
They do no such thing.
>
>-- In a play on "the lineup of suspects at a police lineup" (that
>reminds me of what James Hansen did on his webpage, that Rodger found,
>but apparently is an IPCC graph), the authors describe on a bar graph
>the relative forcing (cooling or warming) for various "suspects".
>
>The ONLY suspects that clearly cause warming are: Halocarbons, N2O,
>CH4, CO2, tropospheric ozone and solar. All other 'suspects' CAN CAUSE
>COOLING. They include: statospheric ozone (cooling only), Spilphate
>(cooling only), carbon from fossil burning; biomass burning (coolng
>only), mineral dust, aerosol indirect effect (block sun; cooling only),
>contrails/cirrus clouds, land use (albedo; listed as cooling only but
>the graph is perhaps wrong, since I've heard albedo can cause
>warming?).
>
>--nobody knows how many of these agents transfer energy from one form
>to another to produce cooling or warming, yet the IPCC talks about
>"Watts per sq. meter" as if they do.
Perhaps they do and you don't.
>
>--IPCC leaves out water from the equation of cooling/warming agents.
>The claim is that water is not a 'forcing' agent but a property.
OK, now you're on idiot alert.
>
>-- "The Aerosol Brothers" - as a suspect discounted by the IPCC since
>it would contradict the warming caused by CO2. Thus aerosols
>deliberately downplayed by the IPCC since it would defeat the AGW
>hypothesis (that is, it would essentially say that any increase in
>temperatures is not due to CO2 but is simply chance)
False. Aerosols are the cause of the brief interruption in warming in the mid
20th century.
>
>--solar cycles ignored by IPCC
>
>--the moon is ignored by the IPCC; the moon (a 200 year cycle imbedded
>inside a 1800 yer cycle) affects tides, by drawing more water out of
>the deep layers
Idiot alert^2.
>
>--various meteorological oscillations affect the 'long-term baseline'
>which is assumed by the IPCC to be constant. These include (acronyms
>only, since it is tedious to write them out): ENSO, PDO, NAO, IPO,
>COWL, AO.
>
>--various chaotic equations can give 'random' output but be very simply
>described in a closed-form equation, not unlike the Navier-Stokes
>equation, but which also have solutions (unlike the Navier-Stokes
>equation). The "Poodle Attractor" is discussed. The reason this is
>discussed is because these chaotic equations "look like" human activity
>(they have 'jumps' periodically, like a spike from human activity), but
>in fact the 'jumps' are not from any 'cause' but completely random.
>Likewise any 'jump' in temperature can be completely random.
>Mathematically, even two unrelated such dynamical systems can have
>"autocorrelation functions" (which usually are used to show a cause and
>effect relationship between two functions), even though they are
>clearly not related. Science magazine refused to publish Prof. Singer
>on this point (but did publish two other critics, along the same lines,
>named Tsonis and Elsner)
>
>
>Ray Lopez
>
Whom to believe, thousands of scientists or Loopey?
Coby Beck
> --in a shocking section, that is buried in the middle of the chapter
> (almost too good to be true IMO) the authors question the radiative CO2
> model of global warming (that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain
> wavelengths of light radiation, that normally would have escaped to
> outer space, thus contributing to radiative global warming), by
> questioning the so-called U.S. Standard Atmosphere emission altitude of
> 6.5 C per km as a unvarying constant. Rather, the emission altitude is
> not a constant claim the authors, but varies between 4 C to 10 C per
> km. I could spend an entire page explaining this, but in the interests
> of time, please simply Google it. Essentially, picking a lower number
> will give GLOBAL COOLING rather than Global Warming in many GCM models
> (!). In fact, in one model, simply using a value of 6.1 C/km rather
> than the 'approved' constant of 6.5 C/km will give global cooling
> at the surface of the earth. (Amazing! Anybody else seen this?)
I can claim no knowledge of how this "constant" is derived or what it
represents in detail. But what you have described here only indicates that
they have picked a reasonable value. If you change the value, and it no
longer produces model output that agrees with observations, then you simply
have the wrong value. The world is not cooling, so 6.1 C/km doesn't work.
The essential thing to remember about these models is that you can hindcast
as well as forecast. Build them, tweak them and feed them actual historical
data (measured CO2 concentrations, solar fluxes, CH4, changes in albedo,
ozone depletion, soot, strotospheric aerosls etc) and then compare the
"predicted" output to the actual historic records.
Look here to see that they seem to do an adequate job:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
Since the models can accurately follow the *measured* historical trends,
then you have good reason to trust the accuracy of the future projections
(which of course depend a great deal on human decisions which can not be
predicted by models).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm
I have not addressed any of the other points that you raised because I do
not know enough about those particular issues. But I remain unconvinced
that I should spend any time taking them seriously given my original
objection in this thread, which has not been adequately addressed. One of
their book's major points rests on an unexplained choice to compare RMS
temperature averages with missing values treated as 0oC to aritmetic mean
averages with missing values treated as an average of other readings that
month. This is so obviously wrong, that I suspect it is an intentional
misrepresentation that they use as a launching pad for the rest of their
argument, that "average temperature" is an arbitrary concept.
If the argument starts with an utter falsehood (same data - RMS shows
cooling - Arithmetic shows warming) *nothing* that follows from it can be
trusted.
And further, if the first part of a book is a part that I can easily
understand and it is obviously and fatally flawed, I will not invest anymore
time examining the rest of the book that I can not easily understand. That
is not ideal, I would love to thouroughly understand everything about
everything, but it is a practical reality that I have to filter things
because time is finite.
I will not defend myself against accusations of prejudice because I think I
have made it clear that I gave them a chance (and still do) but will not
proceed further until this flaw has been acknowledged, corrected, and all
conclusions following from it rebuilt from scratch.
Hopefully that sounds reasonable to you. Why don't you mistrust them more?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck
>
> -- in a whimsical and unpersuasive example, the authors stich together
> proxy data of tree rings with US real GDP, to come up with an
> impressive looking 'model' for US GDP growth from 1000 to 2000 AD. (If
> I could interject, these two authors are not that good at using their
> best arguments in a book, or putting their best foot foward, and tend
> to use supercilious arguments together with the good arguments, which,
> together with the math mistakes they sometimes make, gives plenty of
> ammunition to their critics for superficial attacks against them.
I respect your candor in publishing both what impresses you favourably and
what does not, nevertheless I must take advantage of it. I can't help but
think that the above really is the hay bale that breaks their camels back.
Mixing supercilious arguments with good ones is not required when you have a
strong case and math errors in significant places are not acceptable. To
draw on my software engineering backgrounds, it is an unrecoverable error,
abort, debug and try again.
Keep the synopses coming.
raylopez99
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129012979.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > --in a shocking section, that is buried in the middle of the chapter
> > (almost too good to be true IMO) the authors question the radiative CO2
> > model of global warming (that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain
> > wavelengths of light radiation, that normally would have escaped to
> > outer space, thus contributing to radiative global warming), by
> > questioning the so-called U.S. Standard Atmosphere emission altitude of
> > 6.5 C per km as a unvarying constant. Rather, the emission altitude is
> > not a constant claim the authors, but varies between 4 C to 10 C per
> > km. I could spend an entire page explaining this, but in the interests
> > of time, please simply Google it. Essentially, picking a lower number
> > will give GLOBAL COOLING rather than Global Warming in many GCM models
> > (!). In fact, in one model, simply using a value of 6.1 C/km rather
> > than the 'approved' constant of 6.5 C/km will give global cooling
> > at the surface of the earth. (Amazing! Anybody else seen this?)
>
> I can claim no knowledge of how this "constant" is derived or what it
> represents in detail. But what you have described here only indicates that
> they have picked a reasonable value. If you change the value, and it no
> longer produces model output that agrees with observations, then you simply
> have the wrong value. The world is not cooling, so 6.1 C/km doesn't work.
Two points: I am surprised you know nothing about the emission
altitude constant, since I was under the (erroneous) impression that
you were a scientist. Frankly I am kind of shocked CB. I'll address
this in a seperate post. Second point: the models are for _future_
predictions. So 6.1 C/km could work to explain past and future
predictions. I say "could" because the authors did not explain more.
Otherwise it would be ludicrous to assume otherwise (think about it:
picking a constant that does not explain past data is worthless, since
not calibrated). That is "Modeling 101" (that is, Modeling Basics)
>
> The essential thing to remember about these models is that you can hindcast
> as well as forecast. Build them, tweak them and feed them actual historical
> data (measured CO2 concentrations, solar fluxes, CH4, changes in albedo,
> ozone depletion, soot, strotospheric aerosls etc) and then compare the
> "predicted" output to the actual historic records.
Yes, agreed. Clearly true.
>
> Look here to see that they seem to do an adequate job:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
>
> Since the models can accurately follow the *measured* historical trends,
> then you have good reason to trust the accuracy of the future projections
> (which of course depend a great deal on human decisions which can not be
> predicted by models).
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm
No. You do not understand modeling. To be honest CB, I would rather
not even try and educate you by text, in this forum. You need to sit
down with a forecasting tool that scientists use like "Matlab" and see
how two different models can correctly (100%) 'hindcast' like you
stated, all past data, get give TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FORECASTS for
future data, depending on the coefficients and "power" of the equation.
Quick description: y = Y axis; x = X axis on a Cartesian coordinate
plane. a function y = 10x^2 means y = 10*x*x (so if x = 1, y = 10; if
x = 2, y=40). This is a polynomial called a parabola, having
coefficient 10 and power 2. for y = 12x^3, the coefficient is 12 and
the power is 3; for y = 123x^4 - 321x^3 + 456x^2, the coefficients are
{123, -321, 456} and the power is 4 (highest number chosen). Picking
different coefficients and powers for two different polynomials will
give different future values while correctly fitting all past values.
This is not controversial, it is simply math. There is a demonstration
program built into Matlab just to illustrate this one point.
Regarding models in general, it is important that your parameters, like
the coeffients above, are correct. The "emission altitude constant" is
one such parameter that the authors of Taken by Storm claim is not
correct.
>
> I have not addressed any of the other points that you raised because I do
> not know enough about those particular issues.
Too bad CB.
> But I remain unconvinced
> that I should spend any time taking them seriously given my original
> objection in this thread, which has not been adequately addressed.
I thought I did.
>One of
> their book's major points rests on an unexplained choice to compare RMS
> temperature averages with missing values treated as 0oC to aritmetic mean
> averages with missing values treated as an average of other readings that
> month.
NO! Not at all a major point. Not even close. I believe, from reading
a blog on this topic the other day, this was a criticism leveled at a
spreadsheet (not even mentioned in the book) that the authors provided.
It was incorrect because of the zero problem. A math mistake, but in
no way detracts from the book.
>This is so obviously wrong, that I suspect it is an intentional
> misrepresentation that they use as a launching pad for the rest of their
> argument, that "average temperature" is an arbitrary concept.
>
No. Not even close.
>
>
> Hopefully that sounds reasonable to you. Why don't you mistrust them more?
>
> --
I'll let you in on something: I don't 'trust' them, I simply hear them
out (I'm only up to Chap. 7). And to be blunt, I think they have
raised excellent points, but have not clearly shown the IPCC is clearly
wrong. But their points need to be addressed. Until they are, I
remain sceptical about AGW.
Respectfully,
Ray Lopez
raylopez99
I'm beginning to see that this place has the sophistication and
informational content of a public bathroom wall.
I'll address this is a separate post.
RL
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Summary of Chapter 7 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
>Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
>Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
>Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
>
>--IMO this might be the best chapter in the book, along with chapters 4
>(on temperature) and 6 (on GCMs)
>
>--defines modeling GW as nescience (ignorant) science, akin to the
>question "How many aliens are on earth?" to be distinguished from
>uncertainty, as in "How many people live on earth?" (which can be
>estimated)
And what gives them the gall to define a technique of science?
>
>--shows a graph of CO2 concentrations over millions of years (Note: we
>have discussed in this NG how at some levels, humans would die at
>concentrations found during peaks of CO2)
Does it go back to the Big Bang?
>
>--cites a PUTATIVELY refuted study from 1982 (Neftel et al. "Ice Core
>Sample Measurements", Nature 295 (1982) that showed CO2
>concentrations of 400 ppm from a ice core sample from 1700 AD. This
>is important because the claim made by AGW proponents is today's 380
>ppm CO2 concentrations are unprecedented. The authors of Taken by
>Storm then attempt to rehabilitate this paper, which apparently had
>their ice core samples contaminated by drilling fluid.
>
>--Authors blast a very controversial but apparently universal practice
>of dating air from ice core samples that essentially 'smoothes
>over' the data and shifts the year by a mapping technique that
>assumes any high readings of CO2 trapped in air from 100s of years ago
>simply cannot happen, and these high readings are thrown out.
Prove that's what scientists do.
>Essentially, 'throwing out' the too high data points for trapped
>CO2, under the theory they simply cannot be true. Obviously very
>disturbing if, as the authors claim, this practice is universal in ice
>core sampling of CO2 in trapped air.
Sorry, I don't believe this.
>
>--a study from 1999 is cited that shows trapped air in ice undergoes
>chemical changes that will give a lower CO2 level now than actually was
>trapped, in particular if the ice is under pressure. Reference:
>Indermuhle et al. "Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics on CO2 trapped in
>Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica", Nature 398 (1999)
From that article:
"The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the
Holocene is two orders of magnitude smaller than the anthropogenic
CO2 increase since industrialization."
Try reading your own sources, Ray.
>
>-- ice bubbles under pressure and in the presence of liquid water will
>deplete the CO2,
Where does it go?
>so samples from hundreds of years ago that show lower
>CO2, which is the baseline used by the IPCC report, are not necessarily
>reliable. Thus today's "high" 380 ppm CO2 readings are not
>necessarily high from a historic point of view-and not just when
>dinosaurs roamed the earth, but in the near historical era
>
>--a 1999 alternative technique for measuring CO2 levels based on how
>many "stomata"(plant cell wall pores) are present in leaves
>recovered from peat bogs showed that between 11300 BC to 10700 BC, CO2
>concentrations ranged from 250 to 350 ppm, which is not that different,
>at the high end, from today's 380 ppm. These numbers are also larger
>than the IPCC 'approved' CO2 historical levels such as found in
>certain ice. Reference: Friederike Wagner et al. of Utrecht Univ
From Science, Dec 3, 1999:
"Wagner et al. claim that the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2
concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution is falsified
by their results. We believe that this conclusion is not justified."
Andreas Indermühle
Bernhard Stauffer
Thomas F. Stocker
Climate and Environmental Physics
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012
Bern, Switzerland
>(1999)
>
>--in a shocking section, that is buried in the middle of the chapter
>(almost too good to be true IMO) the authors question the radiative CO2
>model of global warming (that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain
>wavelengths of light radiation, that normally would have escaped to
>outer space, thus contributing to radiative global warming), by
>questioning the so-called U.S. Standard Atmosphere emission altitude of
>6.5 C per km as a unvarying constant. Rather, the emission altitude is
>not a constant claim the authors, but varies between 4 C to 10 C per
>km. I could spend an entire page explaining this, but in the interests
>of time, please simply Google it. Essentially, picking a lower number
>will give GLOBAL COOLING rather than Global Warming in many GCM models
>(!). In fact, in one model, simply using a value of 6.1 C/km rather
>than the 'approved' constant of 6.5 C/km will give global cooling
>at the surface of the earth. (Amazing! Anybody else seen this?)
Since we're seeing warming, obviously the chosen number is correct.
>
>--a number of pages is devoted to the fact that while nearly any series
>of data points can be force fitted onto a "normal" Gaussian
>distribution, in fact climate (rainfall, temperatures, etc) are more
>likely to be 'fractal' and lend themselves to a distribution that
>may be non-Gaussian, such as: Levy (including Cauchy) distributions.
>The distinction is important because Levy-family distributions have
>"fat tails", making "one in a million" occurrences much more
>common than in a Gaussian distribution. Thus today's
>"unprecedented" high temperatures have happened many times in the
>past, if temperatures are a Levy density function rather than a
>Gaussian density function. The IPCC models, as expected, are modeled
>on conventional Gaussian distributions.
Sure, but you can often fit a simpler model to data -- a quadratic model to a
surface with curvature often fits well, even if the curvature is higher order
or logarithmic.
>
>Ray Lopez
>
Coby Beck
But it is the foundation of their claim that there is no non-arbitrary
meaning of "average temperature" and that trends can be vastly different -
to the point of changing direction - depending solely on your arbitrary
choice of averaging method. I will not go past this point, as what they
follow with is built apon it.
> The point in Taken by Storm is the following, best illustrated by
> analogy.
>
> Suppose the question is: is the world stock market getting hotter
...
I really think the stock market is a very bad analogy. There is nothing
arbitrary or not meaningful about the concept of global average surface
temperature. Average temperature is easily understood. If I have two 250g
cups of water, one 50oC and one 60oC, the average temperature is 55oC and
this is meaningful because it predicts what the temperature of the water
will be after I mix them together.
Further, all other complexities aside, temperature of the air is what
affects eco-systems and plant life and bio/geo chemical reactions, so even
while I agree that total thermal content is an important number and perhaps
a better one-stop-shop indicator, temperature is a more practical gauge.
> An index of temperatures to come up with a 'representative world
> temperature' is not physically meaningful since temperatures do not add
> up in thermodynamics, since they are, unlike energy, an intrinsic
> quality (not statistics mind you, but thermodynamics). Note if you
> could somehow measure total thermal energy (which does add up), then
> say "I computed total energy for 95% of the earth's surface and found
> the earth's surface is heating up, therefore, I can be confident the
> remaining 5% is also heating up, and/or not going to affect the overall
> 100% total", then you can rightfully say the world is indeed getting
> hotter. But simply summing and averaging pointwise temperatures from
> stations all over the world--while important--will not definitively
> tell you the world is getting hotter
By weighting them in a global grid I think it is a very adequate
measurement.
Coby Beck
Don't worry, it is not relevant. I don't think I have ever tried to argue
from authority, nor should you accept anyone who does without a very good
reason and a mental note attached to whatever you have learned. I am an
intelligent layman on the subject of climate science who is interested in it
and always learning more. I assure you, the basics are not that hard to
follow, whether it is the IPCC report or the standard septic arguments.
> Second point: the models are for _future_
> predictions. So 6.1 C/km could work to explain past and future
> predictions. I say "could" because the authors did not explain more.
> Otherwise it would be ludicrous to assume otherwise (think about it:
> picking a constant that does not explain past data is worthless, since
> not calibrated). That is "Modeling 101" (that is, Modeling Basics)
I suggest that you may have found another reason not to trust M&E and Taken
By Storm.
>> The essential thing to remember about these models is that you can
>> hindcast
>> as well as forecast. Build them, tweak them and feed them actual
>> historical
>> data (measured CO2 concentrations, solar fluxes, CH4, changes in albedo,
>> ozone depletion, soot, strotospheric aerosls etc) and then compare the
>> "predicted" output to the actual historic records.
>
> Yes, agreed. Clearly true.
>
>> Look here to see that they seem to do an adequate job:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
>>
>> Since the models can accurately follow the *measured* historical trends,
>> then you have good reason to trust the accuracy of the future projections
>> (which of course depend a great deal on human decisions which can not be
>> predicted by models).
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm
>
> No. You do not understand modeling. To be honest CB, I would rather
> not even try and educate you by text, in this forum.
This is the kind of argument from authority I have never used and advise you
to be wary of.
> You need to sit
> down with a forecasting tool that scientists use like "Matlab" and see
> how two different models can correctly (100%) 'hindcast' like you
> stated, all past data, get give TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FORECASTS for
> future data, depending on the coefficients and "power" of the equation.
Thanks, this is not news to me. But it brings up an interesting question:
where are the models that accurately hindcast and yet project cooling? Or
even no warming? Don't you think that with all the energy and money the
septics have at their disposal they would produce one if it were
realistically possible? All the major models are open source, all they need
to do is get one, adjust the equations, tweak the parameters and show that
things aren't so bad. The fact that no one has done this is very
significant, and another reason to trust the current crop of projections.
> Regarding models in general, it is important that your parameters, like
> the coeffients above, are correct. The "emission altitude constant" is
> one such parameter that the authors of Taken by Storm claim is not
> correct.
Let them show us their "correct" model, then.
>> But I remain unconvinced
>> that I should spend any time taking them seriously given my original
>> objection in this thread, which has not been adequately addressed.
>
> I thought I did.
No, you rather skipped over it, but I did reply in another post on that.
>>One of
>> their book's major points rests on an unexplained choice to compare RMS
>> temperature averages with missing values treated as 0oC to aritmetic mean
>> averages with missing values treated as an average of other readings that
>> month.
>
> NO! Not at all a major point. Not even close. I believe, from reading
> a blog on this topic the other day, this was a criticism leveled at a
> spreadsheet (not even mentioned in the book)
[the book example was based on that spreadsheet according to the authors]
> that the authors provided.
> It was incorrect because of the zero problem. A math mistake, but in
> no way detracts from the book.
If the book features a graph to illustrate that the concept of average
temperature trend is arbitrary, and this graph is based on *seriously*
(fraudulently?) flawed data, then this detracts from the book.
If I may quote a reviewer of this book I recently read:
"there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
developed in later chapters""
"This theme, quite powerful, is developed in later chapters" but its
*wrong*!!
>> This is so obviously wrong, that I suspect it is an intentional
>> misrepresentation that they use as a launching pad for the rest of their
>> argument, that "average temperature" is an arbitrary concept.
>>
>
> No. Not even close.
>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully that sounds reasonable to you. Why don't you mistrust them
>> more?
>>
>> --
>
> I'll let you in on something: I don't 'trust' them, I simply hear them
> out (I'm only up to Chap. 7). And to be blunt, I think they have
> raised excellent points, but have not clearly shown the IPCC is clearly
> wrong. But their points need to be addressed. Until they are, I
> remain sceptical about AGW.
Then relax, they have been. You just haven't seen it yet.
raylopez99
> In article <1129012979.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >--shows a graph of CO2 concentrations over millions of years (Note: we
> >have discussed in this NG how at some levels, humans would die at
> >concentrations found during peaks of CO2)
>
> Does it go back to the Big Bang?
>
Idiotic reply. Trying to be cute again Lloyd? Falls flat in a text
message.
> >
> >--cites a PUTATIVELY refuted study from 1982 (Neftel et al. "Ice Core
> >Sample Measurements", Nature 295 (1982) that showed CO2
> >concentrations of 400 ppm from a ice core sample from 1700 AD. This
> >is important because the claim made by AGW proponents is today's 380
> >ppm CO2 concentrations are unprecedented. The authors of Taken by
> >Storm then attempt to rehabilitate this paper, which apparently had
> >their ice core samples contaminated by drilling fluid.
> >
> >--Authors blast a very controversial but apparently universal practice
> >of dating air from ice core samples that essentially 'smoothes
> >over' the data and shifts the year by a mapping technique that
> >assumes any high readings of CO2 trapped in air from 100s of years ago
> >simply cannot happen, and these high readings are thrown out.
>
> Prove that's what scientists do.
PROVE? I'm just reporting what the authors said.
>
> >Essentially, 'throwing out' the too high data points for trapped
> >CO2, under the theory they simply cannot be true. Obviously very
> >disturbing if, as the authors claim, this practice is universal in ice
> >core sampling of CO2 in trapped air.
>
> Sorry, I don't believe this.
>
Then you are ignorant--no, deliberately ignorant is stupid.
> >
> >--a study from 1999 is cited that shows trapped air in ice undergoes
> >chemical changes that will give a lower CO2 level now than actually was
> >trapped, in particular if the ice is under pressure. Reference:
> >Indermuhle et al. "Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics on CO2 trapped in
> >Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica", Nature 398 (1999)
>
> From that article:
>
> "The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the
> Holocene is two orders of magnitude smaller than the anthropogenic
> CO2 increase since industrialization."
>
> Try reading your own sources, Ray.
>
Try giving me a link to read, Lloyd. I'm reviewing a book, not double
checking its sources.
> >
> >-- ice bubbles under pressure and in the presence of liquid water will
> >deplete the CO2,
>
> Where does it go?
>
Where the wind blows? How the he ll do I know?
> >so samples from hundreds of years ago that show lower
> >CO2, which is the baseline used by the IPCC report, are not necessarily
> >reliable. Thus today's "high" 380 ppm CO2 readings are not
> >necessarily high from a historic point of view-and not just when
> >dinosaurs roamed the earth, but in the near historical era
> >
> >--a 1999 alternative technique for measuring CO2 levels based on how
> >many "stomata"(plant cell wall pores) are present in leaves
> >recovered from peat bogs showed that between 11300 BC to 10700 BC, CO2
> >concentrations ranged from 250 to 350 ppm, which is not that different,
> >at the high end, from today's 380 ppm. These numbers are also larger
> >than the IPCC 'approved' CO2 historical levels such as found in
> >certain ice. Reference: Friederike Wagner et al. of Utrecht Univ
>
> From Science, Dec 3, 1999:
>
> "Wagner et al. claim that the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2
> concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution is falsified by their results. We believe that this conclusion is not justified."
>
> Andreas Indermühle
Please provide a link. I would like to read why they came to this
conclusion. Again, I am reporting what the book said, not giving a
critique of an original source.
> >--in a shocking section, that is buried in the middle of the chapter
> >(almost too good to be true IMO) the authors question the radiative CO2
> >model of global warming (that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain
> >wavelengths of light radiation, that normally would have escaped to
> >outer space, thus contributing to radiative global warming), by
> >questioning the so-called U.S. Standard Atmosphere emission altitude of
> >6.5 C per km as a unvarying constant. Rather, the emission altitude is
> >not a constant claim the authors, but varies between 4 C to 10 C per
> >km. I could spend an entire page explaining this, but in the interests
> >of time, please simply Google it. Essentially, picking a lower number
> >will give GLOBAL COOLING rather than Global Warming in many GCM models
> >(!). In fact, in one model, simply using a value of 6.1 C/km rather
> >than the 'approved' constant of 6.5 C/km will give global cooling
> >at the surface of the earth. (Amazing! Anybody else seen this?)
>
> Since we're seeing warming, obviously the chosen number is correct.
>
Cart before horse, idiot. We are taking about FUTURE values.
> >
> >--a number of pages is devoted to the fact that while nearly any series
> >of data points can be force fitted onto a "normal" Gaussian
> >distribution, in fact climate (rainfall, temperatures, etc) are more
> >likely to be 'fractal' and lend themselves to a distribution that
> >may be non-Gaussian, such as: Levy (including Cauchy) distributions.
> >The distinction is important because Levy-family distributions have
> >"fat tails", making "one in a million" occurrences much more
> >common than in a Gaussian distribution. Thus today's
> >"unprecedented" high temperatures have happened many times in the
> >past, if temperatures are a Levy density function rather than a
> >Gaussian density function. The IPCC models, as expected, are modeled
> >on conventional Gaussian distributions.
>
> Sure, but you can often fit a simpler model to data -- a quadratic model to a
> surface with curvature often fits well, even if the curvature is higher order
> or logarithmic.
>
Babble. You know nothing about Levy distributions. Or clarify what
you are mumbling about.
RL
raylopez99
"there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
developed in later chapters"" "
I stand by this statement. Refer to this thread about adding energy
not temperatures, and the paper by Hansen et al.
BTW I double checked the chapter where the math error occurred. What
you are so focused on, like one of those little old ladies who gets
hung up on one issue, is a trivial math error. I could not even find
clearly what the graph you are referring to is, despite looking for
five minutes, though apparently the authors of the book did base the
erroneous spreadsheet on it. That goes to show how trivial this math
mistake was in the overall book--I can't even find it.
Your point about whether the "emission altitude constant", if set at a
lower value than 6.5, will produce cooling, is affirmative, at least
based on one model in the book. ("But it brings up an interesting
question: where are the models that accurately hindcast and yet project
cooling? Or even no warming? ") As to why this model is not given
prominence, that's a good question. Could be that the 'serious'
climatetologists don't think this model is credible, or it could be
they are embarrased by the whole thing.
Further research is needed.
RL
Steve Bloom
avoidance of the obvious about global average temperature was ludricous. On
the next hot day when you're laying around the house trying to keep cool,
try this: Set up a bunch of thermometers all over the house, let them warm
up and run your calculations. Now, you will only have proved that the
thermometers are wrong and that it's just as likely to be cool as warm, but
you'll be halfway there, right?
No, of course you didn't pick any holes in my arguments. It's common
knowledge that the principal uncertainties in the models relate to aerosols
and clouds. Hansen said why he assigned the value he did to aerosols -- did
you notice the reason? Let me ask you about the critical point you glossed
over: Do you think the oceans are warming? If not, what is your basis for
questioning the research (not Hansen's) that found the warming? If yes, how
do you account for the warming, and what are its implications? Care to
explain how the oceans could be warming and the planet not?
Finally, you're absolutely right about the tendency of those ChinComs to
exaggerate environmental problems affecting their country. Apparently their
influence extends (by way of the International Climatological Conspiracy) to
the New York Times:
A Melting Glacier in Tibet Serves as an Example and a Warning
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
The New York Times
November 9, 2004
UREN, China - Seen from afar, it looked like much of the surrounding
landscape, even to the scientists who know these Tibetan wilds intimately:
the looming, massive, soot-black shoulder of a mountain.
Close up, though, when one could finally see the base, all thick, glistening
white ice, now clearly visible after nearly four hours of hiking through
thick, pathless forests, there was no mistaking it.
Mountains, after all, don't melt. This was the 27-square-mile glacier the
researchers had been seeking.
Pouring forth from the base of this huge mass of ice nearly 11,500 feet
above sea level was a torrent of melting runoff that formed the powerful new
headwaters of a mighty river - an infant river, in geological time, already
broad and raging from its first few yards. "Thirty years ago, there was no
river here," said Dr. Yao Tandong, the director of China's Institute of
Tibetan Plateau Research, who has spent the last two decades on expeditions
like these to study Tibetan glaciers. "Of course, there has always been a
river downstream, but up here, everything had always been frozen solid."
The glacier, named Zepu, has lost more than 100 yards of thickness, all in
the last three decades, largely because of rising temperatures in the
region. And it is hardly unique. Working with scientists from Ohio State
University, Dr. Yao has documented similar losses all over Tibet, the
largest and loftiest highlands on earth, and home to the biggest
concentration of alpine glaciers anywhere.
Nor are these changes limited to Tibet. "Make no mistake, what's happening
to the glaciers in Tibet is happening around the globe," said Dr. Lonnie G.
Thompson, a professor of geological science at Ohio State. "Our measurements
show that between 1850 and 1960, the glaciers retreated 7.5 percent. Between
1960 and 2000, there was a further 7 percent retreat.
"In the 1990's alone, the glaciers have shrunk by more than 4 percent."
Dr. Peter Clark, an Oregon State University geologist who specializes in
glaciers and ice ages, agreed.
"Glacial retreat, which is happening globally, with the exception of one
area, in Scandinavia, is a pretty widely understood and accepted
phenomenon," he said. "Glaciers advance and retreat in response to two
things, precipitation and temperature. Certainly by the standards of the
last few thousand years, there has been a marked rise in temperature
globally."
To be sure, there are vast stores of glacial ice left in Tibet. Flying into
the province, a traveler passes over densely clustered ice-capped mountain
ranges that dwarf the Alps, and ice fields that extend as far as the eye can
see.
But the dominant impression of a traveler who spent a week driving over 800
miles on the muddy back roads of eastern Tibet was of a world of water,
notice.
Streaming white waterfalls fed by melting glaciers pour from mountains
around every bend in some areas. Cliff-hugging roads are subject to
mudslides and waterborne avalanches every few miles, and boulder-strewn
whitewater rivers churn with uncommon ferocity.
Dr. Thompson said he had documented large puddles of melting ice at 20,000
feet in the Himalayas, where for thousands of years all has been frozen.
A craggy 56-year-old who says he has spent at least three years of his life
at elevations of 18,000 feet or more researching glaciers, he spoke during a
recent interview in Beijing. He had just completed the latest of many
expeditions to Tibet over the last 20 years.
The essence of his work involves retrieving deep ice samples, or cores, from
glaciers.
He spends much of his year like a migratory bird, traveling from one glacial
mass to another, including the Himalayas and mountains in Peru, Kenya and
Alaska.
"When we go to retrieve a core, it's usually to a place that no one has ever
been, and the beauty of ice, which is really different from any other
material, is how much you can learn from it," he said. "It tells you the
history of precipitation, of dust accumulation and of wind strength. It also
gives you a history of the atmosphere, including the presence of sulfates,
nitrates and chlorides, which are precisely the factors associated with
global warming."
In Peru, he said, the Quelccaya ice cap retreated a rate of more than 600
feet a year from 2000 to 2002 - up from just 15 feet a year in the 1960's
and 70's - leaving a vast 80-foot-deep lake where none had existed when his
studies began. On Kilimanjaro in Kenya, an 11,700-year-old ice cap that
measured 4.3 square miles in 1912 had shrunk to 0.94 square miles in 2000,
and is projected to disappear altogether in about 15 years.
"When you see the big picture accumulating from many sites, the evidence of
drastic climate change becomes quite compelling," Dr. Thompson said.
Climate experts and geologists say the consequences of glacial ice melting
on this scale are far-reaching. The most important long-term threat,
perhaps, is to the low-lying coastal cities around the world - places like
New York and New Orleans, or Tokyo and Shanghai - which could see more
frequent flooding as a result of rising sea levels in this century.
In other parts of the Himalayas, large newborn lakes are accumulating behind
dams of ice that could break, unleashing deadly flash floods.
For his part, Dr. Yao is unwilling to make sweeping predictions. Instead,
fixing his gaze on the leading edge of the fast-melting Zepu glacier, he
said, "If you come back here in another 30 years, one thing is for sure:
There will definitely be no more ice here."
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129009919.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Joshua Halpern
> "If I may quote a reviewer of this book I recently read:
> "there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
> statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
> quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
> square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
> two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
> developed in later chapters"" "
Root mean square always fails when you have negative values. Again, it
depends on how you pick your zero.
Temperature times mass times specific heat (energy) CAN be added. Since
the atmosphere near the surface is isotropic wrt density and specific
heat, adding the temperatures is equivalent.
Plong
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> Josh,
>
> You said: "The MSU satellite data was not used. Period. Full Stop.
> As a matter of fact it could NOT be used because there was no overlap
> with the proxy data. (The scientist in my says use essentially no, or
> no useful, but WTH). "
>
> I think the point of Essex and McKitrick is that data from the 20th
> century is grafted onto proxy data, using interpolation and a force fit
> (mapping).
The MSU data starts in the late 70s. The 20th century instrumental
record (~1900-1980) is not grafted onto the proxy data, but used to
calibrate the proxy data. The instrumental data from ~1850 to ~1900 was
used to test the calibration of the proxy data. The instrumental data
stands by itself and is in no way altered to match any proxy data.
(Dates are approximate because I am lazy:(
>
> I looked carefully at Chapter 5 for "satellite" and found that I
> misunderstood: E & W did not specifically mention satellite data was
> grafted to proxy data, but they did mention 20th century data was
> grafted onto the proxy data. I assumed such 20th century data included
> (or was primarily) satellite data, but if you are saying it was not, I
> am prepared to believe you.
Read MBH 98 or even MM whenever.
>
> It does not change the thrust of E&W's arguments however, but thanks
> for that clarification.
If that is the impression they left...
josh halpern
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Ray Lopez
>
Joshua Halpern
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>Coby Beck wrote:
>>>"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>--How there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
Zero dollars has a rather specific and sudden meaning. When you get
there, the music stops and you stay at zero dollars. Your geometric
average whatever is zero dollars. Get the point.
If you have a temperature of zero degrees (F, C, R) the geometric
average is zero, no matter what else happened. Thus, except for using
absolute temperatures (K), a geometric average of temperature is
completely inappropriate.
But I did tell you this once.
>>
>>This is decidedly NOT the point of Essex and McKitrick's chapter. I
>>cannot overemphasise this point.
>
> But it is the foundation of their claim that there is no non-arbitrary
> meaning of "average temperature" and that trends can be vastly different -
> to the point of changing direction - depending solely on your arbitrary
> choice of averaging method. I will not go past this point, as what they
> follow with is built apon it.
>
No, depending on your stupid choice of zero on the scale.
>
josh halpern
raylopez99
>
> You set up the thread as a "gingerbread house" to snare innocent Hansel
> and Gretal. You even offered one of the 400 copies Marshall Institute
> or Fraser Institute provided you to Coppock.
>
> There are things too big for liars like McKitrick to lie away...
> El Ninos, caused by heat change to 2.2 year intervals, exactly during
> hottest years on record, exactly when most CO2 in air on record,
> exactly when decade of most hurricanes on record...
>
Hom o David G.Naugler-- you crack me up (not that way you q ueer).
What the he ll is a 'gingerbread house' you fruitcake?
As for more hurricanes, au contraire my fiend, note this chart:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Looks like fewer hurricanes as the decades go by to me.
RL
raylopez99
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
--analogy of the IPCC 'cartoon' version of global warming with the
movie "Waterworld". (rhetoric is good, but this section undercuts
the authors credibility IMO). Sample passage: "Most important, it
cannot be sunny all the time in Waterworld [a movie about the ice caps
melting] so it may be too cold for Jeanne Tripplehorne [an actress in
the movie] to run around in a thin T-shirt all the time.")
--discussion of the "Working Group II" (called pejoratively the
"Little Panel") of the IPCC, which attempts (hopelessly) to ascribe
'regional effects' of Global Warming (GW)
--Little Panel, because the science of forecasting regional effects of
GW is extremely speculative (the GCMs 'grid' is not small enough),
resort to plausible (or implausible, according to the authors)
"storylines" (scenarios). Authors make fun of these
"storylines" as being pure fiction-analogy with Hollywood
scriptwriters made.
--famous chart showing future CO2 emissions (A1F1, A1 and B1 markers)
is critiqued. Authors feel even the lowest estimate, the B1 marker
line, is too generous for CO2 emissions, since coal consumption per
capita is falling. But clearly the highest marker, the A1F1 marker,
showing a four-fold increase by 2060, is absurd, as global birth rates
are falling.
--analysis of how the A1F1 marker chart made it into the Third
Assessment Report (2000) of the Little Panel. Authors allege that
nameless bureaucrats snuck in the chart despite the protestations of
peer reviewers-and reproduce some emails to prove their point.
--excellent section entitled "How Does Climate Matter?" attempts to
forecast the human effects of GW even if GW is as extreme as forecast
by the consensus in the IPCC.
--World Bank figure of the cost of CO2 as a "carbon equivalent" of
$20 per tonne is completely arbitrary.
--any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight. Excellent
analogy drawn: "If a spot in Antarctica is -30C it will still be
ice-bound at -25C, and there will be very little in the way of a
viable ecosystem...to be affected for better or worse."
--GW likely to make the planet wetter-so humidity increase will
offset any temperature increase. Also the earth will be winder, so not
necessarily hotter. "What if, for instance, winter air outside your
front door is a half-degree warmer but a bit windier? The net effect
may make you feel colder."[due to wind chill factor]. (well said
IMO)
--excellent section titled "The Role of Adaptation" that Hahahansen
would enjoy. The IPCC assumes a "dumb farmer" model where humans
do not adapt, but this is wrong. New corn varieties exist today that
will give different yields depending on what weather you have; also a
farmer can buy weather contracts on the Chicago Exchange to guard
against bad weather. R. Mendelsohn et al (1999) found GW will actually
increase the value of farm land in the USA while decreasing the value
of farmland in Canada, Russia and Eastern Europe. [Wonder if this is
why the USA is against GW treaties? LOL!]
--Adverse effects of insects (bugs say the authors, making fun) due to
GW is exaggerated. The solution is to employ pesticides (malaria was
found in the US and Canada as late as 1950 and in Holland as late as
1970).
--Claim that hurricanes more frequent and costlier due to GW is
debunked (lengthy analysis). Authors point to: Pielke Jr., Roger and
Christopher W. Landsea [what a name!] (1998) "Normalized Hurricane
Damages in the US: 1925-1995, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 1998.
--Chart showing more migrations and net population growth in regions
that have extreme weather (Florida, California) than the Midwest US.
Authors argue people enjoy extremes and that fatalities due to extreme
weather is down (up to Hurricane Andrew, obviously the book was
published before this year). Also authors point to this website:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml as proof that hurricane strikes
have decreased over time. True enough, they have! (check it out)
--Little Panel report contradicts the main IPCC report, the latter of
which states that due to GW only minor changes in precipitation over
20th century (pp. 142 of report); no evidence of increased storm surge
off Atlantic (p. 664), no evidence of more storms (p. 162), nor any
models that can account for future storms (p. 573, 575).
--Much is made about dishonest use of footnotes by the Little Panel
('likely' and 'very likely' are given special definitions that
are convoluted). Funny but a bit tedious to follow and to summarize.
--expert's views on sea levels (Prof. Morner) are discussed, and how
he was ignored by the official IPCC panel
--discussion about melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice [long and
detailed, and best seen in person, but essentially the authors position
is any melting is natural, since the last ice age, or in fact getting
colder (south pole)] "Some climate simulations suggest that changes
to these two great ice sheets [Greenland and Antarctic] would largely
offset each other." Noted that North Pole ice is actually floating,
so melting would not affect sea levels as much as melting ice on land
(e.g. Greenland and Antarctic)
--Anomaly dismissed by IPCC was that sea levels in Australian coast
actually have fallen, if a certain old marker is to be believed (Google
keywords: benchmark at Dead Man's Isle; John Daly). But even modern
scientific markers show a mere net 3 cm/century rise in sea levels in
Australian coast, which is much smaller than the 10-20 cm global mean
sea levels rise in the 20th century reported by the IPCC (thus
credibility of the IPCC is questioned; though one could argue that the
IPCC measured global sea levels and the Australian sea levels, because
of the contour of the earth, were much smaller, but this not discussed
by the authors).
--Rising CO2 levels will beneficially stimulate plant growth. Cites
online bibliography at Oak Ridge National Lab; website by the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org (run by a family of USDA biologists).
RL
Steve Bloom
doesn't believe in statistics. You refuse to accept the averaging of
thermometer readings, and you are unable to properly interpret a simple
chart.
Or maybe you're just lying to be provocative.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Christ died. Thel ast decade on that chart goes from 2000-2004 -- FIVE
YEARS.
Weather is a random chaotic event which creates a pseudo order around
"strange attractors". In other words, what recently happened has more
power on what will shortly happen than events hich happened longer ago,
or events which will happen farther in the future.
Without breaking 10-year spans on arbitrary calandar dates we find out
what the weather has been doing in the recent past. We can compare that
to any other span of time of equal length. We can start our bracket out
stop-start years to include the worst ten years elsewhere on the
record. That's comparing what REALLY happened last ten years to what
REALLY happened in some other ten years, without artificial meaningly
and MISLEADING numbers linked to irrelevent calendars.
IF you could find THAT chart, you can find THIS chart:
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
There is a very different story, told visually. I have gone back to the
ORIGINAL DATA, the HURDAT data, and am correcting a few minor errors on
the chart at NOAA, the same place you got your chart. The way they
lined up the dates beneath the columns is not sufficiently clear.
The data at present is satisfactory to conclude the following facts
(see supplimentary 13 pictures highlighting details from the NOAA
chart):
Spreaders of criminal felony fraud are plaguing the body politic.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE STORMS.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Hurricanes below 110 mph.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Hurricanes above 110 mph.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE Expensive Storms causing more grief.
GLOBAL WARMING causes HOTTER Heat Waves.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE droughts.
GLOBAL WARMING causes MORE floods.
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
Here's the stats on the storm totals.
1933 was the highest year for numbers of storms on the record. The
decade, 10-year stretch, that puts that year in the middle is 1928-1937
Compare: 1928-1937 = 10 years
17 Strong Hurricanes
32 Weak Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
123% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
25% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
The 1950s had a lot of storms:
Compare: 1950-1959 = 10 years
35 Strong Hurricanes
29 Weak Hurricanes
64 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
8% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
37% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
22% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
The 1960s were turbulent in their way:
Compare: 1960-1969 = 10 years
28 Strong Hurricanes
35 Weak Hurricanes
63 TOTAL Hurricanes
Compare: 1995-2004 = 10 years
38 Strong Hurricanes
40 Weak Hurricanes
78 TOTAL Hurricanes
36% more Strong Hurricanes 1995-2004
14% more Weak hurricanes 1995-2004
24% MORE TOTAL Hurricanes
For every 4 strong hurricanes in the decade which had the biggest peak
year ever for hurricanes (1928-1937), there were 9 strong hurricanes of
110 mph winds or greater. This doesn't even count THIS YEAR with five
major hurricanes so far as part of the 10-year stretch of recent
decade.
If you add one more year to each of those older 10-year stretches and
add 2005 to the previous decade the news is worse.
Those three older decades are the worst of the worst over 154 years
since 1850-2004. And it is still getting worse.
HURICANE STAN definately was added by surplus heat fuel stored in the
waters. There is no alternate explanation. There is no 30-40 year cycle
of increasing hurricanes -- that is totally bogus, not found in the
history. It is urban myth. There is no 100 year cycle found in the
record -- another bogus myth. 1994-2004 is UNIQUE in the record.
It absolutely matches the predictions, absolutely matches the
temperature records (which are also record-breakers for hottest years,
hottest months), and it absolutely matches the GREENHOUSE GASES
accumulating in the atmosphere.
You owe an alternate explanation which explains ALL the evidence, these
and much more evidence. Heat TRAPPED in the system is killing us.
Eric Swanson
>
>Summary of Chapter 8 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
>Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
>Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
>Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Loopy Ray, did you actually pay good money for this crap?
>--any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
>are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight. Excellent
>analogy drawn: "If a spot in Antarctica is -30C it will still be
>ice-bound at -25C, and there will be very little in the way of a
>viable ecosystem...to be affected for better or worse."
Not so fast. There are people and economic intereste in the Arctic,
such as Alaska and the problem of melting of permafrost is not trivial.
>--GW likely to make the planet wetter-so humidity increase will
>offset any temperature increase. Also the earth will be winder, so not
>necessarily hotter. "What if, for instance, winter air outside your
>front door is a half-degree warmer but a bit windier? The net effect
>may make you feel colder."[due to wind chill factor]. (well said
>IMO)
Humidity increase will make it more difficult for people to keep cool
in summer. The models suggest that the tropic to pole winds will
decrease as the poles warm faster than the tropics, especially in the
Arctic. This implies that there will be less straight line winds
associated with this circulation.
>--excellent section titled "The Role of Adaptation" that Hahahansen
>would enjoy. The IPCC assumes a "dumb farmer" model where humans
>do not adapt, but this is wrong. New corn varieties exist today that
>will give different yields depending on what weather you have; also a
>farmer can buy weather contracts on the Chicago Exchange to guard
>against bad weather. R. Mendelsohn et al (1999) found GW will actually
>increase the value of farm land in the USA while decreasing the value
>of farmland in Canada, Russia and Eastern Europe. [Wonder if this is
>why the USA is against GW treaties? LOL!]
The likelyhood of more frequent drought in the Great Plains is a serious
concern. Those areas are now marginal agriculturally, especially those
areas which depend upon rainfall for moisture. Historically, previous
periods of warmer weather have produced major droughts, such that present
agriculture would be impossible.
>--Claim that hurricanes more frequent and costlier due to GW is
>debunked (lengthy analysis). Authors point to: Pielke Jr., Roger and
>Christopher W. Landsea [what a name!] (1998) "Normalized Hurricane
>Damages in the US: 1925-1995, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 1998.
I suggest you go to New Orleans and check out the reality.
>--discussion about melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice [long and
>detailed, and best seen in person, but essentially the authors position
>is any melting is natural, since the last ice age, or in fact getting
>colder (south pole)] "Some climate simulations suggest that changes
>to these two great ice sheets [Greenland and Antarctic] would largely
>offset each other." Noted that North Pole ice is actually floating,
>so melting would not affect sea levels as much as melting ice on land
>(e.g. Greenland and Antarctic)
About the sea-ice and sea level, can you say "DUH"?
Melting of the Greenland glaciers is the first problem, followed by
the loss of the grounded ice shelves around Antarctica, which would
allow the glaciers upstream to surge into the ocean.
>--Anomaly dismissed by IPCC was that sea levels in Australian coast
>actually have fallen, if a certain old marker is to be believed (Google
>keywords: benchmark at Dead Man's Isle; John Daly). But even modern
>scientific markers show a mere net 3 cm/century rise in sea levels in
>Australian coast, which is much smaller than the 10-20 cm global mean
>sea levels rise in the 20th century reported by the IPCC (thus
>credibility of the IPCC is questioned; though one could argue that the
>IPCC measured global sea levels and the Australian sea levels, because
>of the contour of the earth, were much smaller, but this not discussed
>by the authors).
Sea level change at any one location proves little, as the land to which
it is referenced may be rising or falling.
>--Rising CO2 levels will beneficially stimulate plant growth. Cites
>online bibliography at Oak Ridge National Lab; website by the Center
>for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
>http://www.co2science.org (run by a family of USDA biologists).
There are two types of plants. Our food crops are mostly of the kind
which would not benefit. Experiments which increase CO2 without
increasing temperatures or decreasing soil moisture proves nothing.
The Idsos are idiots.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <1129012979.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >--shows a graph of CO2 concentrations over millions of years (Note: we
>> >have discussed in this NG how at some levels, humans would die at
>> >concentrations found during peaks of CO2)
>>
>> Does it go back to the Big Bang?
>>
>
>Idiotic reply. Trying to be cute again Lloyd? Falls flat in a text
>message.
>
Hey, you claimed millions of years; I was inquiring how many millions.
>> >
>> >--cites a PUTATIVELY refuted study from 1982 (Neftel et al. "Ice Core
>> >Sample Measurements", Nature 295 (1982) that showed CO2
>> >concentrations of 400 ppm from a ice core sample from 1700 AD. This
>> >is important because the claim made by AGW proponents is today's 380
>> >ppm CO2 concentrations are unprecedented. The authors of Taken by
>> >Storm then attempt to rehabilitate this paper, which apparently had
>> >their ice core samples contaminated by drilling fluid.
>> >
>> >--Authors blast a very controversial but apparently universal practice
>> >of dating air from ice core samples that essentially 'smoothes
>> >over' the data and shifts the year by a mapping technique that
>> >assumes any high readings of CO2 trapped in air from 100s of years ago
>> >simply cannot happen, and these high readings are thrown out.
>>
>> Prove that's what scientists do.
>
>PROVE? I'm just reporting what the authors said.
Who are not scientists.
>
>>
>> >Essentially, 'throwing out' the too high data points for trapped
>> >CO2, under the theory they simply cannot be true. Obviously very
>> >disturbing if, as the authors claim, this practice is universal in ice
>> >core sampling of CO2 in trapped air.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't believe this.
>>
>
>Then you are ignorant--no, deliberately ignorant is stupid.
Again, you take the words of nonscientists saying what scientists do, for no
reason other than you agree with their viewpoint.
>
>> >
>> >--a study from 1999 is cited that shows trapped air in ice undergoes
>> >chemical changes that will give a lower CO2 level now than actually was
>> >trapped, in particular if the ice is under pressure. Reference:
>> >Indermuhle et al. "Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics on CO2 trapped in
>> >Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica", Nature 398 (1999)
>>
>> From that article:
>>
>> "The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the
>> Holocene is two orders of magnitude smaller than the anthropogenic
>> CO2 increase since industrialization."
>>
>> Try reading your own sources, Ray.
>>
>
>Try giving me a link to read, Lloyd. I'm reviewing a book, not double
>checking its sources.
I assumed you could google. Try:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf
Check out the last paragraph (just before "methods").
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"If I may quote a reviewer of this book I recently read:
>"there is no such thing as a "global temperature" but this is a
>statistical artifice. Temperature, as an "intensive" thermodynamic
>quantity, cannot be added. An example is given how a RMS (root mean
>square) versus simple average of a series of temperatures will yield
>two different "average" temperatures. [This theme, quite powerful, is
>developed in later chapters"" "
>
>I stand by this statement. Refer to this thread about adding energy
>not temperatures, and the paper by Hansen et al.
Temp. is a measure of kinetic energy. True, you can't average T if the
specific heats are different (water and air, for example), but you can average
air temps. That's how your weather forecast gets an average temp. for each
day, for example.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Summary of Chapter 8 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
>Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
>Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
>Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Next, a Shakespeare scholar and a sociologist will critique relativity.
>
>--analogy of the IPCC 'cartoon' version of global warming with the
>movie "Waterworld". (rhetoric is good, but this section undercuts
>the authors credibility IMO). Sample passage: "Most important, it
>cannot be sunny all the time in Waterworld [a movie about the ice caps
>melting] so it may be too cold for Jeanne Tripplehorne [an actress in
>the movie] to run around in a thin T-shirt all the time.")
>
>--discussion of the "Working Group II" (called pejoratively the
>"Little Panel") of the IPCC, which attempts (hopelessly) to ascribe
>'regional effects' of Global Warming (GW)
>
>--Little Panel, because the science of forecasting regional effects of
>GW is extremely speculative (the GCMs 'grid' is not small enough),
>resort to plausible (or implausible, according to the authors)
>"storylines" (scenarios). Authors make fun of these
>"storylines" as being pure fiction-analogy with Hollywood
>scriptwriters made.
>
>--famous chart showing future CO2 emissions (A1F1, A1 and B1 markers)
>is critiqued. Authors feel even the lowest estimate, the B1 marker
>line, is too generous for CO2 emissions, since coal consumption per
>capita is falling.
Hello, China calling.
>But clearly the highest marker, the A1F1 marker,
>showing a four-fold increase by 2060, is absurd, as global birth rates
>are falling.
>
>--analysis of how the A1F1 marker chart made it into the Third
>Assessment Report (2000) of the Little Panel. Authors allege that
>nameless bureaucrats snuck in the chart despite the protestations of
>peer reviewers-and reproduce some emails to prove their point.
Scientists involve say report reflects their views.
>
>--excellent section entitled "How Does Climate Matter?" attempts to
>forecast the human effects of GW even if GW is as extreme as forecast
>by the consensus in the IPCC.
>
>--World Bank figure of the cost of CO2 as a "carbon equivalent" of
>$20 per tonne is completely arbitrary.
Maybe you should write your pal Wolfowitz.
>
>--any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
>are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight.
Totally false. Do they imagine the world is compartmentalized?
And guess where's there's lots of ice to melt?
>Excellent
>analogy drawn: "If a spot in Antarctica is -30C it will still be
>ice-bound at -25C, and there will be very little in the way of a
>viable ecosystem...to be affected for better or worse."
And if there's a spot at -5 C?
>
>--GW likely to make the planet wetter-so humidity increase will
>offset any temperature increase.
Huh? Water is a GH gas too.
>Also the earth will be winder, so not
>necessarily hotter. "What if, for instance, winter air outside your
>front door is a half-degree warmer but a bit windier? The net effect
>may make you feel colder."[due to wind chill factor]. (well said
>IMO)
But has no effect upon things like ice melting, seas rising...
And windier = hurricanes and storms.
>
>--excellent section titled "The Role of Adaptation" that Hahahansen
>would enjoy. The IPCC assumes a "dumb farmer" model where humans
>do not adapt, but this is wrong. New corn varieties exist today that
>will give different yields depending on what weather you have; also a
>farmer can buy weather contracts on the Chicago Exchange to guard
>against bad weather.
Doesn't help if Iowa becomes too dry to grow corn.
>R. Mendelsohn et al (1999) found GW will actually
>increase the value of farm land in the USA while decreasing the value
>of farmland in Canada, Russia and Eastern Europe. [Wonder if this is
>why the USA is against GW treaties? LOL!]
Yeah, sure. Who does he work for?
>
>--Adverse effects of insects (bugs say the authors, making fun) due to
>GW is exaggerated. The solution is to employ pesticides (malaria was
>found in the US and Canada as late as 1950 and in Holland as late as
>1970).
And poison the environment, something you conservatives always want.
>
>--Claim that hurricanes more frequent and costlier due to GW is
>debunked (lengthy analysis). Authors point to: Pielke Jr., Roger and
>Christopher W. Landsea [what a name!] (1998) "Normalized Hurricane
>Damages in the US: 1925-1995, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 1998.
Check out the 2005 article published last month. More up to date.
>
>--Chart showing more migrations and net population growth in regions
>that have extreme weather (Florida, California) than the Midwest US.
>Authors argue people enjoy extremes
Authors were on some drug then.
>and that fatalities due to extreme
>weather is down (up to Hurricane Andrew, obviously the book was
>published before this year).
Andrew?
>Also authors point to this website:
>http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml as proof that hurricane strikes
>have decreased over time. True enough, they have! (check it out)
See the paper published in Science last month. Numbers same, intensity up.
>
>--Little Panel report contradicts the main IPCC report,
No it doesn't.
>the latter of
>which states that due to GW only minor changes in precipitation over
>20th century (pp. 142 of report); no evidence of increased storm surge
>off Atlantic (p. 664), no evidence of more storms (p. 162), nor any
>models that can account for future storms (p. 573, 575).
Your sources are old.
>
>--Much is made about dishonest use of footnotes by the Little Panel
>('likely' and 'very likely' are given special definitions that
>are convoluted). Funny but a bit tedious to follow and to summarize.
>
>--expert's views on sea levels (Prof. Morner) are discussed, and how
>he was ignored by the official IPCC panel
What creationists always yell.
>
>--discussion about melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice [long and
>detailed, and best seen in person, but essentially the authors position
>is any melting is natural,
So they show their ignorance. What do a mathematician and an economist know
about natural melting?
>since the last ice age, or in fact getting
>colder (south pole)] "Some climate simulations suggest that changes
>to these two great ice sheets [Greenland and Antarctic] would largely
>offset each other." Noted that North Pole ice is actually floating,
>so melting would not affect sea levels as much as melting ice on land
>(e.g. Greenland and Antarctic)
Which everybody knows, Ray. But it's the glaciers and ice shelves that are
melting too.
>
>--Anomaly dismissed by IPCC was that sea levels in Australian coast
>actually have fallen, if a certain old marker is to be believed (Google
>keywords: benchmark at Dead Man's Isle; John Daly).
Citing a creationist site really helps their credibility.
> But even modern
>scientific markers show a mere net 3 cm/century rise in sea levels in
>Australian coast, which is much smaller than the 10-20 cm global mean
>sea levels rise in the 20th century reported by the IPCC (thus
>credibility of the IPCC is questioned; though one could argue that the
>IPCC measured global sea levels and the Australian sea levels, because
>of the contour of the earth, were much smaller, but this not discussed
>by the authors).
>
>--Rising CO2 levels will beneficially stimulate plant growth. Cites
>online bibliography at Oak Ridge National Lab; website by the Center
>for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
>http://www.co2science.org (run by a family of USDA biologists).
Sorry, another creationist site. One Idso is the chairman and another is the
president. Looks like you've fallen for their line, Ray.
>
>RL
>
Lloyd Parker
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>
>Humidity increase will make it more difficult for people to keep cool
>in summer. The models suggest that the tropic to pole winds will
>decrease as the poles warm faster than the tropics, especially in the
>Arctic. This implies that there will be less straight line winds
>associated with this circulation.
>
>>--excellent section titled "The Role of Adaptation" that Hahahansen
>>would enjoy. The IPCC assumes a "dumb farmer" model where humans
>>do not adapt, but this is wrong. New corn varieties exist today that
>>will give different yields depending on what weather you have; also a
>>farmer can buy weather contracts on the Chicago Exchange to guard
>>against bad weather. R. Mendelsohn et al (1999) found GW will actually
>>increase the value of farm land in the USA while decreasing the value
>>of farmland in Canada, Russia and Eastern Europe. [Wonder if this is
>>why the USA is against GW treaties? LOL!]
His book was written by economists -- no scientists. He seems to assume GW
will bring more rainfall, and thus the value of farm land will go up. Too bad
he didn't have any scientists on board.
And guess who has a review of his book posted? SEPP!
Coby Beck
> Summary of Chapter 8 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
> Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
> Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
> Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
> Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
> are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight. Excellent
> analogy drawn: "If a spot in Antarctica is -30C it will still be
> ice-bound at -25C, and there will be very little in the way of a
> viable ecosystem...to be affected for better or worse."
And also, as 75% of the globe is ocean, and there is no economic
infrastructure at all built on ocean surfaces, the projected effects of
Global Warming can immediately be prorated down by 75% and any negative
effects will thus be 25% of what the IPCC claims. Now if we add in the
reasonable assumption that any changes in weather have an equal probablility
of being good as of being bad, we can halve 25% to arrive at a most probable
GW discount rate (GWDR) of 12.5% of what was claimed.
Propogating this calculation back onto the temperature trends, it is clear
we can apply the GWDR to the high end estimate of 5oC, bringing it down to
(5 x .125) .625oC, the worst case scenario of discounted temperature change.
This is a difference of 4.375oC. The low end projection from the IPCC was
1.5oC. 1.5oC minus the 4.375o discount factor is -2.875oC. That is
*negative* 2.875oC!
So clearly the most likely trend, -1.125oC, the midline between these
discounted temperature changes is actually *cooling* NOT warming. In other
words, unless CO2 emissions are drastically increased, we may well be
(according the the IPCC's *own* figures!) heading for the most rapid cooling
the world has seen since the slowing of the last glaciation some 50,000
years ago.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
PS Sorry, Ray, I didn't plan to go so far, but it was too much fun! ;)
Steve Bloom
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:UVa3f.15868$S4.9032@edtnps84...
colder?!!!
Steve Bloom
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dijas9$nub$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
rapid collapse which I don't think can quite be ruled out), so the
short-term problem is the Tibetan plateau, which as I understand it will
likely be gone in a century. The plateau glaciers are the critical
component of the water supply (drinking and agriculture) for half the
world's population, plus the glaciers (probably better thought of as a small
ice cap) are a big enough mass of ice to be a major climate factor in
themselves.
While I'm on the subject, although I don't have the numbers in front of me,
I think the sea level rise figure for disappearance of all the non-polar
surface ice (most of it in the region of Tibet) is something like a half
meter, so I would assume that just for this effect (again not counting
anything polar) the AR4 sea level rise estimate will need to be revised
substantially from that of the TAR. I've heard nothing about this, though.
Anyone?
Roger Coppock
useless information when you are talking about global climate.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
Roger Coppock wrote:
> These are just the hurricanes which strike the mainland US,
> useless information when you are talking about global climate.
Eat My Dirty Shorts Coppock. If you KNEW ANYTHING about Global Warming
you would know that ALL ocean basins have shown a rise in storm
intensity and storm lengthing durations. You would be aware that record
numbers of storms have been recorded in recent years and the scientific
literature often lags seriously behind publishing these details in the
perr-reviewed press. The record-breaking numbers of storms does not
have to be read from a peer-reviewed journal because those writers will
only be using the same official records you use already in your global
temperature stats -- in fact THOSE records are not "peer-reviewed", are
they?
FURTHERMORE. These hurricane stats are not just what hits the USA
mainland, but everything known about Carribean an Atlantic Basic
storms, which happens to have the ones which hit the USA mainland.
Storms going back to the 1600s are known and part of official record
keeping. Storms at sea are likewise recorded going back farther than
the denialist like to think possible. Storms which impacted Atlantic
basin countries and islands are recorded, and storms which never hit
nothing are part of the record. The shortest storm on record is so far
back that YOU WOULDM'T BELIEVE IT POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN
NOTICED BEFORE STAELLITES AND AIRCRAFT. You are just ignorant and lazy
-- check facks before opening you fat mouth.
Roger Coppock
mainland landfall, hurricane data.
Roger Coppock
the data, are peer-reviewed.
Therefore, one should do what I suggested, use global, instead of just
US landfall, hurricane data.
(By the way, using 'sock puppets' is considered poor USNET form.)
raylopez99
does not have to manifest itself in increased temperature--you can get
increased wind. Remember the total energy (H) equation has a static
and a dynamic component. Increased windspeed could offset any
increased (static) temperature. So more "hurricanes, tornadoes, winds"
are possible with increased energy trapped within the earth, not just
(or only) increased static temperatures.
RL
raylopez99
not H0 (total energy) but the static temperature only. Temperature is
decidedly not a measure of kinetic energy, the way most thermometers
record temperature.
Joshua Halpern
gas phase, as in 3/2RT is the kinetic energy per mole (for diatomics
there is an additional RT in rotational energy). See any book on
statistical mechanics.
Ray, you are simply out of your depth here.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
match
the kinetic energy at 300 K.
Ray, you are out of your depth here.
josh halpern
Science Cop
raylopez99 wrote:
> Summary of Chapter 8 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>
> --any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
> are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight. Excellent
> analogy drawn: "If a spot in Antarctica is -30C it will still be
> ice-bound at -25C, and there will be very little in the way of a
> viable ecosystem...to be affected for better or worse."
Sunlight is transmitted, reflected, diffused, refracted and distorted
by atmosphic gases.
Astronomers stuggling to see through atmosphere looking at tiny bits of
sunlight from far distant stars know that best. They put their
telescopes up on mountains to get the least air in between them and the
light. They know that light coming in at angles suffers much loss and
penetration down to the surface.
For these reason, the area of the earth which receives the closest to
direct perpendicular sun rays gets the most light and the strongest
light. This light subsequently is converted to heat.
POP QUIZ #1
Guess which part of the globe gets the most light AND shows the most
heat:
(1) The polar circles, or
(2) The TORRID Region around the EQUATOR!
You are right! Good guessing. The EQUATOR gets the most light energy
and translates that into heat! You are absolutely correct!
> --any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
> are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight.
POP QUIZ #2
McKitrick & Essex didn't know that Greenhouse Gases profoundly affect
the tropics much more than the poles because:
(1) Both of them get the majority of their income from Oil Company
funding, or
(2) Both of them have Scaifie DNA-Jelly dribbling down their cheeks
onto their Blue Dresses?
You are Right! Both answers are equally TRUE! Congradulations!
POP QUIZ #3
(1) Most people would rather live where they can go year around
scantily-clad in the tropics, or
(2) Most People live in the frozen permafrost where eating blubber is
considered a treat?
You are RIGHT AGAIN! More than half of the population of the planet
lives in the tropical regions where even small impacts from Global
Warming will harm their fragile under-developed economies!
So then, knowing what you know, and being so smart and all, when you
see something like this:
> --any GW likely not in the tropics but the polar regions, where there
> are not that many people, hence economic damage is slight.
... you automatically know that
(1) You are dealing with corrupt people who are shunned by moral
beings,
(2) You ask yourself "why is this guy lying to me?, or
(3) You note the source for prosecution and execution for accesory
before the fact to premeditated mass murder.
Answers next lesson.
Steve Bloom
they had instruments capable of measuring other important stuff like
pressure and humidity and, um, windspeed. Why, with such wonders of
technology it might even be possible to draw some conclusions about the
weather!
Steve Bloom
> Wasn't that his point? Stuff will get colder. Also increased energy
> does not have to manifest itself in increased temperature--you can get
> increased wind. Remember the total energy (H) equation has a static
> and a dynamic component. Increased windspeed could offset any
> increased (static) temperature.
Not in a universe with physical laws similar to the ones ours has.
So more "hurricanes, tornadoes, winds"
> are possible with increased energy trapped within the earth, not just
> (or only) increased static temperatures.
Substitute "certain" for "possible" and you'll have it nailed, Ray.
>
> RL
>
raylopez99
that you, like Coby Beck, dig ditches for a living?) why don't you
calculate it, or, easier, tell me what the he ll is your point.
I think you know enough about heat transfer to understand about wind
chill factor. And if your point is that the dynamic component of total
air temperature is much smaller than the static temperature, just say
so.
Here is a link on what we are talking about:
http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/sat/sat.html
Cheers,
Ray
raylopez99
offset increased temperatures (that was the point of both me and the
authors of "Taken by Storm").
Reference Total Air Temperature and review this website:
http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/sat/sat.html
You know, it's nice to have an intelligent discussion involving physics
once in a while in this NG.
RL
Melchizedek
raylopez99 wrote:
> Josh--since you are the scientist (aren't you? Or are we going to find
> that you, like Coby Beck, dig ditches for a living?) why don't you
> calculate it, or, easier, tell me what the he ll is your point.
>
> I think you know enough about heat transfer to understand about wind
> chill factor. And if your point is that the dynamic component of total
> air temperature is much smaller than the static temperature, just say
> so.
This is the same Ray Lopez who calculates the heat from boiling a cup
of water equals kinetic energy of stopping a speeding bus.
So where's you weatherman talk about "windchill factor" in August? "The
temperature today was 98 degrees but with the 15 mph breeze windchill
factor it was equivilent to a frigid 98 degrees".
Ask David B. O'Hara down in Tallahassee. They get heat-driven
thunderstorms every afternoon with strong winds and deluges of rains.
Before the storm it is 98 degrees. After the storm it is 98 degrees,
but like a steamy shower with 100% humidity.
raylopez99
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Chap. 9
--various 'after the fact' engineering solutions for GW examined (NOTE:
the authors state these solutions are not cheap and may not work):
inserting dust into the upper atmosphere; aluminized balloons; sulphate
aerosol insertion; phytoplankton seeding.
--authors note since Coca-Cola cans release CO2 (4 mil tonnes a year),
wonder why carbonated beverage companies are not targeted by protestors
(anyone? sounds interesting)
--Kyoto circa 2001 explained; emissions trading and Annex I countries
explained; the problem of free-riders (non-signatories) and how this
defeats Kyoto explained (e.g., 'leakages' problem as more countries
cheat); audits and cheats (China emissions are fudged, citing a World
bank study).
--Even if Kyoto was implemented, instead of a +3.0 degree change we
would have a 2.7 degree change, which is hardly a difference
--Precautionary Principle debunked: costs and benefits must be
examined so marginal benefit > marginal cost for any economic activity
to commence. This means that a "good first step" argument is useless
(i.e., that though Kyoto is not effective, it will eventually lead to
an effective solution). Hard to quickly summarize this, but think of
this: if Kyoto is not the 'real' answer, why waste money on Kyoto?
Why not jump to the 'real' answer and examine its costs (and benefits)
at the margin? Why use Kyoto as a sort of "red herring" or to get your
"foot in the door"? That is not just dishonest, it is economically
wasteful.
--best way to implement reduction in CO2 is with a carbon tax, yet no
government has proposed a carbon tax (say the authors), instead relying
on subsidies, quotas and the like. This is because governments (say the
authors) understand that their citizens, once they realise the cost of
Kyoto, would hesitate to adopt Kyoto
--cost of Kyoto is more than the stated cost per tonne; if say Kyoto
was $5 a tonne for CO2 (costs), in fact the real cost would be $25 a
tonne (cites study Bovenberg et al. "Optimal Environmental Taxation in
the Presence of Other Taxes", Am. Econ. Review (1996)
RL
--
Steve Bloom
on your use of that "not just" phrase), but now it turns out just to have
been a case of incoherent writing on your part.
Steve Bloom
what?
Melchizedek
raylopez99 wrote:
> --Precautionary Principle debunked: costs and benefits must be
> examined so marginal benefit > marginal cost for any economic activity
> to commence. This means that a "good first step" argument is useless
> (i.e., that though Kyoto is not effective, it will eventually lead to
> an effective solution). Hard to quickly summarize this, but think of
> this: if Kyoto is not the 'real' answer, why waste money on Kyoto?
> Why not jump to the 'real' answer and examine its costs (and benefits)
> at the margin? Why use Kyoto as a sort of "red herring" or to get your
> "foot in the door"? That is not just dishonest, it is economically
> wasteful.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is the MORAL CONCEPT permitting society to
exist. IT underlies all tort laws. Whatever you do, you may not use
your freedoms in any manner which infringes on my peaceable use of my
freedoms. The precautionary principle say exercise precations to limit
your damages so they don't damage me.
There is nothing about costs in the Precaustionary Principle. I don't
care if it bankrupts you, DON'T DO IT. It you can't do it in a way that
you can afford to do it, DON'T DO IT! Your money games are none of my
business. I don't care about you wealth and greed: if you can't figure
a way without harming me, you can't do it, no matter how rich you might
otherwise by by my injury. DON'T DO IT.
Eric Swanson
>
>Josh--since you are the scientist (aren't you? Or are we going to find
>that you, like Coby Beck, dig ditches for a living?) why don't you
>calculate it, or, easier, tell me what the he ll is your point.
>
>I think you know enough about heat transfer to understand about wind
>chill factor. And if your point is that the dynamic component of total
>air temperature is much smaller than the static temperature, just say
>so.
Loopy Ray, wind chill is a metric which is intended to tell people what the
effect of wind feels like. It relates the cooling of warm exposed skin to wind
speed. "Wind chill" is meaningless in temperature measurement situations, as
the sensor is exposed to the air constantly and the sensor's temperature is
usually very close to the equilibrium temperature. besides, your example is
about apparent heating of a sensor.
>Here is a link on what we are talking about:
>http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/sat/sat.html
This reference is about an aircraft measuring temperature with a probe. The
speed in the example is Mach .71, which is calculated to produce an measurement
increase of 1.5 K. So, how much warming would you expect to see at the surface
with an average speed of, say, 20 mph? Given that the wind speeds likely
average out over a period of time, how much change in average temperature do
you think would result from some slight change in this average speed?
Are you suggesting that the warming seen in the record is the result of such
a change in average wind speed, and do you have any data to support the notion
that average wind speeds have increased? What if the winds have slacked off
lately and caused a cooling bias to appear in the temperature data? Also,
sonds float with the winds, so there could be no wind induced trend.
Loopy Ray, you are such great entertainment.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Coppock
-- The old Kyoto is limited lie?
COME ON RAY!
You should be able to debunk all the myths from Chaper 9 by yourself.
raylopez99
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Chap 10
--basically the chapter is a quick review of some of the conclusions of
the authors, nothing new
--the most interesting part: work by U of Chicago law professor Cass
Sunstein (who is excellent on cost/benefit analysis of pollutants too,
and has written how illogical the EPA is) in "The Law of Group
Polarization" (U of Chi.) (1999) has shown large groups tend to evolve
towards extreme positions at times, in an effort to distinquish
themselves. The IPCC may be an example of such a phenomena.
--authors advocate that a trial be held, with governments as the judge,
between the two camps in the AGW debate (like in the book "State of
Fear" by Crichton)
My conclusion after reading this book:
The authors of Taken by Storm have NOT refuted the case that there is
AGW. But they have shown the conclusions drawn by the IPCC are not
irrefutable and need further investigation. "Further research is
needed".
Another excellent book I am reading, that further underscores that AGW
is much, much less than 'predicted' by the IPCC is "Meltdown- The
Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and
the Media" by Patrick J. Michaels (Research Prof. of Environmental
Sciences at the Univ. of Virginia). I will post my review of that book
in a seperate thread.
RL
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
raylopez99 wrote:
> Another ... book I am reading, that further underscores that AGW
> is much, much less than 'predicted' by the IPCC is "Meltdown- The
> Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and
> the Media" by Patrick J. Michaels (Research Prof. of Environmental
> Sciences at the Univ. of Virginia). I will post my review of that book
> in a seperate thread.
Thanks for the warning. The dossier on felony fraud criminal Patrick
Michaels will be prepared to be ready. Here's a little taste...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174 Singer Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=92 Balliunas Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=391 TASSC
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=392 TASSC plus
TASSC, or known as The ASS Coalition, was set up by APCO Associates to
perform science fraud. EVERYBODY involved with TASSC was knowingly
involved in criminal fraud. Philip Morris funded the bill from their
"Whitecoats Project" budget, but soon enlisted other major Poison and
Pollution corporations to join so that it didn't look like it was a
tobacco-operation exclusively. The EPA was targeted for smearing
because they had declared second-hand smoke a cancer risk. Anybody
having any beef with EPA regulations (like toxic polluters KOCH
INDUSTRIES) was invited into the lynch mob.
http://tinyurl.com/7sskb
Google Results about 378 for TASSC APCO Tobacco.
http://tinyurl.com/842e2
Results 4 from tobaccodocuments.org for TASSC Patrick Michaels.
the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (Tassc) Supporters List.
the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (Tassc) Supporters List. ...
McNeely David McWilliam Dan Medley William Mellander JG Merdon Patrick
J. Michaels, ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233615-3618.html - 30k
http://tinyurl.com/8yb55
Results about 55 from tobaccodocuments.org for TASSC APCO Tobacco.
Designer front group - TASSC
APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for TASSC, too. ...
Link tobacco use with other more "politically correct" products. ...
tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Tobacco Documents | Profiles | Organizations | Apco Associates
... effective allies." Philip Morris hired APCO to organize the front
group TASSC (The Advancement of ... Agency's ruling that secondhand
tobacco smoke was a ...
tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/apco.html - 8k
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Link the tobacco issue with other more "politically correct" products.
...
THE GREY/GCI NETWORK APCO Associates brings to the table a strong
network in ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html - 26k - Cached - Similar
pages
Designer front group - TASSC
Link Tobacco use with Other More "politically correct" products. * have
non-Industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business
executives and ...
tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1&...
- 32k
Subject: TASSC Update
Tobacco Documents Online ... CHOOSE A COLLECTION:, All Collections,
Industry,
- American Tobacco, - Brown & Williamson, - CTR, - Lorillard, - Philip
Morris ...
tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2024233664.html - 9k
Tobacco Documents | Profiles | Organizations | Advancement Of ...
Tobacco Documents Online ... The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(TASSC)
is a now defunct industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO
Worldwide ...
tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/organizations/tassc.html - 8k
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Thoughts on Tassc Europe. Date: 25 Mar 1994 Length: 8 pages
2024233595-2024233602 ... Link the Tobacco issue with Other More
"politically correct" products. ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1&...
- 26k
Tobacco Industry Efforts Subverting the International Agency for ...
... Apco Associates: Ash, Action on Smoking & Health: Asian Regional
Tobacco ... Tassc Public Information Bureau: Tassc, the Advancement of
Sound Science ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2505646201-6309.html - 23k
Dioxin, DDT and "other scares"
This memo was written by Tom Hockaday of APCO Associates, a PR company
...
favorable-to-tobacco op-ed pieces on the subject of environmental
tobacco smoke.
tobaccodocuments.org/landman/138074.html - 28k
Tort Reform Project Budget
It shows how well-funded and widespread the tobacco industry's plan to
alter the American judicial ... Apco Associates (Global Public
relations Company) ...
tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2047648299-8307.html - 25k
Tobacco Documents | Profiles | People | Hockaday, Tom
Tobacco Documents Online ... Industry, - American Tobacco, - Brown &
Williamson, - CTR, - Lorillard, - Philip Morris, - RJ Reynolds, -
Tobacco Inst. Bliley ...
tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/hockaday_tom.html - 8k
RE: Thoughts on TASSC Europe
... and "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct'
products.
... reliability of scientific studies to support anti-tobacco
initiatives.
tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2024233595-3602.html - 10k
Update on the Activities of the Advancement of Sound Science ...
Tobacco Documents Online ... 2024233499/2024233852/Tassc; Author
(Organization):
Apco; Named Organization: Tassc, the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233614.html - 14k
Corporate Affairs 940000 Budget Presentation 931021
Tobacco Documents Online ... Substance Abuse + Mental Health Servic:
Tassc, the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition: Tax Foundation: TI, Tobacco
Inst ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2045521070-1111.html - 19k
Corporate Affairs 940000 Budget Presentation 931021
Tobacco Documents Online ... National Sm - TASSC - ACESS - Advocate
News]ette~ - Grassroots m~biii.zati , smokers, " Opinion Polls DIRECT
CONTACT LEGISLATOR ...
tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2045521070-1111.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=11
- 23k
http://tinyurl.com/cyz6p
The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (LTDL) contains 7 million
documents related to advertising, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and
scientific research of tobacco products. Visitors can search, view, and
download these documents from this web site.
Philip Morris Documents
19 records
RJ Reynolds Documents
1 record
1 Title: FOLLOWING SHEEP OVER THE EDGE
Organization Authors: PLAIN DEALER; SCIENCE + ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
PROJECT; UNIV OF VA
Person Authors: MICHAELS,PJ
Document Date: 19920810/P
Document Type: NEWS, NEWS ARTICLE
Bates Number: 2074144041
Master Document Id Range: 2074143969/4221
Page Count: 1
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/omc52c00
Add to Bookbag
2 Title: SCIENTIFIC MYTHS RIDE IN ON HURRICANE WINDS
Organization Authors: MIAMI HERALD; SCIENCE + ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
PROJECT; UNIV OF VA
Person Authors: MICHAELS,PJ
Document Date: 19920920/P
Document Type: NEWS, NEWS ARTICLE
Bates Number: 2074144018
Master Document Id Range: 2074143969/4221
Page Count: 1
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/anc52c00
Add to Bookbag
3 Title: GIVE INDUSTRY A BIGGER SCIENCE ROL
Organization Authors: ROANOKE TIMES + WORLD NEWS; SCIENCE +
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT; UNIV OF VA
Person Authors: MICHAELS,PJ
Document Date: 19921229/P
Document Type: NEWS, NEWS ARTICLE
Bates Number: 2074144040
Master Document Id Range: 2074143969/4221
Page Count: 1
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pmc52c00
Add to Bookbag
4 Title: EPA WATCH VOL 2 NUMBER 3
Organization Authors: AMERICAN POLICY CENTER; EPA WATCH
Person Authors: MICHAELS,PJ
Document Date: 19930215
Document Type: NELE, NEWSLETTER
Bates Number: 2501205727/5730
Master Document Id Range: 2501205725/5741
Page Count: 4
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ynv39e00
Add to Bookbag
5 Title: BAD SCIENCE A RESOURCE BOOK
Document Date: 19930326
Document Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER, CHAR, CHART, GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS
Bates Number: 2074143969/4221
Master Document Id Range: 2074143969/4221
Page Count: 254
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/snc52c00
Add to Bookbag
6 Title: THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION (TASSC)
SUPPORTERS LIST.
Document Date: 19930630/E
Document Type: LIST, LIST
Bates Number: 2024233615/3618
Master Document Id Range: 2024233614/3634
Page Count: 4
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mdp02a00
Add to Bookbag
7 Title: TEXT FOR SLIDES RESTORING THE ECONOMY BY RESTORING THE
ECOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Document Date: 19930630
Document Type: SPCH, SPEECH, PRESENTATION
Bates Number: 2021190021/0033
Master Document Id Range: 2021190017/0035
Page Count: 13
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nou61f00
Add to Bookbag
8 Title: PARTIAL LISTING OF SELECTED INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT OF
TASSC SCIENTISTS
Document Date: 19940400/E
Document Type: LIST, LIST
Bates Number: 2025493195/3200
Master Document Id Range: 2025493192/3200
Page Count: 6
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwy88e00
Add to Bookbag
9 Title: INTERNATIONAL MEETING IN EUROPE ON SOUND SCIENCE
Organization Authors: APCO ASSOCIATES; GCI GROUP
Person Authors: HOCKADAY,T
Document Date: 19940509
Document Type: MEMO, MEMORANDUM, LIST, LIST; RESU, RESUME
Bates Number: 2025492887/2896
Page Count: 10
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/awf22d00
Add to Bookbag
10 Title: N403
Organization Authors: TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
Document Date: 19950000/E
Document Type: PAMP, PAMPHLET, RESU, RESUME
Bates Number: 2048294227/4237
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bbf57d00
Add to Bookbag
11 Title: THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION THE CATALYST
VOLUME 2 FALL 950000 NO. 3
Organization Authors: TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
Document Date: 19950000/Q
Document Type: NELE, NEWSLETTER, DRAW, DRAWING; FORM, FORM; PHOT,
PHOTOGRAPH
Bates Number: 2047070968/0971
Master Document Id Range: 2047070941/0996
Page Count: 4
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qsl80c00
Add to Bookbag
12 Title: N403
Organization Authors: TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
Document Date: 19950000/E
Document Type: PAMP, PAMPHLET, RESU, RESUME
Bates Number: 2048294283/4293
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ubf57d00
Add to Bookbag
13 Title: THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION DEDICATED TO
ENSURING THE USE OF SOUND SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS
Organization Authors: TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
Document Date: 19950400/E
Document Type: PAMP, PAMPHLET, ENVE, ENVELOPE; FORM, FORM; RESU, RESUME
Bates Number: 2046982084/2094
Page Count: 12
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qsi35c00
Add to Bookbag
14 Title: TASSC THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION DEDICATED
TO ENSURING THE USE OF SOUND SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS
Organization Authors: TASSC, THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
Document Date: 19950700/E
Document Type: PAMP, PAMPHLET, FORM, FORM; RESU, RESUME
Bates Number: 2048389269/9279
Master Document Id Range: 2048389261/9285
Page Count: 12
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tpk53a00
Add to Bookbag
15 Title: TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORTS SUBVERTING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER'S SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY
Document Date: 19991100
Document Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER, BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY; LIST, LIST
Bates Number: 2078117387/7391
Master Document Id Range: 2078117286/7438
Page Count: 5
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cev75c00
Add to Bookbag
16 Title: TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORTS SUBVERTING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER'S SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY
Document Date: 19991100
Document Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER, BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY; CHAR, CHART,
GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS
Bates Number: 2505441196/1203
Master Document Id Range: 2505441095/1206
Page Count: 8
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gsp05c00
Add to Bookbag
17 Title: TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORTS SUBVERTING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER'S SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY
Document Date: 19991100
Document Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER, BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY; CHAR, CHART,
GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS
Bates Number: 2505646389/6414
Master Document Id Range: 2505646310/6418
Page Count: 26
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/udy15c00
Add to Bookbag
18 Title: TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORTS SUBVERTING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER'S SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY
Document Date: 19991100
Document Type: SCRT, REPORT, SCIENTIFIC, BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY; CHAR,
CHART, GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS; LIST, LIST
Bates Number: 2071647187/7214
Master Document Id Range: 2071647107/7216
Page Count: 28
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vwf16c00
Add to Bookbag
19 Title: TOBACCO INDUSTRY EFFORTS SUBVERTING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER'S SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDY
Document Date: 19991100
Document Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER, BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY; CHAR, CHART,
GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS
Bates Number: 2505646276/6309
Master Document Id Range: 2505646201/6309
Page Count: 34
Collection: Philip Morris
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xmy15c00
Add to Bookbag
20 Title: BROWN LUNG PANEL SEEKS AID.
Authors: JOHNSON S
Document Date: 19800315
Document Type: PUBLISHED DOC
Bates Number: 500070346
Page Count: 1
Collection: R. J. Reynolds
View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page
Bookmark as: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eff18c00
Add to Bookbag
raylopez99
had declared second-hand smoke a cancer risk." aren't you aware that
the most comprehensive surveys show second-hand smoke (ETS) does NOT
cause cancer? Check out this blurb, from the American Council on
Science and Health (no, Mel, it is not funded by Big Tobacco).
Ray
"http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.346/pub_detail.asp
# Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that ETS exposure is a
weak risk factor in the development of lung cancer in nonsmokers
regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
# Epidemiological evidence also suggests that ETS is a weak risk factor
for heart disease in nonsmoking spouses of smokers and in nonsmokers
regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
# Other reported links between ETS and chronic disease (breast cancer,
cervical cancer, and leukemia, for example) have not been
scientifically established and are not addressed in this report.
"
raylopez99
addressed, except by implication.
First: most people (not instruments) will feel COLDER if GW occurs,
because of wind-chill. THis is because (as you know) GW will hit
hardest in the northern latitudes, where wind chill is important.
Second, I was wondering if the dynamic component of total enthalpy
(Ho), which is velocity dependent, will 'soak up' any energy due to
possible imbalance in the net energy absorbed by earth due to GW (if
that's the case). I suspected not, since as you say, an average speed
of 20 mph does not have that much energy (I imagine). But I wanted
somebody to say so, having crunched the numbers. Clearly you (and I)
are both guessing.
Eric SWINE'son--you are so swinish...it's entertaining.
RL
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Review of Chapter 9 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
>Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
>Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
>Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
Ray, when are you going to review a creationist book?
>
>Chap. 9
>
>--various 'after the fact' engineering solutions for GW examined (NOTE:
>the authors state these solutions are not cheap and may not work):
>inserting dust into the upper atmosphere; aluminized balloons; sulphate
>aerosol insertion; phytoplankton seeding.
>
>--authors note since Coca-Cola cans release CO2 (4 mil tonnes a year),
>wonder why carbonated beverage companies are not targeted by protestors
>(anyone? sounds interesting)
Because the CO2 came from CO2 that was already in equilibrium. It's taking
CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years and releasing it that
upsets the equilibrium. That the authors don't know this is rather scary.
>
>--Kyoto circa 2001 explained; emissions trading and Annex I countries
>explained; the problem of free-riders (non-signatories) and how this
>defeats Kyoto explained (e.g., 'leakages' problem as more countries
>cheat); audits and cheats (China emissions are fudged, citing a World
>bank study).
>
>--Even if Kyoto was implemented, instead of a +3.0 degree change we
>would have a 2.7 degree change, which is hardly a difference
The first nuclear arms treaties didn't reduce arsenals by much either. Think
"first step."
>
>--Precautionary Principle debunked: costs and benefits must be
>examined so marginal benefit > marginal cost for any economic activity
>to commence. This means that a "good first step" argument is useless
>(i.e., that though Kyoto is not effective, it will eventually lead to
>an effective solution). Hard to quickly summarize this, but think of
>this: if Kyoto is not the 'real' answer, why waste money on Kyoto?
Why waste money on the first arms treaties?
>Why not jump to the 'real' answer and examine its costs (and benefits)
>at the margin? Why use Kyoto as a sort of "red herring" or to get your
>"foot in the door"? That is not just dishonest, it is economically
>wasteful.
>
>--best way to implement reduction in CO2 is with a carbon tax, yet no
>government has proposed a carbon tax (say the authors), instead relying
>on subsidies, quotas and the like. This is because governments (say the
>authors) understand that their citizens, once they realise the cost of
>Kyoto, would hesitate to adopt Kyoto
Sure, lots don't even want to spend money on schools either.
>
>--cost of Kyoto is more than the stated cost per tonne;
Most economists disagree.
>if say Kyoto
>was $5 a tonne for CO2 (costs), in fact the real cost would be $25 a
>tonne (cites study Bovenberg et al. "Optimal Environmental Taxation in
>the Presence of Other Taxes", Am. Econ. Review (1996)
>
Cherry picking. Most economists believe the costs would be minimal. And
you're ignoring all the new technologies that would come about.
>RL
>
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Synopsys of Chap 10 from the book "Taken By Storm: the Troubled
>Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" (2002) by Dr.
>Christopher Essex (Applied Mathematics at U. of W. Ontario) and Dr.
>Ross McKitrick (Assoc. Prof. Econ. U. of Guelph; Senior Fellow of
>Fraser Inst. Vancouver)
>
>Chap 10
>
>--basically the chapter is a quick review of some of the conclusions of
>the authors, nothing new
>
>--the most interesting part: work by U of Chicago law professor Cass
>Sunstein (who is excellent on cost/benefit analysis of pollutants too,
>and has written how illogical the EPA is) in "The Law of Group
>Polarization" (U of Chi.) (1999) has shown large groups tend to evolve
>towards extreme positions at times, in an effort to distinquish
>themselves. The IPCC may be an example of such a phenomena.
>
Or the Bush administration?
>--authors advocate that a trial be held, with governments as the judge,
>between the two camps in the AGW debate (like in the book "State of
>Fear" by Crichton)
Scopes ring a bell?
>
>
>My conclusion after reading this book:
>
>The authors of Taken by Storm have NOT refuted the case that there is
>AGW. But they have shown the conclusions drawn by the IPCC are not
>irrefutable and need further investigation. "Further research is
>needed".
>
>Another excellent book I am reading, that further underscores that AGW
>is much, much less than 'predicted' by the IPCC is "Meltdown- The
>Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and
>the Media" by Patrick J. Michaels (Research Prof. of Environmental
>Sciences at the Univ. of Virginia). I will post my review of that book
>in a seperate thread.
When are you going to read some real scientific books, Ray?
>
>RL
>
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Eric--the points I was trying to make were two-fold, which you have not
>addressed, except by implication.
>
>First: most people (not instruments) will feel COLDER if GW occurs,
>because of wind-chill.
Depends on how the wind changes relative to the temp. change. You cannot make
such a statement a priori.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But Mel, when you say "The EPA was targeted for smearing because they
>had declared second-hand smoke a cancer risk." aren't you aware that
>the most comprehensive surveys show second-hand smoke (ETS) does NOT
>cause cancer?
Sorry, Ray, that's totally false. Besides, using science, we know 2nd hand
smoke contains dozens of carcinogens.
>Check out this blurb, from the American Council on
>Science and Health (no, Mel, it is not funded by Big Tobacco).
But it is a right-wing group -- check out the "about us" on their web page.
It's another SEPP.
>
>Ray
>
>"http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.346/pub_detail.asp
>
># Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that ETS exposure is a
>weak risk factor in the development of lung cancer in nonsmokers
>regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
>
># Epidemiological evidence also suggests that ETS is a weak risk factor
>for heart disease in nonsmoking spouses of smokers and in nonsmokers
>regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
>
># Other reported links between ETS and chronic disease (breast cancer,
>cervical cancer, and leukemia, for example) have not been
>scientifically established and are not addressed in this report.
>"
>
And none of those say it's not a cause of cancer. Is English your native
language?
owl
wrote:
>First: most people (not instruments) will feel COLDER if GW occurs,
>because of wind-chill. THis is because (as you know) GW will hit
>hardest in the northern latitudes, where wind chill is important.
"War is Peace." - G.Orwell, 1984
"Hotter is cooler" - Loopy, 2005
Most people will ot feel cooler. They will feel hotter. The wind
blowing hotter air will be hotter.
Maybe you could do a peer-review paper on the Rural Wind Tunnel effect
- that artificially lowers people's perceptions of AGW's effect.