Latest issue of Science magazine: sun may be responsible for global warming
raylopez99
argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
The paper is a bit hard to follow for non-specialists, but essentially
it is arguing that once you strip away the aerosol sun-blocking
effects of two volcanic eruptions in ~1982 (El Chichon) and ~1992
(Pinatubo), you get a trend line that indicates the sun is shining
brighter than before.
Since the article was scanned into text the figure could not be
introduced.
Further research is needed.
RL
Science Vol. 315 16 March 2007
Long-Term Satellite Record Reveals Likely Recent Aerosol Trend
Michael I. Mishchenko,* Igor V. Geogdzhayev, William B. Rossow, Brian
Cairns,
Barbara E. Carlson, Andrew A. Lads, Li Liu, Larry D. Travis
Recent observations of downward solar radiation fluxes at Earth's
surface have shown a recovery from the previous decline known as
global "dimming" (1), with the
'brightening" beginning around 1990 (2). The increasing amount of
sunlight at the surface profoundly affects climate and may represent
certain diminished counterbalances to greenhouse gas warming, thereby
making the warming trend more evident during the past decade.
It has been suggested that tropospheric aerosols have contributed
notably to the switch from solar dimming to brightening via both
direct and indirect aerosol effects (1, 2). It has further been argued
(3) that the solar radiation trend mirrors the estimated recent trend
in primary anthropogenic emissions of S02 and black carbon, which
contribute substantially to the global aerosol optical thickness
(AOT). A similar increase of net solar flux at the top of the
atmosphere (TOA) over the same period appears to be explained by
corresponding changes in lower latitude cloudiness (4), which
confounds the interpretation of the surface radiation record.
Therefore, it is important to provide a direct and independent
assessment of the actual global long-term behavior of the AOT. We
accomplish this by using the longest uninterrupted record of global
satellite estimates of the column AOT over the oceans, the Global
Aerosol Climatology
Project (GACP) record (5). The record is derived from the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology
Project (ISCCP) DX radiance data set composed of calibrated and
sampled Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) radiances. A
detailed discussion of the sampling resolution, calibration history,
and changes in the corresponding satellite sensors can be found in
(6).
The global monthly average of the column AOT is depicted for the
period August 1981 to June 2005 (Fig. 1, solid black curve). The two
major maxima are caused by the stratospheric aerosols generated by the
El Chichon (March 1982) and the Mount Pinatubo (June 1991) eruptions,
also captured in the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE)
stratospheric AOT record (7). The quasi-periodic oscillations in the
black curve are the result of short-term aerosol variability.
The overall behavior of the column AOT during the eruption-tree period
from January 1986 to June 1991 (Fig. 1, red line) shows only a hint of
a statistically significant tendency and indicates that the average
column AOT value just before the Mount Pinatubo eruption was close to
0.142. After the eruption, the GACP curve is a superposition of the
complex volcanic and tropospheric AOT temporal variations. However,
the green line reveals a long-term decreasing tendency in the
tropospheric AOT. Indeed, even if we assume that the stratospheric AOT
just before the eruption was as large as 0.007 and that by June 2005
the stratospheric AOT became essentially zero (compare with the blue
curve), still the resulting decrease in the tropospheric AOT during
the 14-year period comes out to be 0:03. This trend is
significant at the 99% confidence level.
Admittedly, AVHRR is not an instrument designed for accurate aerosol
retrievals from space. Among the remaining uncertainties is radiance
calibration, which, if inaccurate, can result in spurious aerosol
tendencies. Similarly, substantial systematic changes in the aerosol
single scattering albedo or the ocean reflectance can be
misinterpreted in terms of AOT variations. However, the successful
validation of GACP retrievals
using precise sun photometer data taken from 1983 through 2004 (8, 9)
indicates that the ISCCP radiance calibration is likely to be
reliable. This conclusion is reinforced by the close correspondence of
calculated and observed TOA solar fluxes (4). Furthermore, the GACP
AOT record appears to be self-consistent, with no drastic
intrasatellite variations, and is consistent with the SAGE record.
The advantage of the AVHRR data set over the data sets collected with
more advanced recent satellite instruments is its duration, which
makes possible reliable detection of statistically significant
tendencies like the substantial de¬
crease of the tropospheric AOT between 1991
and 2005. With all the uncertainties, the troposphere AOT decrease
over the 14-year period is estimated to be at least 0.02. This change
is consistent with long-term atmospheric transmission records
collected in the former Soviet Union (5).
Our results suggest that "the recent downward trend in the
tropospheric AOT may have contributed to the concurrent upward trend
in surface solar fluxes. Neither AVHRR nor other existing satellite
instruments can be used to determine unequivocally whether the recent
AOT trend is due to long-term global changes in natural or
anthropogenic aerosols. This discrimination would be facilitated by an
instrument like the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS), scheduled for
launch in December 2008 as part of the NASA Glory
mission (10). It is thus imperative to provide uninterrupted
multidecadal monitoring of aerosols from space with dedicated
instruments like APS in order to detect long-term anthropogenic trends
potentially having a strong impact on climate.
References and Notes
1. 2. R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang, E. G. Dutton, Science 308, 850
(2005).
3. D. G. Streets, Y. Wu, M. Chin, Geophys. Res. Let!. 33,
L1S806 (2006).
4. Y. Zhang, W. B. Rossow, A. A. Lacis, V. Oinas,
M. I. Mishchenko,]. Geophys. Res. 109, Dl910S (2004).
5. I. V. Geogdzhayev, M. I. Mishchenko, E. I. Terez,
G. A. Terez, G. K. Gushchin,]. Geaphys. Res. 110,
D2320S (2005); and references. therein.
6. W. B. Rossow, R. A. Schiffer, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soe. 80,
2261 (1999); and references therein.
7. ]. Hansen et al.,]. Geophys. Res. 107, 4347 (2002).
8. L. Liu et al.,]. Quant. Spectrase. Radiat. Tronsfer 88, 97
(2004).
9. A. Smirnov et aI., Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14817
(2006).
10. M. I. Mishchenko et al.,]. Quant. Spectrose. Radiat.
Transfer 88,149 (2004).
11. This research is part of NASA/Global Energy and Water Cycle
Experiment GACP and was funded by the NASA Radiation Sciences Program,
managed by H. Maring and D. Anderson.
24 October 2006; accepted 20 December 2006 10.1126/science.1136709
Mono
> Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
> argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
> sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
> 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
>
scientific impossibility.
Why are you socialists spreading these lies any way? What's in it for you?
raylopez99
> raylopez99 raylope...@yahoo.com said:> Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
> > argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
> > sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
> > 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
>
> That's a lie because there's no such thing as global warming. It's a
> scientific impossibility.
Typical Usenet reply. Anybody else?
BTW in the same issue of Science it was pointed out that polar ice,
especially Greenland ice, survived much hotter temperatures in years
past without melting and adding to sea level rise. Hence jury still
out whether or not this ice should be added to expected sea level
rises in the next 100 years.
RL
Stewart Gray
> BTW in the same issue of Science it was pointed out that polar ice,
> especially Greenland ice, survived much hotter temperatures in years
> past without melting and adding to sea level rise. Hence jury still
> out whether or not this ice should be added to expected sea level
> rises in the next 100 years.
>
Eric Swanson
raylo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
>argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
>sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
>'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>The paper is a bit hard to follow for non-specialists, but essentially
>it is arguing that once you strip away the aerosol sun-blocking
>effects of two volcanic eruptions in ~1982 (El Chichon) and ~1992
>(Pinatubo), you get a trend line that indicates the sun is shining
>brighter than before.
"Our results suggest that the recent downward trend in the
tropospheric AOT may have contributed to the concurrent upward trend
in surface solar fluxes...."
Science 16 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5818, p. 1543
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136709
You are not reading the report correctly, I think. They suggest that
the ground level solar has gone up because the absorption in the
atmosphere has gone down. That says nothing about a change in solar
output, which you claim.
More education needed. For Loopy Ray that is.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schulin
> In article <1174825668.5...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> raylo...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
> >argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
> >sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
> >'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
>
>
> Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
> >The paper is a bit hard to follow for non-specialists, but essentially
> >it is arguing that once you strip away the aerosol sun-blocking
> >effects of two volcanic eruptions in ~1982 (El Chichon) and ~1992
> >(Pinatubo), you get a trend line that indicates the sun is shining
> >brighter than before.
>
> "Our results suggest that the recent downward trend in the
> tropospheric AOT may have contributed to the concurrent upward trend
> in surface solar fluxes...."
>
> Science 16 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5818, p. 1543
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1136709
>
> You are not reading the report correctly, I think. They suggest that
> the ground level solar has gone up because the absorption in the
> atmosphere has gone down. That says nothing about a change in solar
> output, which you claim.
>
> More education needed. For Loopy Ray that is.
Well, the only person to specify "solar output" here is you, Eric. The
question of how much effect change in sunshine at Earth's surface has
had on surface record is a fair one. Thanks for posting this, Ray.
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Hick
>
> I only believe what Ray says because it's what I want to hear.
> If a couple of attention starved fringe scientists say what I like
> I'll suck it up like so much bullshit
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than increases in
greenhouse gases.
About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar
energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
greenhouse effect'.
Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It
has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than
half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is
known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several
thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750
and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration
rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the
current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that "the rate of increase over
the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years".
It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause.
The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide
show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an
accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation.
Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the
atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to
emissions. It stated "Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due
to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to
land-use change, especially deforestation".
A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change,
particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and
particles released into the
atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in the
atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the Earth's
surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
factors, both natural and human, into account.
Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
cooling effect by increasing the
reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect
of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
part of
the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot
explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an
overall drop in global average temperatures.
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
warming during the past three decades".
Eric Swanson
I'll leave it to Loopy Ray to tell us what "the sun is shining brighter
than before" means to him and what he concludes from that.
Joe Fischer
>Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
>argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
>sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
>'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
It doesn't matter Ray, the same actions should
be taken regardless of the cause of any warming.
My reflecting awning idea would compensate
for 100 times it's area in radiation surplus in the energy
budget.
And would be far more effective than any of
the restrictive or financial rape suggestions of Albore
or any of the other tax and spend liberals.
Joe Fischer
Peter B. P.
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > In article <1174825668.5...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > raylo...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
> > >argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
> > >sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
> > >'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
> >
> >
> > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
Plus, it is based partly on NASA research, which is based on tax
dollars. So it would be 100% fair to openly publish what you yourself
paid for.
--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Peter B. P.
As opposed to borrow-and-spend "conservatives"?
Eric Swanson
pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk says...
U.S. Government publications are not copyrighted. Some journals publish
work by government employees with a statement that a paper is not
subject to copyright for this reason. This paper carries no such
disclaimer. The authors may provide copies from their own web sites,
but his particular paper is not available on the GISS publication web
site. That still does not give Loopy Ray a right to scan and post it.
Besides, there is some controversy about the findings. In Kerr's
commentary on page 1480, the first author notes "We don't claim it's
100% real"....
Peter B. P.
Whatever. Copyright witchhunts is just another piss-poor way of trying
to silence the opposition.
Let RL handle the moral scruples of this.
> Besides, there is some controversy about the findings. In Kerr's
> commentary on page 1480, the first author notes "We don't claim it's
> 100% real"....
Heh.
raylopez99
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
Correct Steve. Since Usenet postings are not for profit, nearly
anything you post here is fair use.
> > You are not reading the report correctly, I think. They suggest that
> > the ground level solar has gone up because the absorption in the
> > atmosphere has gone down. That says nothing about a change in solar
> > output, which you claim.
>
> > More education needed. For Loopy Ray that is.
>
> Well, the only person to specify "solar output" here is you, Eric. The
> question of how much effect change in sunshine at Earth's surface has
> had on surface record is a fair one. Thanks for posting this, Ray.
>
Thanks Steve. Truth is, I was a bit loose with my terminology (I
realized this after I posted), when I stated "the sun is shining
brighter than before"--of course, in the context of the post, as
should be clear to anybody without an ax to grind, I am talking about
'brighter' at the surface of the earth, not the surface of the sun.
I think I've stirred up a hornet's nest with this post--whoo boy, the
AGW 'tards sure are getting 'hot under the collar' seeing their
orthodoxy doing down in flames. Not to mention flame wars. Global
warming and an 'inconvenient truth' indeed. I hope this article sets
back the 'tards call for immeadiate action by a few years. It
curiously got little press, which is why you missed it Steve, since I
notice from your posts you are very well read. Most people don't
subscribe to Science (it's kind of pricey and except for the comments
by the editors is somewhat too technical for practical purposes, but I
write it off as a business expense). Isn't it strange that Reuters
science news feed, which I read everyday, had nothing on this?
PS-- I like your nuclear website Steve, keep up the good work.
PPS--in the same issue of Science, it was reported that NASA has cut
funding for galactic cosmic rays, in favor of more 'engineering' and
less 'physics', consistent with the (short-sighted, IMO) Bush
proposals to put a man on the moon again, rather than to do basic
science. But studying cosmic rays is important in the issue of global
dimming since one theory, as you are aware, is that cloud cover is
influenced by such rays (another aside: a previous issue of Science
noted that toxic air pollution emitted by cities causes less rainfall
and arguably less cloud cover--could GW be due to toxic air pollution
rather than non-toxic, man-made greenhouse gases? Remember that
aerosols and cloud cover is the Achilles heel of the GCMs, as the
'tards themselves admit). Further research is needed, and definitely
not any hasty action before the facts are in. In fact, if we had done
more research and development in nuclear energy during the 80s and 90s
rather than caving in to the Greens, we'd be way ahead now in terms of
energy independence, but that's a rant for another day).
Cheers,
RL
raylopez99
You're right as rain Peter.
As usual Err-Hick Swine'son is wrong.
He fancies himself as a copyright lawyer, just as Roger Crappock
thinks he's a genius for publishing "Software Copyrights" as he once
said, when in fact anything you publish is automatically copyright,
even with putting a "(C) 2007" next to it, because of the Berne
convention. Hardly takes a genius to do that--witness the idiots
posting here. So in fact this original post of mine is "copyright",
but just because somebody else quotes it (as Err-Hick did) doesn't
make him liable for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement
only works if you repost a commercial work again for profit, without
permission, but even then it's sometimes not a problem.
RL
raylopez99
> On Mar 25, 1:30 pm, p...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk (Peter B. P.) wrote:
>
> You're right as rain Peter.
>
> As usual Err-Hick Swine'son is wrong.
>
> He fancies himself as a copyright lawyer, just as Roger Crappock
> thinks he's a genius for publishing "Software Copyrights" as he once
> said, when in fact anything you publish is automatically copyright,
> even with putting a "(C) 2007" next to it, because of the Berne
> convention.
BTW, since the AGW 'tards are clearly trying to dilute this thread
with irrelevant posts and breaking up this post into other threads and
cross-posts to political groups, see what Roger Coppock is doing to
this thread elsewhere (you can tell it's getting under their skin,
from their tactics), the above should read "even withOUT putting a
'(C) 2007' next to it", as should be obvious.
Now, let's start discussing the science of this original post.
You cannot argue with the facts that further research is needed. The
authors themselves point out the weakest part of their paper, and
suggest why it's not so weak in fact (keywords "HOWEVER"):
from the paper:
"
Admittedly, AVHRR is not an instrument designed for accurate aerosol
retrievals from space. Among the remaining uncertainties is radiance
calibration, which, if inaccurate, can result in spurious aerosol
tendencies. Similarly, substantial systematic changes in the aerosol
single scattering albedo or the ocean reflectance can be
misinterpreted in terms of AOT variations.
However, the successful validation of GACP retrievals
using precise sun photometer data taken from 1983 through 2004 (8, 9)
indicates that the ISCCP radiance calibration is likely to be
reliable. This conclusion is reinforced by the close correspondence
of
calculated and observed TOA solar fluxes (4). Furthermore, the GACP
AOT record appears to be self-consistent, with no drastic
intrasatellite variations, and is consistent with the SAGE record.
"
RL
Toxic...@exxon-turds.info
Toxic...@exxon-turds.info
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
> Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
> > > raylope...@yahoo.com says...
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
> Eric Swanson <swan...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote:
> > In article <1hvjx4j.fdjllo1kcgpriN%pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk>,
> > >> > raylope...@yahoo.com says...
Joe Fischer
>As opposed to borrow-and-spend "conservatives"?
Calculate the compounded interest at 6 or 7 percent
on the 255 Billion cost of WWII, and you will see why there
has been borrowing ever since.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>He fancies himself as a copyright lawyer, just as Roger Crappock
>thinks he's a genius for publishing "Software Copyrights" as he once
>said, when in fact anything you publish is automatically copyright,
>even with putting a "(C) 2007" next to it, because of the Berne
>convention. Hardly takes a genius to do that--witness the idiots
>posting here. So in fact this original post of mine is "copyright",
>but just because somebody else quotes it (as Err-Hick did) doesn't
>make him liable for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement
>only works if you repost a commercial work again for profit, without
>permission, but even then it's sometimes not a problem.
>RL
It is not a good idea to believe that, newsgroups or,
the internet web, unless you can cite the applicable law.
In printed publications, it is copyright violation to
copy and give away free, obviously, copy means copy,
it doesn't mean "copy for profit".
Why post a complete article, when the link may
provide pretty pictures, graph or chart images, or other
browser capable visual spectaculars.
Fair use only means portions of text, as a
sample or example, which can benefit the original
author, as well as the public interest.
Joe Fischer
Invasion of the Crackpots
Eric Swanson
Your memory is a bit clouded, old man.
The national debt was about $1 Billion when Carter left office, but
jumped to $4 Billion after Reagan and Bush the First. It's now almost
$9 Billion.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Joe Fischer
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>In article <nl7e03lgt87iss80s...@4ax.com>, j...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk (Peter B. P.) wrote:
>>>As opposed to borrow-and-spend "conservatives"?
>>
>> Calculate the compounded interest at 6 or 7 percent
>>on the 255 Billion cost of WWII, and you will see why there
>>has been borrowing ever since.
>
>Your memory is a bit clouded, old man.
>The national debt was about $1 Billion when Carter left office, but
>jumped to $4 Billion after Reagan and Bush the First. It's now almost
>$9 Billion.
>
>http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Sure, Reagan was to blame for the 20 percent interest
in effect when Carter left office.
I am not saying that any president is responsible
along the way, just that the debt is about equal to the
interest on the borrowing to pay for World War Two.
There is a big problem now in the federal budget,
the labor department keeps publishing numbers for new
jobs and total employed, but the number of tax returns
are not reflecting those big increases in number of
employed since 1992.
I don't blame young people for being unhappy
with the deficit and debt, because there are not as
many of them as there could have been if not for
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> BTW, since the AGW 'tards are clearly trying to dilute this thread
> with irrelevant posts and breaking up this post into other threads and
> cross-posts to political groups, see what Roger Coppock is doing to
> this thread elsewhere (you can tell it's getting under their skin,
> from their tactics), the above should read "even withOUT putting a
> '(C) 2007' next to it", as should be obvious.
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than increases in greenhouse gases.
---
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Recent observations of downward solar radiation fluxes at Earth's
> surface have shown a recovery from the previous decline known as
> global "dimming" (1), with the
> 'brightening" beginning around 1990 (2). The increasing amount of
> sunlight at the surface profoundly affects climate and may represent
> certain diminished counterbalances to greenhouse gas warming, thereby
> making the warming trend more evident during the past decade.
This article concerns itself not with an increase in solar output but with
the amount of light reaching the surface of the earth as affedted by
particulates in the atmosphere that absorb or reflect sunlight back into
space.
Basically it finds evidence for slightly different particulate
distributions than the generally accepted values, and suggest that
corrections might be applied to make the GCModels more accurate. It's
caviat is that the satellite data that it is based upon is not really
suitable for making the measurements they claim were made and various
corrections will need to be added to the corrections they propose.
Nothing much of consequence here.
Souls Black as Coal
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:28:34 +0000 (UTC), swan...@NoScrewingAround.net
>
>
>
> (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >In article <nl7e03lgt87iss80s3prnsjp1e4nkfi...@4ax.com>, j...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin steve.schu...@nuclear.com said:
> > I only believe what Ray says because it's what I want to hear.
> > If a couple of attention starved fringe scientists say what I like
> > I'll suck it up like so much bullshit
I wouldn't be surprised if that's Hick's take on what I actually
said,
but the words are his, not mine.
> A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
> Englands
> foremost Science Establishment
> Misleading arguments 4.
> -----------------------
> The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
> gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
> of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
> the climate.
> Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
> than increases in greenhouse gases.
> About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
> eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. ...
Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes
to changes in temperature measured at the surface? I do, and the
paper
Ray highlights in this thread adds to understanding some of the data
available to assess the changes.
> .... Much of the solar
> energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
> radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
> vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. ...
If I may quibble here, the statement that "some" of the outgoing
infrared is absorbed by GHGs is an example of understatement. Most of
the outgoing infrared gets absorbed in first 100 meters of
atmosphere,
and even doubling the concentration of CO2 doesn't increase the
amount
absorbed very much [Ref: Jack Barrett, "Greenhouse molecules, their
spectra and function in the atmosphere", Energy & Environment 16(6):
1037-1045, 2005].
> ... The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
> over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
> warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
> greenhouse effect'.
> Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
> enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It
> has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
> radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
> dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than
> half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
It is interesting that the Royal Society document emphasizes the
"more
than half" attribution language of the IPCC 2001 report, as if it
were
the product of the more scientific part of the IPCC process. But the
fact is that it was the WG1 plenary meeting where this
characterization of "most" was substituted for the more vague
attribution of "much" of the warming that was used in the draft
submitted to the plenary. A news article in Nature provided details
on
this switch from "much" to "most" [Nature 412:112-114, 2001]
The question of whether anthropogenic-enhanced greenhouse effect will
be significant (even if CO2 levels rise in line with the worst
assumptions of the IPCC modeling), remains an open one as best I can
tell. Oh, I know there's lots of folks, including some eminent
scientists, who have long ago concluded that the science is settled
enough to warrant drastic change. The evidence they cite, however,
has
never come close to settling the science. There was a Dr. Tobis who
posted regularly on sci.environment. His Ph.D. was in climatology,
and
he was working on a project with a group of paleoclimate researchers.
He described the pillars underlying the science quite matter-of-
factly. It was interesting how quickly he backed off from at least
one
particular he cited as evidence, but that didn't change his
conclusions. He started up a moderated forum, and I suspect he's more
comfortable in such a venue.
An abundant number of particles have much different effect than
described here. And the net effect of all particles is another one of
those open questions, despite the oh so matter-of-factly stated claim
in the Royal Society document. For example, soot particles do indeed
absorb solar radiation. This tends to have a cooling effect on the
surface during the daytime, but a warming effect on the surface at
night (and a warming effect on the atmosphere at all times). Based on
his modeling work, Jacobson of Stanford estimated that the net
forcing
of soot is positive, and that the magnitude may be greater than the
negative forcing of about 8 Wm-2 due to sulphate aerosols as
represented by the modeling used to produce IPCC's projections in
1995
and 2001 report. This paper of Jacobson explicitly did not consider
the effect of soot after being deposited on surface. This latter
effect by itself has since been studied by Hansen and Nazarnko, and
by
Jacobson too. Hansen and Nazarenko's paper in Proceedings of National
Academies of Science reported that just one aspect of such deposited
soot may be responsible for as much as 25% of global surface
temperature trends in recent decades. They were modeling the effect
of
change in surface albedo due to soot being deposited on northern ice
and snow. Jacobson later reported that Hansen and Nazarenko may have
underestimated the forcing involved.
> The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
> likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
> variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
> factors, both natural and human, into account.
Well, its true enough that the 2001 IPCC report pointed to modeling
that showed rather good fit with surface data when "natural +
anthropogenic" forcings were considered. But what happens to that
nice
fit when you add consideration of the soot, both atmospheric and
deposited? And what happens when you consider that outgoing longwave
increased over the tropics in recent period as reported by Wielicki
et
al. and Chen et al.? They noted that state-of-the-art models did not
show the variation or the trend that was apparent in the
observational
data. And the magnitude of the trend represented more radiative
forcing in less than 20 years from this change than IPCC's estimate
of
the combined forcing of all anthropogenic GHGs since dawn of
industrial age. At best, the good fit IPCC embraces based on woefully
incomplete method is coincidental. And BTW, when IPCC says "natural",
the only metric they're using for solar change is "total solar
irradiance". There is much more to solar output than captured by the
TSI data, and to claim to have sorted out the effects of changes you
don't even have measurements for seems silly to me. A blue-ribbon
panel assembled by US National Research Council discussed this in
their 2005 report -- see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=52
-- "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and
Addressing Uncertainties".
> Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
> contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
> cooling effect by increasing the
> reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
> radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect
> of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
> cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
> latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
> noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
> changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
Some post-TAR work, including work published by Royal Society itself,
points to net land use change forcing as a warming influence. The
lead
author of one such paper estimated that the forcing from land use has
already exceeded the estimated Wm-2 generally expected from a
doubling
of CO2 concentration.
> The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
> part of
> the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
> decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot
> explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
> concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
> report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an
> overall drop in global average temperatures.
Well, as mentioned before, the only "natural" factors they considered
were volcanos and TSI. An Argentinian solar physicist named Silvia
Duhau has concluded that changes in coronal mass ejections acounts
for
70% of the recent warming. Her graph of three variables is every bit
as close a match to surface temperature record as the one shown by
IPCC, and she doesn't give CO2 or aerosol change any weight.Googling
for her name in sci.environment archives will show references and
links to her post-TAR work.
> A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
> that
> the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
> when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
> concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
> sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
> climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
> variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
> warming during the past three decades".
As best I recall, Solanki gave zero consideration to coronal mass
ejections, zero consideration to changes in Earth's magnetic field,
zero consideration to change in -LOD, and zero consideration to
changes in various solar irradiance spectra other than TSI. A new
satellite launched in recent months has started providing spectral
data. This is a major improvement in the monitoring of solar output,
and any folks who claim the science is already settled are surely
expressing more about their philosophy than about the science.
Lloyd
> On Mar 25, 8:55 am, "Steve Schulin" <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> > What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> > about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> > as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
>
> Correct Steve. Since Usenet postings are not for profit, nearly
> anything you post here is fair use.
>
That's not what copyright law says. You can publish excerpts of the
article, but not the entire article. Universities got into similar
trouble some years back for making copies of copyrighted material for
students -- it doesn't matter that the university is nonprofit. The
issue is the copyright holder has control of the material.
raylopez99
> On 25 Mar 2007 "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >He fancies himself as a copyright lawyer, just as Roger Crappock
> >thinks he's a genius for publishing "Software Copyrights" as he once
> >said, when in fact anything you publish is automatically copyright,
> >even with putting a "(C) 2007" next to it, because of the Berne
> >convention. Hardly takes a genius to do that--witness the idiots
> >posting here. So in fact this original post of mine is "copyright",
> >but just because somebody else quotes it (as Err-Hick did) doesn't
> >make him liable for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement
> >only works if you repost a commercial work again for profit, without
> >permission, but even then it's sometimes not a problem.
> >RL
>
> It is not a good idea to believe that, newsgroups or,
> the internet web, unless you can cite the applicable law.
>
> In printed publications, it is copyright violation to
> copy and give away free, obviously, copy means copy,
> it doesn't mean "copy for profit".
That's what the law says, as I recall a lawyer telling me.
> Fair use only means portions of text, as a
> sample or example, which can benefit the original
> author, as well as the public interest.
>
I doubt original author is a factor. You have a cite for that?
RL
raylopez99
wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote
Hey VD--you're the first person in over 30 replies to address the
original article; thanks I guess.
I think the hypothesis behind the article, if upheld upon further
inquiry, could be revolutionary, since it would find that the jump in
temperature the last 16 years is due to particulate distributions
rather than "unstoppable global warming due to greenhouse gases".
I think we all agree: further research is warranted. Not action.
RL
raylopez99
>
> As best I recall, Solanki gave zero consideration to coronal mass
> ejections, zero consideration to changes in Earth's magnetic field,
> zero consideration to change in -LOD, and zero consideration to
> changes in various solar irradiance spectra other than TSI. A new
> satellite launched in recent months has started providing spectral
> data. This is a major improvement in the monitoring of solar output,
> and any folks who claim the science is already settled are surely
> expressing more about their philosophy than about the science.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Steve Schulin http://www.nuclear.com
Thanks for that deep showing of erudition Steve. Indeed it seems that
the GW models need more tweaking, and that particulates are the wild
card that could tip the balance away from catastrophic GW, as
particulates could be net cooling, and human activity is always
increasing the number of particulates.
But the central lesson I got from the paper is that further research
is needed.
Research first, action later.
RL
raylopez99
That's not true Fudge, I mean Lloyd, Packer.
The Fair Use defense of copyright law is governed by a four factor
test. The four factor test is found here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Read it carefully Fudge Packer. Note factor #3 that you love is but
one of four factors (and a relatively minor one at that). In this
newsgroup, factors #2 and #4 are much more important (the Science
article was not entertainment, and the market for Science is not
affected by reprinting here since most people reading this newsgroup
don't have the money to buy Science anyway--the few that do already
subscribe or can access it for free at the university).
Care to comment on the substance of the original post Packer? Or do
you still want to play an incompetent Perry Mason?
RL
Joe Fischer
>I doubt original author is a factor. You have a cite for that?
>RL
Laws are drafted the same way legal contracts are,
some tangible benefit to both parties.
Patent law requires that the details of an invention
be made patently obvious to the public, and in return, the
inventor is given the right to sue any infringer for a period
of 17 or 20 years from a starting date (now, provided he
pays through the nose the maintenance fees).
Copyright law gives the author or owner the
right to sue any infringer for a very long time, but gives
the public the right to examine part of the works in
order to decide to buy it (through 'fair use").
But sooner or later the copyright runs out,
and anybody can publish it, provided no other laws
prohibit it, as in images of the likeness of a person.
The copyrights of all works published in
the USA prior to 1923 are expired, and some works
published before 1963 are public domain if not renewed,
and there are other conditions for some years after that.
So to avoid any possible need to appear in
court, it is a good idea to play it safe.
Joe Fischer
raylopez99
>
> So to avoid any possible need to appear in
> court, it is a good idea to play it safe.
>
> Joe Fischer
Thanks for that deep insight Joe.
Now to avoid this thread from being cross-posted to misc.intellectual-
property.law, does anybody besides VD want to comment on the SCIENCE
behind the original paper?
I think it's quite revolutionary, if it can be further proved to be
true.
RL
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Now to avoid this thread from being cross-posted to misc.intellectual-
> property.law, does anybody besides VD want to comment on the SCIENCE
> behind the original paper?
This article concerns itself not with an increase in solar output but with
the amount of light reaching the surface of the earth as affedted by
particulates in the atmosphere that absorb or reflect sunlight back into
space.
Basically it finds evidence for slightly different particulate
distributions than the generally accepted values, and suggest that
corrections might be applied to make the GCModels more accurate. It's
caviat is that the satellite data that it is based upon is not really
suitable for making the measurements they claim were made and various
corrections will need to be added to the corrections they propose.
Nothing much of consequence here.
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I think the hypothesis behind the article, if upheld upon further
> inquiry, could be revolutionary, since it would find that the jump in
> temperature the last 16 years is due to particulate distributions
> rather than "unstoppable global warming due to greenhouse gases".
It's a small correction (if at all) in what is already known to be true.
Particularly with sulphate emissions back in the 40's to 70's. and their
observed reduction in global temperatures.
Darker suspended particulates will primarily alter the temperature of the
higher levels of the atmosphere, and will have very little effect over
surface temps.
Robert Grumbine
Joe Fischer <j...@anywhere.but> wrote:
[trim]
> But sooner or later the copyright runs out,
>and anybody can publish it, provided no other laws
>prohibit it, as in images of the likeness of a person.
>
> The copyrights of all works published in
>the USA prior to 1923 are expired, and some works
>published before 1963 are public domain if not renewed,
>and there are other conditions for some years after that.
You might want to catch up on copyright law more recent
than the early 1980s. The US signed the Bern Convention
on copyright in the 80s. Among many other things, the
renewal requirement was dropped.
The 'sooner or later' turns out to be very much later indeed
now. The 1923 is quite possibly not true either.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Joe Fischer
>In article <81lg03ljqvgr4fu78...@4ax.com>,
>Joe Fischer <j...@anywhere.but> wrote:
>> But sooner or later the copyright runs out,
>>and anybody can publish it, provided no other laws
>>prohibit it, as in images of the likeness of a person.
>>
>> The copyrights of all works published in
>>the USA prior to 1923 are expired, and some works
>>published before 1963 are public domain if not renewed,
>>and there are other conditions for some years after that.
>
> You might want to catch up on copyright law more recent
>than the early 1980s. The US signed the Bern Convention
>on copyright in the 80s. Among many other things, the
>renewal requirement was dropped.
I am up to date, I need to be because I occasionally
publish works by others.
> The 'sooner or later' turns out to be very much later indeed
>now. The 1923 is quite possibly not true either.
Yes, after Sonny Bono made sure his kids will
get royalties all their life.
But 1922 is the year where all copyrights are
expired ___IN THE USA___, except some likenesses
of people, or possibly demeaning modification of works
that might give surviving company works a bad name.
And if works before a certain date did not
bear a notice, they may not be in force, but that
is usually too hard to know for sure to bother with.
Joe Fischer
Lloyd
> On Mar 26, 11:42 am, "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 5:14 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 8:55 am, "Steve Schulin" <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > > > > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> > > > What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> > > > about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> > > > as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
>
> > > Correct Steve. Since Usenet postings are not for profit, nearly
> > > anything you post here is fair use.
>
> > That's not what copyright law says. You can publish excerpts of the
> > article, but not the entire article. Universities got into similar
> > trouble some years back for making copies of copyrighted material for
> > students -- it doesn't matter that the university is nonprofit. The
> > issue is the copyright holder has control of the material.
>
> That's not true Fudge, I mean Lloyd, Packer.
>
> The Fair Use defense of copyright law is governed by a four factor
>
> Read it carefully Fudge Packer. Note factor #3 that you love is but
> one of four factors (and a relatively minor one at that). In this
> newsgroup, factors #2 and #4 are much more important (the Science
> article was not entertainment, and the market for Science is not
> affected by reprinting here since most people reading this newsgroup
> don't have the money to buy Science anyway--the few that do already
> subscribe or can access it for free at the university).
>
So it fails #1 -- it wasn't used to create something new.
Fails #3 -- all of the work was taken.
And it fails #4 -- it deprives the copyright holder of income. Sorry,
but there's nothing there about whether the readers are too cheap to
actually buy the work. It undermines the market.
So it fails at least 3 out of 4; it must pass all 4 to be "fair use."
Now look at section C, especially:
Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were
posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church
permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the
borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious
Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
> Care to comment on the substance of the original post Packer? Or do
> you still want to play an incompetent Perry Mason?
>
> RL
I want you to read the entire thing you cited, especially the example
above.
raylopez99
> On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Fair Use defense of copyright law is governed by a four factor
> > test. The four factor test is found http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/...
>
> > Read it carefully Fudge Packer. Note factor #3 that you love is but
> > one of four factors (and a relatively minor one at that). In this
> > newsgroup, factors #2 and #4 are much more important (the Science
> > article was not entertainment, and the market for Science is not
> > affected by reprinting here since most people reading this newsgroup
> > don't have the money to buy Science anyway--the few that do already
> > subscribe or can access it for free at the university).
>
> So it fails #1 -- it wasn't used to create something new.
Yes it is something new--this post, my commentary and others, is new.
> Fails #3 -- all of the work was taken.
Not true, 'tard--the work was part of a larger work (this thread), so
it's a new work.
> And it fails #4 -- it deprives the copyright holder of income. Sorry,
> but there's nothing there about whether the readers are too cheap to
> actually buy the work. It undermines the market.
Not true--damages are zero or if anything favoring me.
Idiot, read the article. Only upon litigation is "Fair Use" found to
be true. Do you think Science will sue me, a subscriber, for
reposting their article on Usenet? What are their damages? Fool,
they just as soon are getting FAVORABLE publicity, and sales will
consequently increase, not decrease, due to whetting of the readers
appetite.
BTW, using your own twisted logic, this thread is copyright, and I
EXPRESSLY FORBID YOU FROM HENCEFORTH QUOTING ANYTHING I WRITE IN THIS
THREAD. DO NOT, I REPEAT PACKER, DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD OR IT'S
A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. i'm serious.
RL
(COPYRIGHT MMVII BY RAYLOPEZ99. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AND LLOYD PARKER
IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN FROM REPUBLISHING THIS THREAD)
raylopez99
wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I think the hypothesis behind the article, if upheld upon further
> > inquiry, could be revolutionary, since it would find that the jump in
> > temperature the last 16 years is due to particulate distributions
> > rather than "unstoppable global warming due to greenhouse gases".
>
> It's a small correction (if at all) in what is already known to be true.
> Particularly with sulphate emissions back in the 40's to 70's. and their
> observed reduction in global temperatures.
Well since you're the only person who'se willing to discuss the
science behind the article, I have to debate you, an idiot. So be it.
The point is not that the article introduces new theory, but, like you
imply, it takes the theory behind particles in GCMs (GW models) and
shows that the putative rapid increase in temperature since 1990 is
not due to increased greenhouse gases, but particulates decreasing.
The _application_ of the theory is radical, not the theory itself. We
all know, as you say, the story of sulphate emissions post WWII.
To simplify, it means the 'hockey stick', to the extent it exists, is
due to particles being removed from the atmosphere, not increased
greenhouse gas emissions by humans.
>
> Darker suspended particulates will primarily alter the temperature of the
> higher levels of the atmosphere, and will have very little effect over
> surface temps.
I don't think this was commented upon by the article. And I don't
think it's even true. Cite? Or move to a separate thread since this
thread has gotten unweldy.
RL
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
> Sure, Reagan was to blame for the 20 percent interest
> in effect when Carter left office.
Nope he's not responsible for those. Reagan is responsible for borrowing
and spending over a trillion dollars to finance his tax cuts for the
wealthiest AmeriKKKans. Setting AmeriKKa on the road to fiscal insolvancey
and collapse.
Well done Mr. Reagan.
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
> I don't blame young people for being unhappy
> with the deficit and debt, because there are not as
> many of them as there could have been if not for
Not for what? Kidnappings by space aliens? Rectal probing? Floridation
of AmeriKKKa's water supply? Chemtrails? Chubacabras? Fatal Exorcisms?
Gun related Homocides? The decline in AmeriKKKan male sperm count?
Feminism? Female hormones in shampoo that soften the testicles of AmeriKKKn
males? Clams?
Curious minds want to know.
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/27/coal_interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action
An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.
"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.
To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist
Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act
Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.
By Rebecca Clarren
Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
story image
March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.
"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."
In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."
Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."
Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.
Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."
In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.
"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."
The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."
Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."
Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.
Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.
One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.
"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."
Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.
"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."
Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.
The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)
Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/bush-administration-rewrite-of-endangered-species-act-regulations-would-gut-protections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections
Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"
Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."
The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.
Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.
"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."
A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.
"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.
According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.
In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.
The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.
The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.
Contact:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25
Vendicar Decarian
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
> surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes
> to changes in temperature measured at the surface?
Of course, and dispite your dishonest implication solar irradience and
particulate coverage is not already incorporated into the Global Circulation
Models, the fact is, that these factors are already included. In fact it is
the inclusion of sulphate areosols that allows the models to accurately
replicate the global temperatrue decline in the 50's.
But you knew that already. So I can only conclude that your exclusive
intent is to decieve.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> I do, and the paper
> Ray highlights in this thread adds to understanding some of the data
> available to assess the changes.
More research will have to be done to see if this minor correction to the
models will have to be included.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> If I may quibble here, the statement that "some" of the outgoing
> infrared is absorbed by GHGs is an example of understatement. Most of
> the outgoing infrared gets absorbed in first 100 meters of
> atmosphere, and even doubling the concentration of CO2 doesn't increase
> the
> amount absorbed very much [Ref: Jack Barrett, "Greenhouse molecules, their
> spectra and function in the atmosphere", Energy & Environment 16(6):
> 1037-1045, 2005].
Doubling the amount of CO2 will half the mean free path an IR photon of
the appropriate frequency takes to escape the atmosphere.
CO2 backscatters IR in a specific range of frequencies. Doubling the
amount of CO2 doubles the probability of backscattering any inividual IR
photon in that frequency range.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> It is interesting that the Royal Society document emphasizes the
> "more than half" attribution language of the IPCC 2001 report, as if it
> were the product of the more scientific part of the IPCC process. But the
> fact is that it was the WG1 plenary meeting where this
> characterization of "most" was substituted for the more vague
> attribution of "much" of the warming that was used in the draft
> submitted to the plenary. A news article in Nature provided details
> on this switch from "much" to "most" [Nature 412:112-114, 2001]
Irrelevant. If you want the precise attributions then they are in the
final report, and if you wish to see them presened graphically they can be
found on this widely distributed plot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
The graphic shows quite nicely that more than half of the forcing is from
CO2 Not surprisingly it also shows that most of the forcing is from CO2,
and also not surprisingly it also shows that much of the forcing is caused
by CO2.
Stupid... Corrupt, Schulin....
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The question of whether anthropogenic-enhanced greenhouse effect will
> be significant (even if CO2 levels rise in line with the worst
> assumptions of the IPCC modeling), remains an open one as best I can
> tell.
That may very well be your opinion. But I would not advise people to
follow the opinion of fools.
The science is very clear. As are the results of the slight warming we
have already experienced.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Oh, I know there's lots of folks, including some eminent
> scientists, who have long ago concluded that the science is settled
> enough to warrant drastic change.
It is the consensus view in the scientific community. As evidenced by the
origin of the very article you are responding to - The Royal Society.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The evidence they cite, however, has never come close to settling the
> science.
That may very well be your own opinion. But I would not advise people to
follow the opinion of fools.
The science is very clear, and settled with the exception of a few Paid
Carbon Industry Shills, and some KKKonservative Political Activists who
can't accept the science on KKKonservative Liedeological grounds.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> There was a Dr. Tobis who
> posted regularly on sci.environment. His Ph.D. was in climatology,
> and he was working on a project with a group of paleoclimate researchers.
> He described the pillars underlying the science quite matter-of-
> factly. It was interesting how quickly he backed off from at least
> one particular he cited as evidence, but that didn't change his
> conclusions. He started up a moderated forum, and I suspect he's more
> comfortable in such a venue.
I suspect he realized that there are fools like yourself who either out of
intellectual poverty or personal corruption will never be convinced.
There are generally only two possible ways of resolving that state. Death
and imprisonment for crimes against humanity.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> An abundant number of particles have much different effect than
> described here. And the net effect of all particles is another one of
> those open questions, despite the oh so matter-of-factly stated claim
> in the Royal Society document.
Why don't you write a scientific paper and enumerate them, their
concentrations, and the magnitude of their effects?
Hell, just do it here.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> For example, soot particles do indeed
> absorb solar radiation. This tends to have a cooling effect on the
> surface during the daytime, but a warming effect on the surface at
> night (and a warming effect on the atmosphere at all times). Based on
> his modeling work, Jacobson of Stanford estimated that the net
> forcing of soot is positive, and that the magnitude may be greater than
> the
> negative forcing of about 8 Wm-2 due to sulphate aerosols as
> represented by the modeling used to produce IPCC's projections in
> 1995 and 2001 report.
Fools flagillate about with every report of supportive or contrarian
evidence and research.
Scientifically Literate people know that the fringes of science are somewhat
chaotic particularly in the field of medical science. So Scientifically
Literate people don't hold up every piece of contrarian research as proof of
anything, particularly when it represents a nuance adjustment to the
pervailing view as the above research does.
However, paid shills often do this for the purpose of creating confusion
among the ignorant.
Is that your purpose Mr. Shulin?
Apparently....
>> The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and
>> their
>> likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
>> variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
>> factors, both natural and human, into account.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Well, its true enough that the 2001 IPCC report pointed to modeling
> that showed rather good fit with surface data when "natural +
> anthropogenic" forcings were considered. But what happens to that
> nice fit when you add consideration of the soot, both atmospheric and
> deposited?
What soot? At what concentration? At what time? You seem quite intent
on manufacturing some kind of issue where none exists.
What is the concentration of this aledged soot? Do you have any
supportive evidence for it's existance at those concentrations? Were direct
measurements taken or is this soot simply presumed to exist? What are the
soot's spectral characteristics and is it observed in any spectroscopic
studies of the atmosphere? What is it's chemical composition and are the
particles observed to be small enough to be self lofting?
If they are small enough to be self lofting, is their existance supported by
any observed tempeature changes in the atmosphere that evolve in height over
time as would be expected.
Is this aledged soot capable of acting as nucleation sites and if so, at
what rate is it washed out of the atmosphere by rain?
There are a lot of questions you need to answer about this potentially
fantasized soot before you can say much about it's effects.
You get back to us now once you have it all figured out.
>> Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
>> contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
>> cooling effect by increasing the
>> reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
>> radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall
>> effect
>> of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
>> cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
>> latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
>> noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
>> changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Some post-TAR work, including work published by Royal Society itself,
> points to net land use change forcing as a warming influence.
Probaly why it is mentioned here.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The lead author of one such paper estimated that the forcing from land use
> has
> already exceeded the estimated Wm-2 generally expected from a
> doubling of CO2 concentration.
That's why meta studies are conducted Mr. Schulin. They weigh the various
results from a variety of works in each area of study and provide a weighted
distribution of the results of the scientific inquiory.
And that's why meta-studies like the IPCC report are of particular value
to clueless laypersons like yourself and so called "policy makers" who just
don't understand the science very well.
>> The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the
>> early
>> part of
>> the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
>> decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors
>> cannot
>> explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
>> concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the
>> warming
>> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
>> report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced
>> an
>> overall drop in global average temperatures.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Well, as mentioned before, the only "natural" factors they considered
> were volcanos and TSI. An Argentinian solar physicist named Silvia
> Duhau has concluded that changes in coronal mass ejections acounts
> for 70% of the recent warming.
Neato: You know there are some AmeriKKKan scientists who believe that
dogs and plants have some psychic link with their owners.
When I was in university I attended a couple of lectures on bell's
inequality in which one professor raised the issue of alternate universes
existing in mirrors. And of course there is the belief among some global
warming denialists like Fred Singer, that one of the moons of Mars is an
alien space craft, and another Warming denialist that he was probably
kidnapped by aliens after he saw a glow in the dark racoon one summer
evening.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Her graph of three variables is every bit as close a match to surface
> temperature record as the one
> shown by IPCC, and she doesn't give CO2 or aerosol change any
> weight.Googling
> for her name in sci.environment archives will show references and
> links to her post-TAR work.
You know, one thing that we learn when we are trained in science is that
correlation without an underlying mechanism is often a result of wishful
thinking and data manipulation - sometimes the result of honest yet biased
choices.
There has been a long history of quackery when it comes to linking solar
cycles to various things like the stock market, personality disorders, sex
selection during pregnancy, the height of skirts etc.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> As best I recall, Solanki gave zero consideration to coronal mass
> ejections, zero consideration to changes in Earth's magnetic field,
> zero consideration to change in -LOD, and zero consideration to
> changes in various solar irradiance spectra other than TSI.
And zero consideration to alien invasion, the effects of additional
spatial dimentions, the frog population of Australia and the average height
of women's skirts.
I await your most sincere efforts at estimating the effects of coronal
mass ejections on the earth. or the slowly deminishing magnetic field. and
the other things.
Write a paper Schulin. Do some calculations and try and get it published
in Nature. They are honest guys and will give your paper all due
consideration. Science has a long history of being conducted by amatures
such as yourself. and some quacks too.
I remember reading a paper when I was in grade 10 - quite a long time ago,
written in some science journal - now forgotten, by a scientist who claimed
that he had proof/disproof of some aspect of the kennedy assassination on
the basis of his analysis of frames of the Zapruder film.
Specifically he claimed that by looking at the frames, and the movement of
the flag on the front of the car, he could conclude something about the
number of bullets fired from the effect of the compression wave on the flag.
I found that to be improbable, so after a couple of trips to the library
and some research to find the weight and muzzle velocity of the gun used to
kill Kennedy, I computed the energy contained in the compression wave that
was present - considering the geometry of the book repository and speed of
the automobile, - in the compression wave that was associated with the
bullet in question.
Then I computed the maximum displacement of the flag as the comrpression
wave passed through it, and found it to be at least an order of magnitude
too small to be visible on the film.
I got an A+ for the analysis. and learned that even individual experts are
often wrong.
Later in high school, I found at least half a dozen pretty major errors in
my textbooks, and then in university found some rather odd opinions and
statements coming from professors who should have known better.
As an adult, I know why this happens, and know that the consensus view is
much more stable, as it negates the reandom errors made by individuals.
Apparently this is a lesson that you have never learned.
Or perhaps it is a lesson that you have learned and now something you wish
to exploit for your own dishonest political purposes.
Lets be honet with each other shall we?
We both know that your purpose here is a dishonest one. That's why you are
here. To sow the seads of doubt in the minds of the semi-literate.
Vendicar Decarian
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote Nothing but Propaganda....
Meanwhile...
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
raylopez99
wrote:
> "Joe Fischer" wrote in message
> > I don't blame young people for being unhappy
> > with the deficit and debt, because there are not as
> > many of them as there could have been if not for
>
> Not for what? Kidnappings by space aliens? Rectal probing? Floridation
> of AmeriKKKa's water supply? Chemtrails? Chubacabras? Fatal Exorcisms?
> Gun related Homocides? The decline in AmeriKKKan male sperm count?
> Feminism? Female hormones in shampoo that soften the testicles of AmeriKKKn
> males? Clams?
>
> Curious minds want to know.
Seems you are a bit curious VD. Bi-curious maybe? Equipment
problem? BTW the BBC has a speculative article today (http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6496977.stm) about how excessive beef
intake during pregnancy will result in lower sperm count for
boys...something about the steroids fed to beef cattle.
RL
Steve Schulin
It's a great honor to be elected to the Board of the AAAS. No
expertise in climate science is required, however. When they mention
that their conclusions reflect, for example, the IPCC's, I note that
IPCC has a poor track record on presenting info as policy-relevant.
The first IPCC report said the correlation between CO2 and temperature
proxy in ice core was policy-relevant. They dropped that claim, and
recent NAS paleoclimate proxy expert panel stressed that paleodata is
pretty much irrelevant to what's happening today. The third IPCC
report presented the hockey stick, complete with scientific-looking
error bars, as policy-relevant. That same NAS panel came to a
strikingly different conclusion about the depiction of uncertainty. So
when the AAAS Board jumps on the climate alarm bandwagon, welll, it's
best to remember that they're mainly just illustrious passengers. It's
possible that even you, VD, have a better understanding of climate
science than the majority of the AAAS Board put together.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
hanson
news:1175095241.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> VenDickArse DickArian aka VD Scott Nudds scuttled his Nutts and
>>wrote Nothing but Propaganda....
>> Meanwhile...
>
> It's a great honor to be elected to the Board of the AAAS. No
> expertise in climate science is required, however. When they mention
> that their conclusions reflect, for example, the IPCC's, I note that
> IPCC has a poor track record on presenting info as policy-relevant.
> The first IPCC report said the correlation between CO2 and temperature
> proxy in ice core was policy-relevant. They dropped that claim, and
> recent NAS paleoclimate proxy expert panel stressed that paleodata is
> pretty much irrelevant to what's happening today. The third IPCC
> report presented the hockey stick, complete with scientific-looking
> error bars, as policy-relevant. That same NAS panel came to a
> strikingly different conclusion about the depiction of uncertainty. So
> when the AAAS Board jumps on the climate alarm bandwagon, welll, it's
> best to remember that they're mainly just illustrious passengers. It's
> possible that even you, VD, have a better understanding of climate
> science than the majority of the AAAS Board put together.
> Very truly,
> Steve Schulin
> http://www.nuclear.com
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
raylopez99
> > (http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
>
> It's a great honor to be elected to the Board of the AAAS. No
> expertise in climate science is required, however. When they mention
> that their conclusions reflect, for example, the IPCC's, I note that
> IPCC has a poor track record on presenting info as policy-relevant.
> The first IPCC report said the correlation between CO2 and temperature
> proxy in ice core was policy-relevant. They dropped that claim, and
> recent NAS paleoclimate proxy expert panel stressed that paleodata is
> pretty much irrelevant to what's happening today. The third IPCC
> report presented the hockey stick, complete with scientific-looking
> error bars, as policy-relevant. That same NAS panel came to a
> strikingly different conclusion about the depiction of uncertainty. So
> when the AAAS Board jumps on the climate alarm bandwagon, welll, it's
> best to remember that they're mainly just illustrious passengers. It's
> possible that even you, VD, have a better understanding of climate
> science than the majority of the AAAS Board put together.
>
> Very truly,
>
> Steve Schulin http://www.nuclear.com
Thanks Steve. I appreciate your comments and if you could incorporate
more of your comments on your website it would be very helpful.
Thanks for hanging out here--you're one of the few people who I find
informative (there are others too, and some of them are strong AGW
advocates, even Roger Coppock is helpful on occasion, LOL)
RL
Steve Schulin
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
> > surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes
> > to changes in temperature measured at the surface?
>
> Of course, and dispite your dishonest implication solar irradience and
> particulate coverage is not already incorporated into the Global Circulation
I respectfully disagree that I implied any such thing, here or
elsewhere. I note that your snipping of the context of my reply makes
your comment seem more reasonable than would otherwise be the case.
The dishonest one here is clearly you.
> ... the fact is, that these factors are already included. In fact it is
> the inclusion of sulphate areosols that allows the models to accurately
> replicate the global temperatrue decline in the 50's.
>
> But you knew that already. So I can only conclude that your exclusive
> intent is to decieve.
Well, that's another example showing that an education doesn't prevent
one from jumping to wrongful conclusions.
>
>
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > I do, and the paper
> > Ray highlights in this thread adds to understanding some of the data
> > available to assess the changes.
>
> More research will have to be done to see if this minor correction to the
> models will have to be included.
What correction are you referring to?
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > If I may quibble here, the statement that "some" of the outgoing
> > infrared is absorbed by GHGs is an example of understatement. Most of
> > the outgoing infrared gets absorbed in first 100 meters of
> > atmosphere, and even doubling the concentration of CO2 doesn't increase
> > the
> > amount absorbed very much [Ref: Jack Barrett, "Greenhouse molecules, their
> > spectra and function in the atmosphere", Energy & Environment 16(6):
> > 1037-1045, 2005].
>
> Doubling the amount of CO2 will half the mean free path an IR photon of
> the appropriate frequency takes to escape the atmosphere.
That's a very artfully worded comment. How many of the IR photons do
you contend are of the appropriate frequency? As described in the
Barrett paper I cited, there is a significant overlap of absorption
bands. Here's how he puts it, using values for first 100 meters of
atmosphere above the Earth's surface: "If the concentration of CO2
were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in
absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same
doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only
0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present.
Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the
atmosphere gives rise to some skepticism."
> CO2 backscatters IR in a specific range of frequencies. Doubling the
> amount of CO2 doubles the probability of backscattering any inividual IR
> photon in that frequency range.
I respectfully disagree. 90% of non-window energy photons already get
absorbed in first 100 meters of atmosphere. 99% already get absorbed
in first 200 meters. Did you work for Enron accounting dept? Your
notion of being able to double something that's already more than half
depleted reminds me of that organization. And Enron was quite active
in promoting CO2 controls too -- the carbon-trading market idea was
about as close to creating profits out of thin air as can be.
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > It is interesting that the Royal Society document emphasizes the
> > "more than half" attribution language of the IPCC 2001 report, as if it
> > were the product of the more scientific part of the IPCC process. But the
> > fact is that it was the WG1 plenary meeting where this
> > characterization of "most" was substituted for the more vague
> > attribution of "much" of the warming that was used in the draft
> > submitted to the plenary. A news article in Nature provided details
> > on this switch from "much" to "most" [Nature 412:112-114, 2001]
>
> Irrelevant. If you want the precise attributions then they are in the
> final report, and if you wish to see them presened graphically they can be
> found on this widely distributed plot...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
>
> The graphic shows quite nicely that more than half of the forcing is from
> CO2 Not surprisingly it also shows that most of the forcing is from CO2,
> and also not surprisingly it also shows that much of the forcing is caused
> by CO2.
>
> Stupid... Corrupt, Schulin....
The less than 3 Wm-2 of forcing, calculated as resulting from all
anthropogenic GHG emissions since dawn of industrial age, has long
been considered to be climate driver by the consensus crowd. So why is
not not the even greater recent change in Wm-2, calculated as
resulting from observed increase in outgoing longwave over the tropics
just during satellite era, not crowned as new king of the climate
driver candidates? The findings by Chen et al. and Wielicki et al.
were published in 2002. Have you noticed any of the modeling groups
reporting that their models can now simulate the magnitude of observed
variability and trend in outgoing longwave?
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > The question of whether anthropogenic-enhanced greenhouse effect will
> > be significant (even if CO2 levels rise in line with the worst
> > assumptions of the IPCC modeling), remains an open one as best I can
> > tell.
>
> That may very well be your opinion. But I would not advise people to
> follow the opinion of fools.
> The science is very clear. As are the results of the slight warming we
> have already experienced.
Well, I must admit that corresponding with you does seem like a fool's
errand at times. I think I'll take a break, bub
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
Steve Schulin
Hi Ray -
Thanks for the complements and suggestion. You'll love the lead story
added last night on main page at nuclear.com
Best wishes,
Steve
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
Earth Party"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/opinion/main2608369.shtml
The GOP Vs. Global Warming
The New Republic: Why Are Republicans More Skeptical, Even As Evidence
Grows?
(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Chait. Last
year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and
House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the
respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year
since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount
of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide,
finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90
percent.
So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results?
Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been
proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans
are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional
testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from
GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on
global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax
cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader,
it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected
Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just
tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them
are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-
Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the
Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his
relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of
GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry
has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the
last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of
hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the
thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course,
neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend
to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a
tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming
professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect
example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming,
or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution.
Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty
clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate
science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore
as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their
thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted
aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that
Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John
Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that
humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican
refused and was denied a seat.
Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.,
both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee.
Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this
case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican
researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global
warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global
warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood
lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative
figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank
and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the
Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the
phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming
understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their
favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral
element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on
global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The
technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case
for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you
couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is
perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah,
Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to
those hippies!
By Jonathan Chait
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's
top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and
analysis.
Vendicar Decarian
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Nothing of Consequence.
Meanwhile...
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Essays on Science and Society
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.
References and Notes
A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:
nore...@ucsd.edu
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Vendicar Decarian
>> "Joe Fischer" wrote in message
>> > I don't blame young people for being unhappy
>> > with the deficit and debt, because there are not as
>> > many of them as there could have been if not for
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Not for what? Kidnappings by space aliens? Rectal probing?
>> Floridation
>> of AmeriKKKa's water supply? Chemtrails? Chubacabras? Fatal Exorcisms?
>> Gun related Homocides? The decline in AmeriKKKan male sperm count?
>> Feminism? Female hormones in shampoo that soften the testicles of
>> AmeriKKKn
>> males? Clams?
>>
>> Curious minds want to know.
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Seems you are a bit curious VD. Bi-curious maybe?
Sorry Lopez, If I've told you once, I've told you 1000 times, I'm not
interested in taning any part in fulfilling your homo-erotic sexual
fantasies.
I would suggest that if you really do want to have another man fuck your
ass, then just go to any local gay bar and allow yourself to get picked up.
If you specifically want a threesome with a woman, and another man, you
might have to do some checking in the personal ads of your local newspaper,
or a join a swingers club.
Do you have a wife/girlfriend and have you talked to her about your
homosexual desires? If so, then she might be in a better position to
procure a man for your pleasure, presuming she is understanding, or curious
about getting Double Penetrateed.
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> BTW the BBC has a speculative article today (http://
> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6496977.stm) about how excessive beef
> intake during pregnancy will result in lower sperm count for
> boys...something about the steroids fed to beef cattle.
Yes, it may explain the lowered sperm count in AmeriKKKan men, and prehaps
in part explain the origin of your homo-erotic fantasies.
On a personal note, I don't think you should feel any shame for having
your homosexual tendencies Lopez. Your preference is of no concern to me.
But I would appreciate you not hitting on me again. You see, I'm
essentially a vegetarian so I don't suffer from the same eposure to gender
bending chemicals that meat eating and meat sucking AmeriKKKan men do.
Vendicar Decarian
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> It's a great honor to be elected to the Board of the AAAS. No
> expertise in climate science is required, however.
True. Global warming is now supported by the conesnsus view of Science,
not just Climate Scientists.
The more scientists look, the more evidence they find. Support for the
observation of Global Warming is now quite cross diciplinary, particularly
with the biological sciences, and less so with epidemiological researchers,
glacioligists, those involved in Earth Sensing, Oceanographers,
Astrophysicists, Solar Physicists, and of course a lot of expertise support
from the chemists, physicists, and mathematicians.
Time series analysis performed well over 20 years ago by one particular
applied mathematician I remember reading showed clear signs of Global
Climate Change. Specifically Warming. His chosen method was to look at the
proxy dates available for the arrival time of winter and spring weather.
No you don't have to be a climatologist to be the head of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. But then the AAAS statement
isn't a statement from the head of the AAAS, it is a statement that reflects
the opinion of it's membership which includes members from all of the above
subcategories of science, all of which have provided supportive evidence
confirming the reality and anthropogenic origin of the observed warming.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> I note that IPCC has a poor track record on presenting info as
> policy-relevant.
A rather meaningless statement. Relevant to who's policy? Certainly not
the current administration policy of don't ask, don't tell, just employ
shills like Steve Schulin to create uncertainty. In Bush's case by directly
altering the reports of government scientists. In your case by
deliberately misrepresenting the statements of scientists, and through the
raising of irrelevant yet leading questions regarding that research.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The first IPCC report said the correlation between CO2 and temperature
> proxy in ice core was policy-relevant.
Actually, I don't remember any such comment in the first report. Can you
quote where this is said? Page number please.
And again what do you mean by "policy relevant". Who's policy?
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> They dropped that claim, and recent NAS paleoclimate proxy expert panel
> stressed that paleodata is pretty much irrelevant to what's happening
> today.
Paleoclimate data is relevant for setting the baseline conditions
divergence from which illustrates change, that is either within historic
norms or not.
In the 80's when surface temperaturs were lower, there was a legitimate
question over weather the temperature excursion being seen was man made. In
short, the signal being seen was smaller than the noise floor.
This is no longer the case, and as a result the PaleoClimate data has less
significance than it did earlier.
Are you suggesting that each IPCC report include the complete text of
earlier reports so that they don't happen to exclude something said in
earlier reports lest it be considered a false statement or an overturned
realism?
If that is the case, I immediately note that you have not reaffirmed the
existance of your family in your post. Are we to conclude from this
"dropped statement" as you put it, that you no longer have a family?
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The third IPCC report presented the hockey stick, complete with
> scientific-looking
> error bars, as policy-relevant.
The latest IPCC report contains that plot and 8 additional "hockey stick"
plot variants from other temperature constructions.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> That same NAS panel came to a strikingly different conclusion about the
> depiction of uncertainty.
Yes. They affirm the Hockey stick shape of the data, but find that the
error bars were somewhat too small for their likeing. The NAS report states
that the analysis preformed was competent, and among the best possible for
it's time, and that none of the reviewers would in any way be concerned to
have been part of the authorship of the paper in which it was contained, or
with the plot itself.
You have made a lot of noise about the "hockey stick" graph, and quite
frankly I have never understood why you wish to make such noise over an
issue that is so obviouly a loser for you.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> So when the AAAS Board jumps on the climate alarm bandwagon, welll, it's
> best to remember that they're mainly just illustrious passengers.
No, the board are scientists and researchers as well, no different from
the member scientists
It is clear that you wish to dishonestly paint the statement as if it
comes from non-scientist politicians and not representative of the
membership, but that wouild be nothing more than a lie wouldn't it?
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> It's possible that even you, VD, have a better understanding of climate
> science than the majority of the AAAS Board put together.
Oh, very unlikely they have some neuance informationt in their fields of
speciality that I do no have, and possibly more insite as a result of
contact with their scientific peers.
It is clear that you wish to dishonestly paint the statement as if it
comes from non-scientist politicians and not representative of the
membership, but that wouild be nothing more than a lie wouldn't it?
Now what confuses me the most is why you would continue to issue
anti-warming propaganda in this newsgroup and others, when you know full
well that you have failed in your attempt to cast doubt on the reality of
the science.
The worlds scientists are fully engaged and fully on the anthropogenic
side, so is world public opinion and the opinion of the U.S populace.
The only holdouts are the perpetually ignorant, and the personally
corrupt.
Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
maintain the denialism of Congressional RepubliKKKans?
I have news for you Schulin. They don't read this newsgroup.
Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
sway public opinion in your direction when the majority of the U.S. and
world populace support the view of science?
Did you really expect any different outcome? Science and truth always
wins in the end and that makes your side guaranteed Failure for denying
reality.
Was that your goal? To lose the argument? To be a loser:?
Perhaps you can explain your lack of logic to us....
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Stink tank has accumulated nice nearly $1 million retirement fund for
Singer any time the compliant board decides to bestow it on him. Has
interesting portfolio of stocks donated over the years, looking at
their IRS 990 report forms.
Besides listing three dead guys on it's board of science advisors
(presumably whom have advised by seance for 3, 5 and 7 years now), the
industry puppets on board are interesting.
Board of Science Advisors
* Bruce N. Ames (1928- ) Known tobacco shill on the payroll of
British-American Tobacco. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
Participated in corrupt operation of ICSE in Paris, 2003. George C.
Marshall Inst., CFACT, Reason Foundation, SEPP. Signed Liezieg,
Heidelberg Appeal, OISM petition. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco,
convicted racketeer, front group for science crimes) Science Advisor.
* C.J.F. Böttcher (1915- ) Heidelberg Appeal scam, HAN, ESEF.
Funded by Shell Oil and two Dutch auto front groups, RJ Reyonlds
Tobacco.. Signed Liepzig. Founding member of The Club of Rome often
ridiculed by rightwingers for alarmism.
* Tor Ragnar Gerholm (1925- ) Moonie like Singer, ESEF fraud
operator, signed Leipzig Declaration.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
* Michael J. Higatsberger (1924-2004) Moonie like Singer. Leipzig
Declaration.
* Henry R. Linden (1920s- ) first president of the Gas Research
Institute, received Exxon-sponsored Storch award as far back as 1967.
Leipzig Declaration.
* Sir William Mitchell (1925-2002) Involved in ESEF fraud
organization. Leipzig Declaration.
* William A. Nierenberg (1919-2000) was a member of the Board of
Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute run by tobacco racketeer
Fred Seitz, board member of SEPP. Leipzig Declaration.
* Michel Salomon (1927- ) Corrupt head of ICSE science fraud
operation founded in Paris in 1993, particpant in several Singer fraud
operations. ESEF crook.
* Chauncey Starr (1912- ) founded the 'Electric Power Research
Institute', researching coal power, signed the Leipzig Declaration on
Global Climate Change "As independent scientists concerned with
atmospheric and climate problems ..."
SEPPtic Tank's Board of Directors:
Board of Directors
* S. Fred Singer, (1924- ) President. In a September 24, 1993,
sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research
on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the
American Gas Association. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group
for science crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
* Frederick Seitz,(1911- ) Chairman. Tobacco shill once had his
likeness used for an RJ Reynold Tobacco ad campaign "9 out of 10
Doctors prefer Camels". Received over $660,000 (on the books, under
the table?) from RJR convicted racketeers over 16 years. Headed George
C. Marshall crime organization. Participated in multiple Singer frauds
since 1993. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group for science
crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=367
* Charles Gelman, (1931- ) Super kook, fined $1 million dollars,
plus $4 million clean-up for 1,4-dioxane pollution from his factory.
Sued and attacked environmentalist who made him clean up his mess.
* David L. Hill (1919- ) (officially replaced in 2000 by Mark M.
Brandsdorfer [14] although the 990 form for 1998 already mentioned
Mark Brandsdorfer instead of Mr. Hill) This Mark M. Brandsdorfer,
attorney at law for an organized crime operation:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Singer%20threat.pdf
Sugardaddies to Singer-Seitz-Ames include the Killer Koch Brother of
Koch Industries:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=150
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=159
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=161
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=162
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=93
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=114
kangarooistan
> On Mar 25, 6:26 am, Mono <mono9...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > raylopez99 raylope...@yahoo.com said:> Reproduced below is a paper, published in Science magazine, which
> > > argues that based on at least one set of satellite data (AVHRR), the
> > > sun, not man-made CO2, is responsible for the global warming trend
> > > 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.
>
> > That's a lie because there's no such thing as global warming. It's a
> > scientific impossibility.
>
> Typical Usenet reply. Anybody else?
>
> BTW in the same issue of Science it was pointed out that polar ice,
> especially Greenland ice, survived much hotter temperatures in years
> past without melting and adding to sea level rise. Hence jury still
> out whether or not this ice should be added to expected sea level
> rises in the next 100 years.
>
> RL
29 March 2007
West Antarctic Ice Sheet Gets Climatologists Hot And Bothered
A statement just issued by a gaggle of polar ice scientists has
warned that unless we come to grips with the mechanics of
Antarctica's
ice sheet bump-n-grind; we may face severe and unexpected
consequences
from sea level rise. Specifically, the scientists are referring to
the
West Antarctic ice sheet which contains enough water to lift sea
levels by 70 meters. Importantly, the statement has been signed-off
by
dozens of polar climate experts from both the United States and
Europe, making it difficult to discount.
The statement - issued after a three-day meeting at The University of
Texas at Austin - points out that ice sheet changes are occurring
rapidly in Antarctica and a lack of monitoring facilities means that
frustrated scientists are not getting the full picture of what's
happening.
In part, the document seeks to overturn the lack of consensus that
was
evident in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report in
February (see related articles below). To that end, the scientists
have compiled a number of points that they say represent the new
consensus about what is known about Antarctica's massive ice sheets.
Accord on several of these points has been lacking in the past, so
the
fact that the group are now in agreement marks an important turning
point. The agreed points were:
Both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the
Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last few decades.
Ice thinning is accelerating because melting beneath the ice shelves
is reducing friction, causing the grounded ice sheet to move more
quickly into the ocean.
Oceanic changes have caused the increased ice-shelf melting.
Additionally, recent changes in winds around Antarctica caused by
human influence and/or natural variability may be changing ocean
currents, moving warmer waters under the ice shelves.
The possibility that accelerated melting beneath ice shelves will
lead
to "runaway" thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current
understanding
is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might
happen.
The scientists also noted that surprisingly rapid changes were
occurring in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, a Texas-size region of the
Antarctic Ice Sheet facing the southern Pacific Ocean.
But understanding where all this might lead is next to impossible,
say
the scientists, thanks to a lack of monitoring infrastructure. The
only way to get to grips with the problem, they contend, is to ramp
up
our observational capabilities. They cite lack of satellite
capability, remoteness, a paucity of oceanographic observations and
inadequate continental-scale ice sheet models as the main areas that
need to be addressed.
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Robert Grumbine
kangarooistan <gra...@kangarooistan.com.au> wrote:
>On Mar 26, 12:04 am, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[trim]
>> BTW in the same issue of Science it was pointed out that polar ice,
>> especially Greenland ice, survived much hotter temperatures in years
>> past without melting and adding to sea level rise. Hence jury still
>> out whether or not this ice should be added to expected sea level
>> rises in the next 100 years.
>>
>> RL
>
>29 March 2007
>West Antarctic Ice Sheet Gets Climatologists Hot And Bothered
>
>
> A statement just issued by a gaggle of polar ice scientists has
>warned that unless we come to grips with the mechanics of
>Antarctica's
>ice sheet bump-n-grind; we may face severe and unexpected
>consequences
>from sea level rise. Specifically, the scientists are referring to
>the
>West Antarctic ice sheet which contains enough water to lift sea
>levels by 70 meters.
West Antarctica is worth only 5-6 meters of sea level. It is
_East_ Antarctica which accounts for the bulk of the 70 meters
potential sea level change.
[trim]
>Accord on several of these points has been lacking in the past, so
>the
>fact that the group are now in agreement marks an important turning
>point. The agreed points were:
>
>Both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the
>Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last few decades.
This is in West Antarctica (Antarctic Peninsula region)
>The scientists also noted that surprisingly rapid changes were
>occurring in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, a Texas-size region of the
>Antarctic Ice Sheet facing the southern Pacific Ocean.
For Texas-size ice shelf off the Pacific, you have to mean the
Ross Ice Shelf, not the much much smaller Amundsen.
[trim]
You don't give the source for the article, but it's clearly
been nailed by journalism errors.
For a survey of players on global sea level, including some
details on the feedback which could collapse West Antarctica,
see the sea level FAQ at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html
It is now old (a decade since revision) but the bulk of it
holds up ok.
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets
about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S.
Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled
"Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two
lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a
prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global
Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's
science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER
CORPORATIONS.
Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen
for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will
be adduced at trial.
Google search engine reports 164 results looking for Richard S.
Lindzen AND "Washington Times" owned by the convicted felon Sun Myung
Moon. Moon has hosted many fake science conferences to exploit for
propaganda purposes. Singer apprenteced the fake science conference
back when Singer was President of the moonie "Washingon Institute for
Values in Public Policy". No records exist in public archives on what
Moon paid Singer as president of the Wash Inst, but here is a link
showing how generous Moon is to one successor president after Singer's
term -- $142,708/yr salary.
http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/521/293/1998-521293998-1-9.pdf
Moon is master of money laundering and subversive payoffs -- we will
never know who all he paid and how much they pocketed. We do know that
Google search engine finds 152 webpages linking Moon AND Lindzen.
There is an unseemly association between a science corruptor and a
known identified corrupt Lindzen: 314 webpage results for Lindzen AND
"Sun Myung Moon" OR "Washington Times".
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html SUBJECT: The
Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993
BACKGROUND
This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become
a broad and independent movement in a littlc bit less than a year. We
are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are
being discreet because some of the coalition members are concerned
about a "tobacco connection".
Our strategy is to continue discreetly supporting the coalition and
help it grow in size and credibility. The timing is particularly
opportune because of Bill Clinton's sympathy to the messages of the
coalition (see attached IHT article).
If you would like more information on how to help support thc
movement, pIease contact me or Tom Borelli on the US side.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
(Philip Morris Documents)
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C. Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
Persons identified in pulling off this science hoax included: CORRUPT
Michael Fumento, CORRUPT Michael Gough, CORRUPT Robert Jastrow,
CORRUPT Michael Salomon, CORRUPT Robert Tollison, and the arch-
CORRUPTOR S. Fred Singer ringleader.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
Richard S. Lindzen
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at
MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by
industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to
address the looming environmental crisis.
Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500
a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,
entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]
According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including
Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.
Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is
untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded
campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable
ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through
the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's
scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion
focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have
effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]
External links
* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's
climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.
* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,
November 2001.
* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995
... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that
the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by
disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil
industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has
spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate
change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.
Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on
the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American
Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the
GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-
Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil
fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined
yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental
groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according
to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the World Wildlife Fund.
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics
-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.
Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and
television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question
is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their
influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed
conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,
Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"
and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to
those government science programs designed to monitor the health of
the planet.
Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the
environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the
skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert
witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400
million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
[#1] ...
[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and
distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was
shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the
governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises
that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas
of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new
grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a
nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts
note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an
explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially
significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as
to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'
video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be
trying to tell them now.]
Steve Schulin
I read a few articles on this week's UK-sponsored U Texas workshop --
this particular article is on scienceagogo.com. The scientists'
statement to which it refers, released at the workshop, is available
at http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
Vendicar Decarian
>> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
>> > Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
>> > surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes
>> > to changes in temperature measured at the surface?
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Of course, and dispite your dishonest implication solar irradience and
>> particulate coverage is not already incorporated into the Global
>> Circulation
>> Models, ...
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> I respectfully disagree that I implied any such thing, here or elsewhere.
Now why would you ask such a question when you know that the amount of
solar energy reaching the earth's surface is taken into account in the
Global Circulation Models?
Don't you think that your wife should inform the authorities when you beat
her?
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> ... the fact is, that these factors are already included. In fact it is
>> the inclusion of sulphate areosols that allows the models to accurately
>> replicate the global temperatrue decline in the 50's.
>>
>> But you knew that already. So I can only conclude that your exclusive
>> intent is to decieve.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> Well, that's another example showing that an education doesn't prevent
> one from jumping to wrongful conclusions.
It's not at all surprising that a liar will deny that he has
misrepresented the truth, as you have just been caught doing.
>> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
>> > I do, and the paper
>> > Ray highlights in this thread adds to understanding some of the data
>> > available to assess the changes.
>>
>> More research will have to be done to see if this minor correction to
>> the
>> models will have to be included.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> What correction are you referring to?
Why the corrections implied by the origin of this thread of course. The
topic if this thread, and the topic that you were discussing when you asked
me
"Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes to
changes in temperature measured at the surface?"
Science Vol. 315 16 March 2007
Long-Term Satellite Record Reveals Likely Recent Aerosol Trend
Thanks for illustrating that you actually aren't interested in the actual
topic of the thread. Your interest is confined to your ability to use the
subject line to misrepresent and distort the facts to bolster your
KKKonservative political liedeology.
>> Doubling the amount of CO2 will half the mean free path an IR photon of
>> the appropriate frequency takes to escape the atmosphere.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> That's a very artfully worded comment. How many of the IR photons do
> you contend are of the appropriate frequency?
Ahahahahaha. A stupid question as the number varies depending on the
location, season, time of day, illumination, cloud cover, and several other
significant factors.
However, in every case, CO2 backscatter increasaes the amount of those
photons reflected back toward the earths surface.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> As described in the
> Barrett paper I cited, there is a significant overlap of absorption
> bands. Here's how he puts it, using values for first 100 meters of
> atmosphere above the Earth's surface: "If the concentration of CO2
> were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in
> absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same
> doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only
> 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present.
> Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the
> atmosphere gives rise to some skepticism."
Yes, I am skeptical that he knows what he is talking about. IR photons
aren't just being absorbed, they are being absorbed and re-radiated. 50% of
the time back toward the surface of the earth.
A bed sheet is completely opaque to IR Absorption is 100%. Yet adding
another bed sheet on top of the first one still keeps you warmer than one
sheet used alone.
Absorption is not the issue - and you are smart enough to know that.
Backscattering is.
To the lay person it's like having a puck drop on the price is right,
sometimes the puck strikes a peg and goes left, and sometimes it goes right.
If all the pegs are euqally weighted, then you get a nice gausian
distribution of pucks along the bottom of the board. But give the pegs a
5% bias to the left and you can shift the distribution arbitrarily far to
the left simply by expanding the depth of the peg board and increasing the
number of pegs struck.
A 5% bias over 10 pegs gives a 60 percent cumulative compounded bias.
Backscattering is like that. A slight increase in bias of the backscatter
probability has a non-linear compounding effect. That's why adding another
sheet to your bed keeps you warmer while not at all changing the amount of
heat absorbed by the lower layers.
Now since you are smart enough to know that absorption isn't an issue when
it comes to insulation, I have to wonder why you falsely claim that it is?
There is only one reasonable conclusion that I can draw. That conclusion
is that you are wilfully trying to deceive.
Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians
Board of Science Advisors
Board of Directors
Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/652421224e3abb1d
MORE Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/8375a042a3ac7de6
AND MORE Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/bac212343615d03f
ANOTHER Career Criminal Organized Crime Fraud of S. FRED SINGER in
2001
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/0be71a1fba85f0ec
Vendicar Decarian
>> CO2 backscatters IR in a specific range of frequencies. Doubling the
>> amount of CO2 doubles the probability of backscattering any inividual IR
>> photon in that frequency range.
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> I respectfully disagree. 90% of non-window energy photons already get
> absorbed in first 100 meters of atmosphere.
And 50% re-radiated back down toward the earth, where it is re-absorbed
and reflected back up.
In addition of the 50% that is radiated back up, 90% is reflected back
down again. And within the first 100 meters 90% is absorbed and 50% of that
is reflected back up and the remainder transmitted through the original 100
meters where it is absorbed and reflected back up. Of the 50% that is
reflected back up, it is has a 90% probability of being absorbed and then a
50% probability of going back down or up. So in these 2 100 meter layers,
the probability of a photon escaping is slightly over 1.1% or the
probability of absorption is 98.9 percent Add another two layers and the
probability goes to 99.99%, and we have several kilometers to go before we
effectively get into space.
If absorption of IR photons at lower levels causes the temperature to drop
then 200 meters up the atmosphere should be near absolute zero with 99.99%
of the heat radiation from below blocked.
But it isn't is it? Why is that? Because your intended assertion that
absorption and spectral saturation causing cooling are the exact opposite of
the truth. High absorption rates = high emission rates with 50% of the
energy being sent back down. A low absorption rate means that the
radiation is transmitted into space with fewer refletions downward and hence
with less atmospheric heating along the way.
Now you are smart enough to know this Mr. Schulin. So why would you care
to state the opposite of what is true? Why would you claim that high
absorption rates should cause cooling when in fact they will produce the
exact opposite effect when you know this to be false?
There is only one conclusion. Your purpose is to deceive a scientifically
naive public.
In short, you are here to lie.
Vendicar Decarian
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> If you want the precise attributions then they are in the
>> final report, and if you wish to see them presened graphically they can
>> be
>> found on this widely distributed plot...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
>>
>> The graphic shows quite nicely that more than half of the forcing is
>> from
>> CO2 Not surprisingly it also shows that most of the forcing is from CO2,
>> and also not surprisingly it also shows that much of the forcing is
>> caused
>> by CO2.
>>
>> Stupid... Corrupt, Schulin....
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> The less than 3 Wm-2 of forcing, calculated as resulting from all
> anthropogenic GHG emissions since dawn of industrial age, has long
> been considered to be climate driver by the consensus crowd.
> So why is
> not not the even greater recent change in Wm-2, calculated as
> resulting from observed increase in outgoing longwave over the tropics
> just during satellite era, not crowned as new king of the climate
> driver candidates?
Quite simply because those calculations are false as is your implication
that the increase is global in scope. If it were global then the planet
would be obseved to be cooling, and it isn't.
Your claim is roughly equivalent to stating that an oven can't be hot
because you see more heat coming from it than when it was turned off. Hence
it must be cooling.
Again you are smarter than that Schulin. You know better than to say such
stupid things, and yet here you are saying them.
One must ask why someone woudl say something that they know to be false.
I can only reasch one conclusion. Your purpose here is to misrepresent
the truth.
Your purpose here is to lie.
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Thanks for that deep showing of erudition Steve.
Ahahaha.... The Spider Monkey throws the Chimp a bananna for moral support.
Vendicar Decarian
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Thanks Steve. I appreciate your comments and if you could incorporate
> more of your comments on your website it would be very helpful.
Ahahahahah... A classic example of a snake oil salesman and the shill in
the croud.
No one is buying your poison Lopez....
Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks
wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote
Re: Latest issue of Science magazine: sun CANNOT POSSIBLY BE
RESPONSIBLE for HUMAN-MADE global warming
Steve Schulin
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > It's a great honor to be elected to the Board of the AAAS. No
> > expertise in climate science is required, however.
>
> True. Global warming is now supported by the conesnsus view of Science,
> not just Climate Scientists.
Well, I recall a historian saying that the theory of climate has
changed more often than climate itself. Maybe the current consensus
will prove to be just another, rather than lasting. I also recall Dr.
Lindzen's comment before first IPCC report about the curious nature of
a consensus being formed before the research had barely begun. I
respectfully suggest that a small number of influential scientists
endorsing IPCC is sizzle, not the steak kind of thing you suggest.
> The more scientists look, the more evidence they find. Support for the
> observation of Global Warming is now quite cross diciplinary, particularly
> with the biological sciences, and less so with epidemiological researchers,
> glacioligists, those involved in Earth Sensing, Oceanographers,
> Astrophysicists, Solar Physicists, and of course a lot of expertise support
> from the chemists, physicists, and mathematicians.
A lot of folks surely agree that there's warming going on. Is it
warmer now, using global mean temperature as a metric, than it was in,
say, 1931? Maybe you can do better at justifying an answer than other
alarmed folks have. Would it still be warmer if you discounted factors
other than GHG changes? Again, maybe you can do better in answering
than others have.
> Time series analysis performed well over 20 years ago by one particular
> applied mathematician I remember reading showed clear signs of Global
> Climate Change. Specifically Warming. His chosen method was to look at the
> proxy dates available for the arrival time of winter and spring weather.
That's a fascinating field. What time period was he looking at?
> No you don't have to be a climatologist to be the head of the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science. But then the AAAS statement
> isn't a statement from the head of the AAAS, it is a statement that reflects
> the opinion of it's membership which includes members from all of the above
> subcategories of science, all of which have provided supportive evidence
> confirming the reality and anthropogenic origin of the observed warming.
Did the Board take a scientific approach to measure the opinion of
it's membership? I'd love to see you back up your blather on this
particular. In fact, I'd love to see IPCC poll its contributing
authors on their individual agreement with such things as the expert
judgements on likelihood.
>
>
>
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > I note that IPCC has a poor track record on presenting info as
> > policy-relevant.
>
> A rather meaningless statement. Relevant to who's policy? ...
LOL - it wasn't me who named the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers". In
the 1990 report, it was called "Policymakers Summary". Do you think
they didn't like the PMS acronym, VD?
> ... Certainly not
> the current administration policy of don't ask, don't tell, just employ
> shills like Steve Schulin to create uncertainty. In Bush's case by directly
> altering the reports of government scientists. ...
The examples I've seen looked like they added to the rigor of the
bureaucratic emissions. Do you some particular example you'd like to
hold up as an example of disinformation? I wrote a short piece for
nuclear.com before yesterday's House hearings on why I felt more
quality controls were warranted, not less, on the work products of our
government climate science centers. You can still see it in the March
27 entries at http://www.nuclear.com/default.html
> .... In your case by
> deliberately misrepresenting the statements of scientists, and through the
> raising of irrelevant yet leading questions regarding that research.
Well, I respectfully disagree with your ignorant characterizations. I
urge folks to consider the source: you, the same fellow who gives such
a spin on the hockey stick error bars later in this post.
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > The first IPCC report said the correlation between CO2 and temperature
> > proxy in ice core was policy-relevant.
>
> Actually, I don't remember any such comment in the first report. Can you
> quote where this is said? Page number please.
I'm referring to page xv -- including the graph in PMS is as clear a
statement as can be that it was presented as policy-relevant.
> And again what do you mean by "policy relevant". Who's policy?
The IPCC provides a "Summary for Policymakers". Anything included in
that document is thus being presented as "policy relevant".
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > They dropped that claim, and recent NAS paleoclimate proxy expert panel
> > stressed that paleodata is pretty much irrelevant to what's happening
> > today.
>
> Paleoclimate data is relevant for setting the baseline conditions
> divergence from which illustrates change, that is either within historic
> norms or not.
I agree with you on this point, and found the sweeping statements from
NAS panel to the contrary to be interesting in that regard.
> In the 80's when surface temperaturs were lower, there was a legitimate
> question over weather the temperature excursion being seen was man made. In
> short, the signal being seen was smaller than the noise floor.
>
> This is no longer the case, and as a result the PaleoClimate data has less
> significance than it did earlier.
Well, I guess we're back to disagreeing. The temperature rise in
surface record since the cooling period ending in 1970s does not seem
extraordinary in magnitude or spatial distribution, compared to the
earlier 20th century warming. And when you take non-GHG factors into
account, the notion that CO2 obviously warrants alarm seems silly to
me. Maybe you have a better explanation than other folks have
presented.
> Are you suggesting that each IPCC report include the complete text of
> earlier reports so that they don't happen to exclude something said in
> earlier reports lest it be considered a false statement or an overturned
> realism?
No. This is a great topic in and of itself: What responsibility do
subsequent PMS documents have in updating info previously presented as
policy relevant?
> If that is the case, I immediately note that you have not reaffirmed the
> existance of your family in your post. Are we to conclude from this
> "dropped statement" as you put it, that you no longer have a family?
I appreciate your attempt to provide analogy. But where have I
previously proposed that the existance of my family was some
equivalent of policy-relevant?
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > The third IPCC report presented the hockey stick, complete with
> > scientific-looking
> > error bars, as policy-relevant.
>
> The latest IPCC report contains that plot and 8 additional "hockey stick"
> plot variants from other temperature constructions.
I note that you're obviously not referring to the Summary for
Policymakers. So why do you mention this in reply to comment
specifying "policy-relevant"?
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > That same NAS panel came to a strikingly different conclusion about the
> > depiction of uncertainty.
>
> Yes. They affirm the Hockey stick shape of the data, but find that the
> error bars were somewhat too small for their likeing. The NAS report states
> that the analysis preformed was competent, and among the best possible for
> it's time, and that none of the reviewers would in any way be concerned to
> have been part of the authorship of the paper in which it was contained, or
> with the plot itself.
LOL - if your take on the matter were accurate, you would think they
would have answered Rep. Boehlert's original questions about whether
the paper was replicable. Anybody who looks at the NAS panel report's
depiction of uncertainty, and compares it to the hockey stick, ought
to be able to understand the fundamentally bankrupt nature of your
comment about error bars. To refer to the cloud of uncertainty prior
to Little Ice Age as similar to the central value with error bars in
hockey stick is silly.
> You have made a lot of noise about the "hockey stick" graph, and quite
> frankly I have never understood why you wish to make such noise over an
> issue that is so obviouly a loser for you.
It took a long time for the hockey stick scandal to develop. When
McIntyre and McKitrick's first paper was published, I found it to
raise a lot of questions that I hoped would be answered. There have
been lots of "losers" identified in the course of the various
developments, but your characterization of my comments, and me, say
more about you than about me. The most important lesson-learned so far
in this scandal is that IPCC's "assessment" process wasn't rigorous
enough to distinguish science from art. The highlighting of hockey
stick graph in IPCC WG1 TAR was, at best, more like a sophomoric term
paper than a world-class scientific assessment.
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > So when the AAAS Board jumps on the climate alarm bandwagon, welll, it's
> > best to remember that they're mainly just illustrious passengers.
>
> No, the board are scientists and researchers as well, no different from
> the member scientists
>
> It is clear that you wish to dishonestly paint the statement as if it
> comes from non-scientist politicians and not representative of the
> membership, but that wouild be nothing more than a lie wouldn't it?
Well, I respectfully disagree with your take on my comments. You say
it's clear that I portray the AAAS Board as non-scientists? That's not
at all what I said. As to how many of their members agree with the
particulars in the statement, well, I'd be happy to see you or anybody
scientifically back up your prior assertion that the membership
agrees.
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > It's possible that even you, VD, have a better understanding of climate
> > science than the majority of the AAAS Board put together.
>
> Oh, very unlikely they have some neuance informationt in their fields of
> speciality that I do no have, and possibly more insite as a result of
> contact with their scientific peers.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right.
> It is clear that you wish to dishonestly paint the statement as if it
> comes from non-scientist politicians and not representative of the
> membership, but that wouild be nothing more than a lie wouldn't it?
I respectfully refer you to my previous answer.
> Now what confuses me the most is why you would continue to issue
> anti-warming propaganda in this newsgroup and others, when you know full
> well that you have failed in your attempt to cast doubt on the reality of
> the science.
I've long been interested in energy-environment issues. When George W.
Bush was first elected, his Treasury Secretary was saying some quite
alarming things about CO2. I wanted to learn more about the scientific
basis for such claims, and sci.environment was one of the places I
looked. I've learned a lot from conversations here, and am still
learning. The best argument for alarm, it seems to me, relies on the
precautionary principle. I don't begrudge folks their advocacy of
precaution, but it is different to say we should make changes because
of what we know than to say we should make changes because of what we
don't know. If the only thing we valued was the environment, the
application of precautionary principle would be more straightforward.
But there are other things that deserve precaution too. Access to
energy is one. Freedom from tyranny is another. My public comments
here and elsewhere reflect sincere skepticism about the so-called
consensus, and I endeavor not to presume dark intent by those who
disagree with me.
> The worlds scientists are fully engaged and fully on the anthropogenic
> side, so is world public opinion and the opinion of the U.S populace.
The IPCC's embrace and use of the hockey stick had a powerful impact,
I suspect, on scientists and nonscientists alike. I'm interested in
how the new IPCC report, scheduled to be released in May, assesses the
prior, uh, assessment.
> The only holdouts are the perpetually ignorant, and the personally
> corrupt.
Well, you're not the first to make such a claim. Can you prove it?
> Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
> maintain the denialism of Congressional RepubliKKKans?
>
> I have news for you Schulin. They don't read this newsgroup.
I'm just a guy, interested in the subject, who has become part of the
sci.environment "community".
> Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
> sway public opinion in your direction when the majority of the U.S. and
> world populace support the view of science?
Well, I'm satisfied with just discussing the science. Iron sharpens
iron, One man sharpens another.
> Did you really expect any different outcome? Science and truth always
> wins in the end and that makes your side guaranteed Failure for denying
> reality.
>
> Was that your goal? To lose the argument? To be a loser:?
>
> Perhaps you can explain your lack of logic to us....
You've got me all wrong. As to which "side" I'm on, I note that
anything that tends to promote building new nuclear plants will be a
financial boon to me. I think there's good reason to build more even
though I don't share your alarm about CO2. I do think it unwise for my
industry, in the longer run, and the world as a whole, to politically
empower the purveyors of alarmist piffle. I've read enough and
discussed enough to identify at least some of the exaggerations and
other lies that get passed off as scientific fact, and I'm not so shy
about pointing these out.
Steve Schulin
Actually, I just disagreed with your claim that "doubling the amount
of CO2 doubles the probability of backscattering any inividual IR
photon in that frequency range." You now seem to shift away from
disagreement about the probability of any individual photon being
backscattered. Is this your way of agreeing with my criticism? As to
the "intended assertion" you imagine, well, I'm sure your imagination
serves you better in other endevors.
The workings of the atmosphere is a really interesting subject. I hope
you're not discouraged by your mangling of facts, and that you will
learn more. If all the GHG molecules were somehow made radiatively
inactive tomorrow, do you think the atmosphere would quickly become
warmer or cooler?
Eric Swanson
>
>Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
>> maintain the denialism of Congressional RepubliKKKans?
>>
>> I have news for you Schulin. They don't read this newsgroup.
>
>I'm just a guy, interested in the subject, who has become part of the
>sci.environment "community".
>
>> Is it your opinion that by posting FUD to this newsgroup you are going to
>> sway public opinion in your direction when the majority of the U.S. and
>> world populace support the view of science?
>
>Well, I'm satisfied with just discussing the science. Iron sharpens
>iron, One man sharpens another.
Hitting your neighbor over the head with an iron pipe will likely dull his
senses. Doing so repeatedly may kill him. Lawyer science is not good science.
>> Did you really expect any different outcome? Science and truth always
>> wins in the end and that makes your side guaranteed Failure for denying
>> reality.
>>
>> Was that your goal? To lose the argument? To be a loser:?
>>
>> Perhaps you can explain your lack of logic to us....
>
>You've got me all wrong. As to which "side" I'm on, I note that
>anything that tends to promote building new nuclear plants will be a
>financial boon to me. I think there's good reason to build more even
>though I don't share your alarm about CO2. I do think it unwise for my
>industry, in the longer run, and the world as a whole, to politically
>empower the purveyors of alarmist piffle. I've read enough and
>discussed enough to identify at least some of the exaggerations and
>other lies that get passed off as scientific fact, and I'm not so shy
>about pointing these out.
Aren't you glad those proponents of nuclear power were right when they
claimed that nuclear electricity would be "too cheap to meter" and
that the chance of meltdown of a nuclear plant was smaller than that
of being hit by a meteor? Not to mention how easy it would be to
solve the waste disposal problem.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schulin
> > Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> > If you want the precise attributions then they are in the
> >> final report, and if you wish to see them presened graphically they can
> >> be
> >> found on this widely distributed plot...
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
> >>
> >> The graphic shows quite nicely that more than half of the forcing is
> >> from
> >> CO2 Not surprisingly it also shows that most of the forcing is from CO2,
> >> and also not surprisingly it also shows that much of the forcing is
> >> caused
> >> by CO2.
> >>
> >> Stupid... Corrupt, Schulin....
>
>
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> > The less than 3 Wm-2 of forcing, calculated as resulting from all
> > anthropogenic GHG emissions since dawn of industrial age, has long
> > been considered to be climate driver by the consensus crowd.
> > So why is
> > not not the even greater recent change in Wm-2, calculated as
> > resulting from observed increase in outgoing longwave over the tropics
> > just during satellite era, not crowned as new king of the climate
> > driver candidates?
>
> Quite simply because those calculations are false as is your implication
Well, the researchers have been quite busy checking, rechecking,
refining and rechecking. The numbers have changed, but not enough to
change the fact that if the models included the observed variability
and trend, the models would indeed show the cooling you hypothesize
below. The tropical latitudes as specified in the Chen et al. paper I
cited account for half the surface of the Earth. Your pooh-poohing of
their global significance seems silly to me.
> ... If it were global then the planet
> would be obseved to be cooling, and it isn't.
Your take seems to ignore the possibility that there's clearly more
going on than is captured by the state-of-the-art modelling.
> Your claim is roughly equivalent to stating that an oven can't be hot
> because you see more heat coming from it than when it was turned off. Hence
> it must be cooling.
I respectfully disagree. I don't claim that the Earth can't warm. I
claim that the models are of dubious predictive value.
> Again you are smarter than that Schulin. You know better than to say such
> stupid things, and yet here you are saying them.
>
> One must ask why someone woudl say something that they know to be false.
>
> I can only reasch one conclusion. Your purpose here is to misrepresent
> the truth.
>
> Your purpose here is to lie.
You've got me all wrong. I don't begrudge your apparent opinion that
Wielicki et al. and Chen et al. calculations are wrong. And I
encourage you to do the best job you can in explaining the basis for
your opinion. If you've already done your best, well, thanks. You're
not the first to slough off the Chen et al. and Wielicki et al.
findings. I look forward to seeing how their findings are assessed in
the IPCC report scheduled to be published in May.
raylopez99
Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> You've got me all wrong. As to which "side" I'm on, I note that
> anything that tends to promote building new nuclear plants will be a
> financial boon to me. I think there's good reason to build more even
> though I don't share your alarm about CO2. I do think it unwise for my
> industry, in the longer run, and the world as a whole, to politically
> empower the purveyors of alarmist piffle. I've read enough and
> discussed enough to identify at least some of the exaggerations and
> other lies that get passed off as scientific fact, and I'm not so shy
> about pointing these out.
>
> Very truly,
>
> Steve Schulin
> http://www.nuclear.com
Thanks again Steve--you are the future, VD is the past (Club of Rome,
That 70s Thing).
You ripped a new a whole in poor VD, but he deserved it.
RL
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
Re: Latest issue of Science magazine: Ray Lopez reclassified as new
species -- Homo Stupidus.
You may enjoy the fact that Skeptic Fred SEPPTic has a founder of the
Club of Rome, C.J.F. Böttcher, on his board of science advisors, as
well as three dead guys. Apply. It will improve your resume' to claim
you advise on science matters a former presidential advisor. Nobody
gets turned down as advisor to SEPP no matter how dead they are, or
even just braindead.
fredf...@spamcop.net
> Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>...
>
> > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
You need to read more about '"fair use". Verbatim republication
of an article in its entirety, is not fair use.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> In article <1hvjx4j.fdjllo1kcgpriN%pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk>,
> p...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Steve Schulin <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Plus, it is based partly on NASA research, which is based on tax
> >dollars. So it would be 100% fair to openly publish what you yourself
> >paid for.
Nonsense.
"Should be" is arguable. "Would be" is a slam dunk no.
>
> U.S. Government publications are not copyrighted. Some journals publish
> work by government employees with a statement that a paper is not
> subject to copyright for this reason.
In general, journals claim copyrights for articles they publish
regardless of who authors them. I'm surprised to learn that
any do not regardless of whether or not they are authored
by Federal employees or contractor personnel. If true, this
may stem from an inability of the individual authors to waive
copyrights they do not possess.
The Federal Government also publishes directly. NASA Technical
Memoranda are generally self-published. Those documents are
not subject to copyright protection.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> On Mar 25, 8:55 am, "Steve Schulin" <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>
> > What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
> > about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
> > as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
>
> anything you post here is fair use.
Completely false.
> ...
> Thanks Steve. Truth is, I was a bit loose with my terminology (I
> realized this after I posted), when I stated "the sun is shining
> brighter than before"--of course, in the context of the post, as
> should be clear to anybody without an ax to grind, I am talking about
> 'brighter' at the surface of the earth, not the surface of the sun.
>
Good. Putative trends on Solar luminosity are also not
without controversy.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> On Mar 25, 1:30 pm, p...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk (Peter B. P.) wrote:
>
> You're right as rain Peter.
>
> As usual Err-Hick Swine'son is wrong.
>
> He fancies himself as a copyright lawyer, just as Roger Crappock
> thinks he's a genius for publishing "Software Copyrights" as he once
> said, when in fact anything you publish is automatically copyright,
> even with putting a "(C) 2007" next to it, because of the Berne
> convention. Hardly takes a genius to do that--witness the idiots
> posting here. So in fact this original post of mine is "copyright",
> but just because somebody else quotes it (as Err-Hick did) doesn't
> make him liable for copyright infringement.
AFAIK, that issue has never been adjudicated so there is no
precedent.
> Copyright infringement
> only works if you repost a commercial work again for profit, without
> permission, but even then it's sometimes not a problem.
>
False. How about if you read the statute or any of
the clear articles on the subject that are readily available
on the net?
There used to be a copyright FAQ published in misc.legal.
The question of Usenet copyrights is a vexing one as Usenet's
essential function is to copy and distribute original material
with little or no regard to the author's permission.
The question problem turns on a concept similar to implied
consent but there is little or no precedent for implied consent
in copyright law.
--
FF
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
YOU are responsible for message subject lines issued by your computer,
when you hit "send".
Scientific reticence and sea level rise
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/8ec93a773f7cfb39
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 1 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14916919792c5786
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 2 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/99014e28094b7cc9
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 3 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/753260bdc51c4c66
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 4 of 4
Unequivocal, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species
Steve Schulin
Well, I don't begrudge you your opinion. It's not universally held,
though. Check out, for example, the University of Texas system's
"rules of thumb" developed after they lost a lawsuit like Lloyd
mentioned. They say it's ok for teachers to include "single articles
from a journal issue" or "other similarly small parts of a work" in
coursepacks.
URL: http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#course
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
OILY Political Corruption
Results 1 - 100 of 105 for "Steve Schulin" "Fred Singer"
fredf...@spamcop.net
> FRED SINGER'S SEPPtic Tank
> Stink tank has accumulated nice nearly $1 million retirement fund for
> Singer any time the compliant board decides to bestow it on him. Has
> interesting portfolio of stocks donated over the years, looking at
> their IRS 990 report forms.
>
> Besides listing three dead guys on it's board of science advisors
> (presumably whom have advised by seance for 3, 5 and 7 years now), the
> industry puppets on board are interesting.
>
> Board of Science Advisors
>
>
> Declaration.
>
> organization. Leipzig Declaration.
>
> * William A. Nierenberg (1919-2000) was a member of the Board of
> Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute run by tobacco racketeer
> Fred Seitz, board member of SEPP. Leipzig Declaration.
>
Could you please tell us the name of the organization
in question, and elaborate on the significance of the
IRS 990 form?
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
wrote:
Splorf!
>From the page you reference above:
"4. Obtain permission for materials that will
be used repeatedly by the same instructor
for the same class."
which links to the following explanatory
information:
"Although the statutory fair use analysis
does not address time limits, many of our
Rules of Thumb and all the Guidelines
contain time limits on fair use. ... This is
hard to explain because it does not seem
to have a basis in statutory requirements
or case law."
--
FF
Exxon Liars & Thieves
NobodyYouKnow
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:1175217792.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > In article <1175156023.6...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > [trim]
> >
> > You don't give the source for the article, but it's clearly
> > been nailed by journalism errors.
>
> I read a few articles on this week's UK-sponsored U Texas workshop --
> this particular article is on scienceagogo.com. The scientists'
> statement to which it refers, released at the workshop, is available
> at http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported
in February that the scientific community could not provide a best estimate
or an *upper limit* on the rate of sea-level rise in coming centuries
because of a lack of understanding of the flow of the large ice sheets.
All of the ice on Earth contains enough water to raise sea level over 200
feet, with about 20 feet from Greenland and almost all of the rest from
Antarctica. Although complete loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is not
expected, even a small change would matter to coastal populations.
--------------------
Kudos, Steve, for exposing the fact that sea rise is one of the most
critical and understudied dangers of global warming.
I garther that you have become more concerned with the science and less with
the political spinning?
NobodyYouKnow
> Hick wrote:
> > Steve Schulin steve.schu...@nuclear.com said:
>
> > > I only believe what Ray says because it's what I want to hear.
> > > If a couple of attention starved fringe scientists say what I like
> > > I'll suck it up like so much bullshit
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if that's Hick's take on what I actually
> said, but the words are his, not mine.
Fair enouygh.
>
> > A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
> > Englands foremost Science Establishment
>
> > Misleading arguments 4.
> > -----------------------
>
> > The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
> > gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny
fraction
> > of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little
difference to
> > the climate.
>
> > Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate
changing
> > than increases in greenhouse gases.
>
> > About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's
atmosphere
> > eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. ...
>
> Do you think that changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the
> surface ought to be considered by scientists when attributing causes
> to changes in temperature measured at the surface?
Certainly. What you don't show is a failure on their part to account for
this which makes this statement rhetoric.
> I do, and the paper
> Ray highlights in this thread adds to understanding some of the data
> available to assess the changes.
But the IPCC must only include *well supported* science, not radical claims.
They admit to understating sea level rise, not because they don't understand
it to a large extent, but merely because they cannot model it precisely!
>
> > .... Much of the solar
> > energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
> > radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
> > vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. ...
>
> If I may quibble here, the statement that "some" of the outgoing
> infrared is absorbed by GHGs is an example of understatement. Most of
> the outgoing infrared gets absorbed in first 100 meters of
> atmosphere,
Treue in terms that it is a log function of distance. Each new 'step
diistance' claiming a defined percentage or exponential fraction.
> and even doubling the concentration of CO2 doesn't increase the
> amount absorbed very much [Ref: Jack Barrett, "Greenhouse molecules, their
> spectra and function in the atmosphere", Energy & Environment 16(6):
True to some extent, but irrelevant to the planetary heat balance. The
critical criteria is at what level does the 'equipotential' lie where
emission to space is the same as emission to the ground. Due to 'specttrum
broadening' at low pressure, this is more affected by GHG concentration than
absorbtion at ground level. It is the 'lapse rate' or temperature change vs
altitude' times this distance that defines the 'greenhouse warming. Thus
your claim is something of a misdirection or 'red herring'.
> 1037-1045, 2005].
>
> > ... The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
> > over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
> > warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
> > greenhouse effect'.
False. it is about 15C on average vs -18C for a purely 'black body'
equilibrium', thus 33 degrees C difference.
>
> > Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
> > enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming.
It
> > has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
> > radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
> > dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more
than
> > half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
>
> It is interesting that the Royal Society document emphasizes the
> "more
> than half" attribution language of the IPCC 2001 report, as if it
> were
> the product of the more scientific part of the IPCC process.
What is interesting is that you attribute political motives to merely citing
the relevant science summary.
> But the
> fact is that it was the WG1 plenary meeting where this
> characterization of "most" was substituted for the more vague
> attribution of "much" of the warming that was used in the draft
> submitted to the plenary. A news article in Nature provided details
> on this switch from "much" to "most" [Nature 412:112-114, 2001]
And your point is???? That chosing terminology for the report changed??
Since the way such words are 'received' in a published reporet is a factior
of psychology, it is pretty easy to get confused by how to make science
understandable to politicians and people. The process of 'fine tuning' the
descriptive language does nothing to change the science and is anotrher
sculin 'red herring'.
>
> The question of whether anthropogenic-enhanced greenhouse effect will
> be significant (even if CO2 levels rise in line with the worst
> assumptions of the IPCC modeling), remains an open one as best I can
> tell.
Self absprbed by your own ignorance is the classic Schulin(tm) red herring.
> Oh, I know there's lots of folks, including some eminent
> scientists, who have long ago concluded that the science is settled
> enough to warrant drastic change.
Yes. Other people, conversant with science, do stand for facts instead of
artificaially created 'doubt'.
> The evidence they cite, however, has
> never come close to settling the science.
False. All science accademies and the IPCC itself now consider the science
'settled' or 'unequivocal' leaving Mr. schulin nowhere to run.
> There was a Dr. Tobis who
> posted regularly on sci.environment. His Ph.D. was in climatology,
> and
> he was working on a project with a group of paleoclimate researchers.
> He described the pillars underlying the science quite matter-of-
> factly. It was interesting how quickly he backed off from at least
> one
> particular he cited as evidence, but that didn't change his
> conclusions. He started up a moderated forum, and I suspect he's more
> comfortable in such a venue.
Nice to know that there are researchers still looking for a way to 'review'
the science. Even more interesting is the fact that they haven't found
anything, thus showing how solidly the science is now established.
>
> > Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice,
it is
> > known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several
> > thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between
1750
> > and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration
> > rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that
the
> > current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been
> > exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that "the rate of increase
over
> > the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000
years".
>
> > It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of
carbon
> > dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a
cause.
> > The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide
> > show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an
> > accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
> > burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
Thus demolishing (loooong ago) one of the pillars of the 'denialist' camp.
>
> > Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
> > stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the
> > atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due
to
> > emissions. It stated "Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are
due
> > to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to
> > land-use change, especially deforestation".
>
> > A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause
change,
> > particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun
and
> > particles released into the
> > atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in
the
> > atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the
Earth's
> > surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
>
> An abundant number of particles have much different effect than
> described here. And the net effect of all particles is another one of
> those open questions, despite the oh so matter-of-factly stated claim
> in the Royal Society document.
Duplitous and unsupportasble claims are a sign of desperation Steve. Be
ashamed.
> For example, soot particles do indeed
> absorb solar radiation. This tends to have a cooling effect on the
> surface during the daytime, but a warming effect on the surface at
> night (and a warming effect on the atmosphere at all times). Based on
> his modeling work, Jacobson of Stanford estimated that the net
> forcing
> of soot is positive, and that the magnitude may be greater than the
> negative forcing of about 8 Wm-2 due to sulphate aerosols as
> represented by the modeling used to produce IPCC's projections in
> 1995
> and 2001 report.
Certainlt atrmosperic soot does not have thhe same effect as surface soot,
but surface soot is usually shortly removed by new snowfall or rain while
aerosol soot is long term.
> This paper of Jacobson explicitly did not consider
> the effect of soot after being deposited on surface. This latter
> effect by itself has since been studied by Hansen and Nazarnko, and
> by
> Jacobson too. Hansen and Nazarenko's paper in Proceedings of National
> Academies of Science reported that just one aspect of such deposited
> soot may be responsible for as much as 25% of global surface
> temperature trends in recent decades. They were modeling the effect
> of
> change in surface albedo due to soot being deposited on northern ice
> and snow. Jacobson later reported that Hansen and Nazarenko may have
> underestimated the forcing involved.
All this says isd that the paper doesn't address thge dynamic climate (i,e
rain and snow) thuus making it inapplicable to climate change in it's
conclusions.
Ahh, hell. This is enough crapo and misdirection. Schuilin should be ashamed
of how he tries to manipulate small misunderrstanding about the science into
'deep mysteries. It is apparent that he knows better but is driven by some
need, either pay or political allegiance, to distort the science,.
>
Steve Schulin
Well, I'm still not so alarmed about CO2, if that's what you mean,
even after reading the document which prompts your speculation about
me. I encourage folks who disagree with me to voice their arguments as
best they can, and was happy to point to the source document referred
to in the article.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Perhaps the University of Texas is taking a page from
fellow Texican George W Bush's legal manual, that
black-letter law and legal precedence should not he
used for guidance if they conflict with what you want
to do.
--
FF
Steve Schulin
Is this your way of conceding that there's more to the matter than the
post of yours, to which I respectfully disagreed, insisted? If so, I
graciously accept your splorf!
I have previously stated that the posting of the article could
reasonably be categorized as fair use. The point you made earlier was
clearly in disagreement with that opinion of mine. If you continue to
disagree, due to 'usenet is forever' or somesuch consideration
prompted by the quotes you present, please feel encouraged to express
yourself. I happily acknowledge that US copyright law is vague enough
to allow reasonable people to categorize actions differently. I think
the case is stronger that Eric has committed libel (in stating that
Ray is a criminal) than that Ray has violated copyright law.
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
Lloyd
1976. Many court cases since then. Check out the ones against
Kinko's a few years back.
Lloyd
Maybe if you include a "signing statement" when you post, stating that
you interpret copyright law differently...
Eric Swanson
>
>fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 12:47 am, "Steve Schulin" <steve.schu...@nuclear.com>
>> wrote:
>> > fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>> > > On Mar 25, 3:55 pm, "Steve Schulin" <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
>> > > > > Loopy Ray, you have violated copyright law. You are a criminal.
>> >
>> > > > What copyright law do you claim Ray has violated? I've read a bit
>> > > > about US copyright law, and his posting seems reasonably categorizable
>> > > > as "fair use", and thus not a crime.
>> >
>.... I happily acknowledge that US copyright law is vague enough
>to allow reasonable people to categorize actions differently. I think
>the case is stronger that Eric has committed libel (in stating that
>Ray is a criminal) than that Ray has violated copyright law.
Don't forget that people have been charged with copyright violations
for posting MP3's on web sites. One site, (was it KAZA?) didn't even
post the MP3's, only links to other sites. And lately, YOUTUBE has
been threatened (sued?) for allowing the posting of video clips.
Some places, such as bars and night clubs, pay a fee to allow cover
bands, etc, to play copyrighted material in public.