Why You Should be Skeptical
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Why you should be sceptical of the Kyoto claims:
There has been a natural warming and cooling of the earth during its
evolution (geologic time), and more recently during the Medieval Warm
and Little Ice Age Periods. The overall warming of the planet over the
last 10,000 years has not been caused by human production of CO2.
In the last 100 years temperature increased noticeably from 1905 to
1940, with little change in CO2. From 1940 to 1975 global temperatures
cooled while CO2 increased noticeably. The lack of correlation between
CO2 and temperature change is clearly evident.
Astrophysical factors (the variation of solar radiation reaching the
earth), and variations in global deep and shallow ocean currents are
in large measure responsible for changes in the planet's climate.
The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
% of the atmosphere. As different scientists have commented, the
dominant heat trapping mechanism is water vapour, accounting for 97 %
of the so-called greenhouse effect. Moreover, it can be seen in the
record of past climates derived from Antarctic ice cores, that
increase in CO2 followed temperature increases, rather than preceding
them, or causing them.
The arguments claiming man as a cause of Global Warming are based on
computer programs that are incapable of modelling world climate: many
of the millions of parameters can only be defined in ranges with
arbitrary skewing.
Examination of weather disasters (floods, droughts, etc.) by
scientists show no relevance to climate change.
Recognition of temperatures recorded by satellites and weather
balloons show very minor temperature change in the last 50 years. As
well, there is a bias in the geographical distribution of historical
surface temperature measurements (so-called "urban heat islands"). It
should be noted that the margin of error of temperature field
observations is several times that of the average 0.6 degrees Celsius
warming that has prevailed since the depth of the Little Ice Age
around the year 1700 AD.
The Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) with its Summary for Policymakers
(SPM) is often quoted as an authoritative source on climate change.
However, many climatologists, including scientists working on the
IPCC, disagree strongly with some of the conclusions issued in the
SPM. It is evident that the SPM information is often political in
content. The widely distributed and referenced SPM was compiled by UN
bureaucrats that fails to convey the uncertainty of climate change
forecasts of the panel scientists.
The Kyoto Protocol, by focusing on attempts to curtail CO2 at
incredible cost, will not stop or reverse climate change.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
> % of the atmosphere.
Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
date.
AGW is a scam
What do you think about my argument against treating cosmic rays and
solar energy separately when investigating GW and don't you dare say
it is stupid! You are only looking at one portion of the cause of
variation in global temperature at a time when you say that cosmic
rays have no effect or that solar effects are minuscule cause of GW
Variations in the suns output and variations in cloud cover must
affect the temperature much more than the scientists say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
There is lots more and its increasing exponentially
The real problem you and your ilk have convinced non scientist
politicians and the result is the IPCC which also adheres to the
stupid
idea that a substantial increase in solar output over the last
century
has had a minuscule effect on global temperature
It's just like that Danish fairy story which finishes with the words
"He hasn't got any clothes on"
Energy Security With H2-PV
> On Feb 26, 7:52 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:> On Feb 26, 10:57 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
>
> > > The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
> > > % of the atmosphere.
>
> > Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
> > who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
> > 380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
> > date.
>
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
>
> Roger
> What do you think about my argument against treating cosmic rays and
> solar energy separately when investigating GW and don't you dare say
> it is stupid! You are only looking at one portion of the cause of
> variation in global temperature at a time when you say that cosmic
> rays have no effect or that solar effects are minuscule cause of GW
>
> Variations in the suns output and variations in cloud cover must
> affect the temperature much more than the scientists say.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm1...
"He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate
change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds."
Some guy said it, and some newspaper reported that he said it,
therefore all other guys and all other reports of what they all said
are WRONG.
That's the logic you are staking your INSANITY on, Bryne Hughe @
NUTworld.com?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
"In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715,
few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the
Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It
coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as
the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a
link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains
elusive."
The Itty-Bitty-Teeny-Weenie "Ice Age" had no ice sheets and wasn't any
ice age at all. People still planted crops and fed their kids in
unfrozen soil because otherwise European history would have ENDED and
everybody dead from starvation you idiot. It also was localized to
different places at different times, and you need to explain how
sunspots (or none) can affect one part of the planet but not another
at the same day that the same sun shines on both parts.
IT WASN'T PREHISTORIC TIMES. Marco Polo was back from China, and the
Chinese bureauocrats kept records. Magellen had already sailed around
the world. Europe had colonies on several continents. The Colonies on
North ans South America had literate people who kept journals.
Farenheit's thermonmeter was already invented.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Nigel Calder has a book to flog to bring in bucks for his golden
years. He hasn't been an editor of any science magazine for 40 years.
Exxon's supplemental checks passed through swiss bank accounts must be
a comfort to him in his doterage.
> http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
> There is lots more and its increasing exponentially
Bullshit Exxon propaganda. The skeptics are dropping like flies.
Very few are claiming Exxon's $10,000 cash to badmouth AGW theory.
> The real problem you and your ilk have convinced non scientist
> politicians and the result is the IPCC which also adheres to the
> stupid
> idea that a substantial increase in solar output over the last
> century
> has had a minuscule effect on global temperature
> It's just like that Danish fairy story which finishes with the words
> "He hasn't got any clothes on"
You are naked and you have a little-bitty teeny-weenie, you Exxon
Eunuch.
Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security
Joe Fischer
Actually the 0.035 makes it look like more than it is,
380 PPPV is 0.000380
a quite small fraction.
If a column of atmosphere were 1000 molecules
by 1000 molecules, there would be about one CO2
molecule every 50 molecules in both directions in the
cross section.
C
OONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNO
2
Those photons emitted upward by the surface of Earth
must have really good aim to hit one of the CO2 molecules.
Joe Fischer
davee
total atmosphere analogy and get back to me?
OH and subtract Nitrogen from the volume bit because it is basically
inert and should be removed.
Lloyd
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=5
>
> Why you should be sceptical of the Kyoto claims:
>
> There has been a natural warming and cooling of the earth during its
> evolution (geologic time), and more recently during the Medieval Warm
> and Little Ice Age Periods. The overall warming of the planet over the
> last 10,000 years has not been caused by human production of CO2.
You are lying, repeatedly. The warming now is faster and more, than
any other in human history.
>
> In the last 100 years temperature increased noticeably from 1905 to
> 1940, with little change in CO2.
You are lying.
>From 1940 to 1975 global temperatures
> cooled while CO2 increased noticeably. The lack of correlation between
> CO2 and temperature change is clearly evident.
Yes, and due to aerosols, as any fool should know.
>
> Astrophysical factors (the variation of solar radiation reaching the
> earth), and variations in global deep and shallow ocean currents are
> in large measure responsible for changes in the planet's climate.
>
Not the current warming.
> The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
> % of the atmosphere.
Irrelevant.
>As different scientists have commented,
List them.
>the
> dominant heat trapping mechanism is water vapour, accounting for 97 %
> of the so-called greenhouse effect.
You are confusing the natural warming with the current one.
>Moreover, it can be seen in the
> record of past climates derived from Antarctic ice cores, that
> increase in CO2 followed temperature increases, rather than preceding
> them, or causing them.
>
> The arguments claiming man as a cause of Global Warming are based on
> computer programs that are incapable of modelling world climate:
You are lying. They are based on data.
>many
> of the millions of parameters can only be defined in ranges with
> arbitrary skewing.
>
> Examination of weather disasters (floods, droughts, etc.) by
> scientists show no relevance to climate change.
>
You are lying.
> Recognition of temperatures recorded by satellites and weather
> balloons show very minor temperature change in the last 50 years.
Lie.
>As
> well, there is a bias in the geographical distribution of historical
> surface temperature measurements (so-called "urban heat islands").
Lie.
>It
> should be noted that the margin of error of temperature field
> observations is several times that of the average 0.6 degrees Celsius
> warming that has prevailed since the depth of the Little Ice Age
> around the year 1700 AD.
Lie.
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) with its Summary for Policymakers
> (SPM) is often quoted as an authoritative source on climate change.
> However, many climatologists, including scientists working on the
> IPCC, disagree strongly with some of the conclusions issued in the
> SPM.
Lie.
>It is evident that the SPM information is often political in
> content.
Lie.
>The widely distributed and referenced SPM was compiled by UN
> bureaucrats that fails to convey the uncertainty of climate change
> forecasts of the panel scientists.
>
Lie.
> The Kyoto Protocol, by focusing on attempts to curtail CO2 at
> incredible cost, will not stop or reverse climate change.
Have you no morals?
Lloyd
> On 26 Feb 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 26, 10:57 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >[ . . . ]
> >> The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
> >> % of the atmosphere.
>
> >Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
> >who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
> >380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
> >date.
>
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
>
> Actually the 0.035 makes it look like more than it is,
> 380 PPPV is 0.000380
> a quite small fraction.
>
> If a column of atmosphere were 1000 molecules
> by 1000 molecules, there would be about one CO2
> molecule every 50 molecules in both directions in the
> cross section.
So? A tiny amount of arsenic can kill you. A tiny amount of
carbon-13 lets us do C-13 NMR.
>
> C
> OONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNO
> 2
>
> Those photons emitted upward by the surface of Earth
> must have really good aim to hit one of the CO2 molecules.
>
> Joe Fischer
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are? Ever hear of
Avogardro's number?
z
from digging up the carbon laboriously pulled out of the atmosphere by
plants over hundreds of millions of years and returning it all to the
atmosphere over a couple of decades, then obviously fossil fuels would
have no downside at all, and we would be blessed with cheap
nonpolluting energy forever, with no nagging worries about balance of
payments, foreign control of our energy supply, and all that.
Obviously!
On Feb 26, 1:57 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Bawana
> Because if we could just prove ...duh, duh, duhduh...
Keep plucking away, ztard.
One day you may stumble upon something that makes sense.
Joe Fischer
>On Feb 26, 10:17 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 26, 10:57 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >> The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
>> >> % of the atmosphere.
>>
>> >Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
>> >who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
>> >380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
>> >date.
>>
>> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
>>
>> Actually the 0.035 makes it look like more than it is,
>> 380 PPPV is 0.000380
>> a quite small fraction.
>>
>> If a column of atmosphere were 1000 molecules
>> by 1000 molecules, there would be about one CO2
>> molecule every 50 molecules in both directions in the
>> cross section.
>
>So? A tiny amount of arsenic can kill you. A tiny amount of
>carbon-13 lets us do C-13 NMR.
A small amount of CO2 is healthy, even essential
in the lungs.
>> C
>> OONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNO
>> 2
>>
>> Those photons emitted upward by the surface of Earth
>> must have really good aim to hit one of the CO2 molecules.
>> Joe Fischer
>
>Do you have any idea how many atoms there are? Ever hear of
>Avogardro's number?
So, but there are 2500 time as many molecules
of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
(provided 400 PPM times 2500 equals one million).
Without a mechanism for CO2 to store any kind
of energy, I don't see it as a big factor as water vapor,
and I see CO2 as a very small factor compared to
clouds in daylight and clear skies at night, or sunny
skies in daytime and clouds at night.
I think the 2007 report acknowledges that
precipitation can have an effect, but I am not sure
that it considers how much heat is carried high
in the atmosphere by rain.
Joe Fischer
Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy
Your column of molecules fit inside the wavelength of one IR photon.
In fact, if the IR photon is conceived as a spheroid with a diameter
dimension of one wavelength in size then 6,769,010 molecules of CO2
would be inside that IR photon sphere at sea level air pressure.
1e-10 meters = Angstrom
1/10,000,000,000
1e-7 meters = micron, micrometer
1/1,000,000
10,000 Angstroms per micron.
21.7 CO2 molecules per micron linear spacing at 381 ppmv, = 461
Angstroms per CO2 distance apart.
A photon wavelength of infrared radiation of 10.7 microns, treated as
a spherical volume with the wavelength taken as diameter, follows the
formula of V = 4/3 Pi x r^3 = 641.43 cubic microns, containing
6,769,010 molecules of CO2.
10.7 microns wavelength of infrared happens to be common as blackbody
radiation frequency and also an absorption frequency of water vapor.
H2O exists in the air in a range from 1% to 4% volume, or 10,000 to
40,000 parts per million, compared to CO2's 381 parts per million.
The frequency of water vapor is therefore a range of 26 to 105
molecules of H2O per one CO2. The spherical volume of one 10.7 micron
diameter IR photon then is occupied by 175,994,260 to 710,746,050
water vapor molecules in addition to the 6,769,010 molecules of CO2 in
the air at S.T.P. conditions.
Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy
You lack of vision does not make you correct.
There were 4,000 molecules of CO2 per each molecule of OZONE in the
ozone layer 150 years ago. Now there are 5,000 molecules of CO2 per
molecule of ozone. Ozone is so important that a 20% increase or
decrease essentially is the difference between life and death, yet CO2
is given no weight when it changes 36%?
Joe Fischer
<Energy-...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
>You lack of vision does not make you correct.
>
>There were 4,000 molecules of CO2 per each molecule of OZONE in the
>ozone layer 150 years ago. Now there are 5,000 molecules of CO2 per
>molecule of ozone. Ozone is so important that a 20% increase or
>decrease essentially is the difference between life and death, yet CO2
>is given no weight when it changes 36%?
Nobody said anything about ignoring CO2.
But what does CO2 have to do with ozone,
just asking, there might be something everybody
should know.
Ozone is constantly being created, simply
by sunshine in the upper atmosphere, where it is
needed for protection.
Surely there are precise measurements of
the shielding or absorbing or attenuation ability
of the relevant chemicals.
But even with absorption, and omni-directional
re-emission, is CO2 really 2500 times more effective
than O2 or N2 (or O3)?
I am reading the Summary for Policy Makers
any time I am sitting on the oval seat, if it explains
some of these things, I will be glad.
Just a summary of the conclusions is not
good enough for me, and it should not be good
enough for people making decisions.
Joe Fischer
Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy
> On 27 Feb 2007 "Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy"
>
> >You lack of vision does not make you correct.
>
> >There were 4,000 molecules of CO2 per each molecule of OZONE in the
> >ozone layer 150 years ago. Now there are 5,000 molecules of CO2 per
> >molecule of ozone. Ozone is so important that a 20% increase or
> >decrease essentially is the difference between life and death, yet CO2
> >is given no weight when it changes 36%?
>
> Nobody said anything about ignoring CO2.
>
> But what does CO2 have to do with ozone,
> just asking, there might be something everybody
> should know.
It goes to show that 5,000 molecule of CO2 are not insgnificant if
just one molecule of O3 per 5,000 molecules of CO2 is life-or-death
critical. You can't live through changes in O3 the size of the changes
in CO2. The O3 changes at streetlevel are killing weaker people now,
and they are not as high a percentage or as high absolute numbers as
CO2.
You can't compare CO2 to harmeless gases, where it is more appropriate
to compare it to life0-or-death gas ratios.
> Ozone is constantly being created, simply
> by sunshine in the upper atmosphere, where it is
> needed for protection.
And was being destroyed faster than creation. We acted to stop doing
that and we are acting to abort Global Suicide by CO2 excesses.
> Surely there are precise measurements of
> the shielding or absorbing or attenuation ability
> of the relevant chemicals.
>
> But even with absorption, and omni-directional
> re-emission, is CO2 really 2500 times more effective
> than O2 or N2 (or O3)?
Evidently it is more effective by some degree than O2 or N2. ALL gas
molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse effective in some degree
or another, including O3. Any quibble over precisely 2500 times or
some other number is folly -- it's more than "enough".
In a sphere the size of one wavelength of infrared photon there are
6,769,010 molecules of CO2 at normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
There used to be 2,436,844 less of them in that sphere 10.7 microns in
diameter. That's not a trivial matter.
> I am reading the Summary for Policy Makers
> any time I am sitting on the oval seat, if it explains
> some of these things, I will be glad.
> Just a summary of the conclusions is not
> good enough for me, and it should not be good
> enough for people making decisions.
>
> Joe Fischer
You should make some effort to return to your education and complete
it so that you don't need summaries or reports but can understand the
raw data. Some subjects are too important to be left as optional. You
don't have to, but you are thereby disqualified from holding any
informed opinion that anybody cares what kind of stupid shit comes out
of your worthless piehole. You are demoted to Bawana-class, or even
James-class turd.
Retief
wrote:
However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
of "inert").
Retief
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On 26 Feb 2007 19:30:21 -0800, "davee" <dave_even...@clear.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >ok do the same calculation using oxygen and ozone, to your CO2 to
> >total atmosphere analogy and get back to me?
> >OH and subtract Nitrogen from the volume bit because it is basically
> >inert and should be removed.
>
;> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
;> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended
meaning
;> of "inert").
That's wrong. These dipoles could not produce the energy of the
distribution. This is classical physics which is a failure to quantify
heat and energy. This was based upon the idea of radiation as waves,
and these waves produced by motions of the molecules.
Modern theory on light and energy is from Planck and Einstein.
According to Planck, each spectral line,(all of them throughout the
spectrum including the continous specta of the infrareds), is from an
electron oscilator of specific energy hv. Einstein finalized this
theory with the theorem that light is in packets, or photons, or
quanta of energy. These packets have energy hv and have mass according
to E = mc2.
Planck's law effectively predicts the distribution, because of the
idea of the electron oscilator. The temperature or density of the
radiation field, produces a frequency of highest intenstiy around
which the distribution is centered. This frequency of highest
intenstity is 4.96 times greater than kT.
This is only one photon of this energy. The actual energy at this
frequency is much greater. In the normal distribution, energy
increases as a square to frequency, until the frequency maximum. There
is no way the mean energy of the linear motion of the molecules, which
is kT, could be supporting the production of this energy of the
distribution, or the motions of the molecules in their spins that
would produce dipole radiation.
The molecules have a shell of an electron which absorbs energy and
radiates energy continulally. The energy that is residual in this
electron shell due to the density of the radiation field, (the speed
that this energy can be absorbed and radiated). is transfered to the
kinetic motions of the molecules which is therefore directly
proportional.
QM evolves from Neils Bohr's redefinition of the electron oscillator
of Planck, to his rinky dink idea of the electron gaining radius in
absorbing energy and losing this radius as it emits a energy wave.
This insult to Planck is terminal for the veracity of QM. QM is where
classical physics was. With no actual abiltity to quantify energy. In
the Bohr theory and Heisenberg theory for helium, it is not even
attempted to correlate their bullshit with the kinetic theory of
gases.
Moderen QM also denies Einsteins explanation that all energy has mass
and thus photons have an exact quantity of mass, although there are
countless ways to actually prove this fact. One being the recoil from
absorption and emission of gamma photons by nuclei.
You have to feel sorry for Maxwell. He was a brilliant mathematician
but he could not derive the mathematics of heat and energy without
Planck's constant and Einsteins explanation of light as photons which
have mass.
All electromagnetic radiation is exactly the same, visible and
infrared, only composed of photons with different energy according to
hv. The actual concept of waves is meaningless. All the data that
appears to support the wave theory can be explained by the fact that
light is particuilate, like a gas, and traveling at c. Deflection back
into the stream and the vibrations of the photons account for all
empirical data. Light is not a wave.
If anyone in QM would even actually look at Heisenbergs bullshit for
helium, this whole field of theory would fall apart. But the rational
minded and mechanically inclined go into fields where the mathematics
actually mean something. Instead of pretending they understand this
raunchy bullshit of Heisenberg.
Deatherage
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
> ... continous specta
> ... oscilator
> ... oscilator.
> ... intenstiy
> intenstity
> ... continulally
> abiltity
> Moderen
> particuilate
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
Retief
>On Mar 10, 9:43 pm, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 19:30:21 -0800, "davee" <dave_even...@clear.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ok do the same calculation using oxygen and ozone, to your CO2 to
>> >total atmosphere analogy and get back to me?
>> >OH and subtract Nitrogen from the volume bit because it is basically
>> >inert and should be removed.
>>
>;> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
>;> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended
>meaning
>;> of "inert").
>
>That's wrong. These dipoles could not produce the energy of the
>distribution. This is classical physics which is a failure to quantify
The system is not "classical", and thus your attempt to apply simple
classical rules is invalid.
>Modern theory on light and energy is from Planck and Einstein.
>According to Planck, each spectral line,(all of them throughout the
>spectrum including the continous specta of the infrareds), is from an
Without that quantum nature, there are no spectral _lines_.
>QM evolves from Neils Bohr's redefinition of the electron oscillator
>of Planck, to his rinky dink idea of the electron gaining radius in
>absorbing energy and losing this radius as it emits a energy wave.
Whatever model you choose to believe, discrete spectral lines do
exist. What is rinky-dink is your apparent idea that these
transitions exhibit continuum behavior, when you can experimentally
confirm the discrete nature of the transitions with nothing more than
a discharge tube filled with a single gas, and a dispersive element
(e.g. a prism or grating).
>This insult to Planck is terminal for the veracity of QM. QM is where
>classical physics was. With no actual abiltity to quantify energy. In
>the Bohr theory and Heisenberg theory for helium, it is not even
>attempted to correlate their bullshit with the kinetic theory of
>gases.
So you're looking for a quantum kinetic theory:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quantum+kinetic+theory&btnG=Search
>Moderen QM also denies Einsteins explanation that all energy has mass
>and thus photons have an exact quantity of mass, although there are
Not all "energy" has rest-mass. Rather, mass and energy are
equivalent.
>countless ways to actually prove this fact. One being the recoil from
>absorption and emission of gamma photons by nuclei.
Recoil is conservation of momentum. What is erroneous is your idea
that momentum and energy require the particle to have a rest-mass.
>If anyone in QM would even actually look at Heisenbergs bullshit for
>helium, this whole field of theory would fall apart.
Or it would undergo more corrections and modifications (as it has). Do
not confuse a model, theory or hypothesis with "reality". It is more
likely that these are nothing more than mathematical constructs, which
allow us to compute and predict certain behaviors. Reality is likely
to be much more strange...
Retief
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Vendicar Decarian
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Why you should be sceptical of the Kyoto claims:
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).
Vendicar Decarian
"AGW is a scam" <bryn....@ntlworld.com> wrote
> You are only looking at one portion of the cause of
> variation in global temperature at a time when you say that cosmic
> rays have no effect or that solar effects are minuscule cause of GW
The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
warming.
In fact it is through direct measurement that we know that solar effects
are a miniscule component of Global Warming.
Stupid... Stupid Scam....
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote in message
> Actually the 0.035 makes it look like more than it is,
> 380 PPPV is 0.000380 a quite small fraction.
Putting a small layer of paint over your windows will also darket your
house. So what?
Putting a miniscule leayer of UV protectant on your skin will prevent
sunburn. So what?
Ignorant... Ignorant.. Joe Fischer...
> If a column of atmosphere were 1000 molecules
> by 1000 molecules, there would be about one CO2
> molecule every 50 molecules in both directions in the
> cross section.
And in every quart of air there would be 10,182,473,214,285,714,286
molecules of CO2.
All blocking the throughflow of heat radiation.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
> of "inert").
So prevalent is that IR spectra that it doesn't appear in the absorption
spectra of the atmosphere.
Ahahahahah.. Retief.. When are you going to post some more supportive
refernces that contradict your own claims?
You posted 5 in a row yesterday and your spectacular demonstration of
ignorance had me laughing so loud that I almost pissed my pants.
Ahahahahahhahahahah
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote
> A small amount of CO2 is healthy, even essential
> in the lungs.
A small amount of arsenic is healthy as well.
Ahahahaha... You Pathetically Ignorant Moron...
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
>> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
>> of "inert").
>
>So prevalent is that IR spectra that it doesn't appear in the absorption
>spectra of the atmosphere.
Really? But why should we be surprised that you didn't understand the
links and data provided? What was laughable, was that the graphic you
presented showed no methane either...
But let's review N2/O2 collision induced absorption again:
http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/jonny/papers/95.pdf
Gosh, Figure 2 sure looks like absorption in the IR band. Peaking
around 2330 cm-1, the larger peaks are absorbing at about 4.5 um.
http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia
"In the mid-infrared they cover the fundamental O2 band around 1550
cm-1, the fundamental N2 band around 2330 cm-1, and the first overtone
band of N2 around 4630 cm-1. In near-infrared pseudo-lines are given
for the O2 bands around 7900, 9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each
linelist consist of 5909 pseudolines with a spacing of 1 cm-1."
http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
"An important aspect of these studies was that newly-identified
mechanisms have systematically increased the modelled atmospheric
absorption. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the
Earth's atmosphere. However, its optical properties are yet
inadequately characterized ..."
[...]
"The role of water in the radiation budget is so important that any
uncertainty associated with its physical and chemical properties is
clearly of outstanding importance in climate modelling. In this
context, recent research [4-6] has revealed that weakly interacting
species involving water and other atmospheric gases will lead to
optically active collision complexes, meta-stable or stable dimers in
the atmosphere, which have high potential to significantly modify our
current understanding of the atmospheric radiation budget [7]. ther
weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules such as
H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a significant role as
radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere [8-9]. While individual
O2 and N2 molecules are transparent in the far-IR region, their
interactions with water molecules may induce low-frequency
intermolecular modes leading to absorption bands and continuum
absorption [10-12].
>Ahahahahah.. Retief.. When are you going to post some more supportive
>refernces that contradict your own claims?
Actually, they contradict the AGW claim that AGWers have addressed
solar flux changes. When you do an analysis of solar flux, and say
"we will ignore all feedback mechanisms", then you didn't really do an
analysis of solar flux contribution.
But why should we be surprised to learn that you lie about everything?
Your position is so tenuous, your documentation so sparse, and your
analyses so poorly performed, that the results are laughable...
>You posted 5 in a row yesterday and your spectacular demonstration of
>ignorance had me laughing so loud that I almost pissed my pants.
You piss your pants all the time, so why is that any different? Go
ask your Momma change your diapers...
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are only looking at one portion of the cause of
>> variation in global temperature at a time when you say that cosmic
>> rays have no effect or that solar effects are minuscule cause of GW
>
> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>warming.
So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
Of course, when you finally do "include solar effects", it is quite
interesting that you find it necessary to EXCLUDE all possible
feedback mechanisms resulting from that increased solar flux, as those
mechanisms are important to actually understanding the effect of solar
flux changes.
> In fact it is through direct measurement that we know that solar effects
>are a miniscule component of Global Warming.
Bwahahaha... Again Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will remain
quite warm, if we turn off the Sun...
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>>warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
> remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
And now you ignroantly confuse warming with temperature, the equivalent to
confusing a distance with a position.
Most public school students know enough not to make that kind of mistake
before they leave grade 7 or 8.
But not Retief.
Stupid.. Scientifically illiterate Retief. Perpetual Loser Retief.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Of course, when you finally do "include solar effects", it is quite
> interesting that you find it necessary to EXCLUDE all possible
> feedback mechanisms resulting from that increased solar flux, as those
> mechanisms are important to actually understanding the effect of solar
> flux changes.
Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
include the other.
So Retief is caught telling yet another lie.
>> In fact it is through direct measurement that we know that solar effects
>>are a miniscule component of Global Warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Bwahahaha... Again Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will remain
> quite warm, if we turn off the Sun...
And again Retief confuses warming (a rise in temperature) with
temperature.
Making such a pre-grade school level mistake once might be attributable to
a brain fart or perhaps a small stroke. But making such an obvious error
twice in a row, indicates a profound ignorance.
Stupid.. Scientifically illiterate Retief. Perpetual Loser Retief.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
>>> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
>>> of "inert").
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So prevalent is that IR spectra that it doesn't appear in the absorption
>>spectra of the atmosphere.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Really? But why should we be surprised that you didn't understand the
> links and data provided? What was laughable, was that the graphic you
> presented showed no methane either...
>
> But let's review N2/O2 collision induced absorption again:
>
> http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/jonny/papers/95.pdf
Once again Retief - and this is something like the 10th time, your
reference doesn't support your stated position. From the first line of the
above paper.
"Calculations are presented that estimate the energies of all the truly
bound
states of the N2-Ar van der Waais complex using a semi-empirical
potentialenergy
surface."
The paper you reference is about vandervalls forces holding Argon to N2
molecules.
Argon is a very rare component of the atmosphere while Nitrogen is the
primary component. Nitrogen - Argon complexes are essentially non-existant
in the atmosphere Temperatures are too high, and the availibility of Argon
vastly too low.
Clearly you have a habit of "supporting" your childishly ignorant
assertions about science by randomly looking for articles on line that you
think might support your position, but that you haven't the capacity to
understand, and post links hoping that either no one will notice, or that
they are as ignorant as you are.
In earlier posts you were caught twice not knowing the difference between
a temperature and a temperature change. And now you are once again caught
positng references that don't support your nonsense claims.
Poor, Scientifically Illiterate, Retief. Perpetual Loser.
Mass Killer COALition
Mass Killer COALition
Mass Killer COALition
NobodyYouKnow
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1172519549.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...> [ . . . ]
> > The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
> > % of the atmosphere.
>
> Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
> who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
> 380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
> date.
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
And irrelevant. The effect of gasses on various systems is NOT linear with
quantity. That increase from 285 to 380 ppmv has an impact which is not
proportional to it's overall fraction in the atmosphere while the bulk of
the gasses ( O2 and N2) have almost all of the volume but no or negligeable
greenhouse effect.
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>>>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>>>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>>>warming.
>
>> So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
>> remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
>
> And now you ignroantly confuse warming with temperature,
And thus Scott Nudds admits that he thinks that the Earth will
continue to warm, without the Sun.
>> Of course, when you finally do "include solar effects", it is quite
>> interesting that you find it necessary to EXCLUDE all possible
>> feedback mechanisms resulting from that increased solar flux, as those
>> mechanisms are important to actually understanding the effect of solar
>> flux changes.
>
> Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
No they aren't, you troll.
>enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
>include the other.
No you don't, troll.
>>> In fact it is through direct measurement that we know that solar effects
>>>are a miniscule component of Global Warming.
>
>> Bwahahaha... Again Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will remain
>> quite warm, if we turn off the Sun...
>
> And again Retief confuses warming (a rise in temperature) with
>temperature.
Again Scott Nudds admits that he thinks that the Earth is warmed by
CO2, not by the energy from the Sun.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
>>>> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
>>>> of "inert").
>
>>>So prevalent is that IR spectra that it doesn't appear in the absorption
>>>spectra of the atmosphere.
>
>> Really? But why should we be surprised that you didn't understand the
>> links and data provided? What was laughable, was that the graphic you
>> presented showed no methane either...
>>
>> But let's review N2/O2 collision induced absorption again:
>>
>> http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/jonny/papers/95.pdf
>
> Once again Retief - and this is something like the 10th time, your
>reference doesn't support your stated position. From the first line of the
>above paper.
>
>"Calculations are presented that estimate the energies of all the truly
>bound
>states of the N2-Ar van der Waais complex using a semi-empirical
>potentialenergy
>surface."
>
> The paper you reference is about vandervalls forces holding Argon to N2
>molecules.
The paper referenced is titled:
"Calculated spectra for the N2-Ar van der Waais complex"
> Argon is a very rare component of the atmosphere while Nitrogen is the
Argon exists in the atmosphere at approximately 0.93% (~9300 ppm). But
why would anyone expect the scientific illiterate, Scott Nudds, to
know that?
Just as he doesn't know these facts:
http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia
http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
>> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>>warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
> remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
And now you ignroantly confuse warming with temperature, the equivalent to
confusing a distance with a position.
Most public school students know enough not to make that kind of mistake
before they leave grade 7 or 8.
But not Retief.
Stupid.. Scientifically illiterate Retief. Perpetual Loser Retief.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Of course, when you finally do "include solar effects", it is quite
> interesting that you find it necessary to EXCLUDE all possible
> feedback mechanisms resulting from that increased solar flux, as those
> mechanisms are important to actually understanding the effect of solar
> flux changes.
Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
include the other.
So Retief is caught telling yet another lie.
>> In fact it is through direct measurement that we know that solar effects
>>are a miniscule component of Global Warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Bwahahaha... Again Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will remain
> quite warm, if we turn off the Sun...
And again Retief confuses warming (a rise in temperature) with
temperature.
Making such a pre-grade school level mistake once might be attributable to
Vendicar Decarian
>>> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
>>> of "inert").
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So prevalent is that IR spectra that it doesn't appear in the absorption
>>spectra of the atmosphere.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Really? But why should we be surprised that you didn't understand the
> links and data provided? What was laughable, was that the graphic you
> presented showed no methane either...
>
> But let's review N2/O2 collision induced absorption again:
>
> http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/jonny/papers/95.pdf
Once again Retief - and this is something like the 10th time, your
reference doesn't support your stated position. From the first line of the
above paper.
"Calculations are presented that estimate the energies of all the truly
bound
states of the N2-Ar van der Waais complex using a semi-empirical
potentialenergy
surface."
The paper you reference is about vandervalls forces holding Argon to N2
molecules.
Argon is a very rare component of the atmosphere while Nitrogen is the
Vendicar Decarian
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.ino>
> And irrelevant. The effect of gasses on various systems is NOT linear
> with
> quantity. That increase from 285 to 380 ppmv has an impact which is not
> proportional to it's overall fraction in the atmosphere while the bulk of
> the gasses ( O2 and N2) have almost all of the volume but no or
> negligeable
> greenhouse effect.
How nonlinear is it? Does linear approximation produce 50% error? 20%
5%.
I await your response with Laughter.
Ahahahahahahahah AmeriKKKan Morons.....
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
wrote:
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> However, N2 and O2 are active in the IR bands, as a result of their
> >>> collision induced dipoles (assuming that this is your intended meaning
> >>> of "inert").
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Argon is a very rare component of the atmosphere while Nitrogen is the
>primary component. Nitrogen - Argon complexes are essentially non-existant
Yeah, "rare" as in ~1%. But Scott Nudds' will lie, misdirect,
threaten murder...anything to "refute" his opposition.
> Clearly you have a habit of "supporting" your childishly ignorant
>assertions about science by randomly looking for articles on line that you
Now _that_ is irony, Nudds' calling someone "childish". Damn amusing,
coming from the child, whose arguments consist of threats, lies, red
herrings, non-sequiturs and ad hominems.
>think might support your position, but that you haven't the capacity to
>understand, and post links hoping that either no one will notice, or that
>they are as ignorant as you are.
Once again we will restore the references that Scott Nudds persists in
ignoring. Since it refutes Nudds' claim, he pretends it doesn't
exist.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>>>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>>>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>>>warming.
>
>> So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
>> remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
>
> And now you ignroantly confuse warming with temperature, the equivalent to
And thus Scott Nudds believes that the Earth will remain warm (i.e.
stay at the same temperature) if we turn off the sun.
My, how Scott Nudds struggles to falsely create claims with which to
disagree.
>> Of course, when you finally do "include solar effects", it is quite
>> interesting that you find it necessary to EXCLUDE all possible
>> feedback mechanisms resulting from that increased solar flux, as those
>> mechanisms are important to actually understanding the effect of solar
>> flux changes.
>
> Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
>enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
>include the other.
>
> So Retief is caught telling yet another lie.
From Solanki:
Note that the authors of this paper apparently limited their analyses
to:
"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
And additionally:
The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).
That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
Retief
Exxon's Dick Pumping Retief's Mouth
Exxon's Dick Pumping Retief's Mouth
Vendicar Decarian
>>Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And now you ignroantly confuse warming with temperature, the equivalent
>> to
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And thus Scott Nudds believes that the Earth will remain warm (i.e.
> stay at the same temperature) if we turn off the sun.
Your confusion of warming (a change in temperatire) with temperature has
nothing to do with me you Pathetic RepubliKKKan Loser.
This is your show, and you just can't seem to prevent yourself from saying
the dumbest of things.
Look Child, go back to Public School. You just can't cope here in the big
boy world.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> My, how Scott Nudds struggles to falsely create claims with which to
> disagree.
Lets review. I say...
>> The fact is the scientific community has looked and continues to look at
>>the potential solar component of the sun on the observed surface warming.
>>The synopsis is that it can attribute as much as 10% or so to the observed
>>warming.
Confusing warming and temperature you respond...
> So, if we turn off the Sun, Scott Nudds thinks that the Earth will
> remain quite warm... <Chuckle>
Nothing is being fabricated here Retief. Well nothing but your continuous
stream of ignorance and lies.
Ahahahahahah....Confusing a temperature change with a temperature... You
Pathetic, Technically Illiterate, RepubliKKKan, Moron.
Vendicar Decarian
>> Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
>>enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
>>include the other.
>>
>> So Retief is caught telling yet another lie.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> From Solanki:
> The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
> (1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
> quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
> with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
> 1970).
>
> That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
> solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
Ahahahaha.... So your useless reference doesn't employ any nonlinear
feedbacks. That just discredits you more and it doesn't alter the fact that
additional sunlight = additional heating, = additional evaporation =
additional insulation = additional heating, ice cap melting, etc. etc. etc.
Poor Retief. Just doesn't have the brains or the talent to actually find
references to support anything he says and what references he does find say
the opposite of what he claims.
Poor, Stupid, RepubliKKKan, Loser, Retief.
Hang all Exxon Directors
Vendicar Decarian
>> Argon is a very rare component of the atmosphere while Nitrogen is the
>>primary component. Nitrogen - Argon complexes are essentially
>>non-existant
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Yeah, "rare" as in ~1%. But Scott Nudds' will lie, misdirect,
> threaten murder...anything to "refute" his opposition.
Don't worry Retief, you are such a loser, you will undoubtedly shoot
yourself in the head, you have such a bad aim. Hell you can't stop shooting
yourself in the foot in this newsgroup.
Argon concentration .9% Nitrogen 78%
And what was your patehtic reference about? VanderValls compexes of Argon
and Nitrogen at ultra cold temps and your delusion that this causes IR
absorption in the atmosphere, and your false attribution of this absorption
being due to Nitrogen.
Ahahahahahah Retief, you Scientifically Illitreate, RepubliKKKan Loser..
Clearly yo uhave a habit of "supporting" your childishly ignorant assertions
about science by randomly looking for articles on line that you think might
support your position, but tha you haven't the capacity to understand, and
then post links hoping tha either non one will notice, or that they are just
as ignorant as you are and won't understand them.
Retief wrote:
> http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
The article titled "Water dimers and weakly interacing species in Atmospheic
Modeling"
From your own reference.
"While individual O2 and N2 molecules are transparent in the far-IR region,
their interactions with water molecules may induce low-frequency
intermolecular modes leading to absorption bands and continuum absorption"
Ahahahahahaha... Yet again, you provide yet another reference that
contradicts your own claim.
Ahahahahahahah... You do this every time.
Ahahahahahahah... How stupid can one person be?
Ahahahahahahahah.... You Pathetic, Ignorant... AmeriKKKan.. RepubliKKKan
Loser.
Exxon Tillerman to Prison for Life.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Retief wrote:
>> http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
>
>The article titled "Water dimers and weakly interacing species in Atmospheic
>Modeling"
>
>From your own reference.
>
>"While individual O2 and N2 molecules are transparent in the far-IR region,
>their interactions with water molecules may induce low-frequency
>intermolecular modes leading to absorption bands and continuum absorption"
>
>Ahahahahahaha... Yet again, you provide yet another reference that
>contradicts your own claim.
Gosh is that hilarious, Nudds... Yes, that is what the reference
says... It says that while individual O2 and N2 molecules are
transparent to IR, that (for example) N2-N2 collisions induce an IR
absorption spectra.
What a doofus...
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>>> Actually the feedback mechanisms are the same as the ones for the CO2
>>>enhanced Greenhouse. As a result, when you include one, you automatically
>>>include the other.
>>>
>>> So Retief is caught telling yet another lie.
How "clever" of Nudds to leave his statement in, in some feeble
attempt to attribute the erroneous claim to Retief...
But Scott Nudds (aka VD), having determined that death threats,
insults, red herrings and numerous other logical fallacies have been
ineffective, he now resorts to the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad
nauseam", repeatedly posting his discredited claims...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam
VD has decided to post so rapidly and voluminously, that he can't even
keep track of why lies he is attempting to present...
>"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> From Solanki:
>> The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
>> (1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
>> quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
>> with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
>> 1970).
>>
>> That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
>> solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
>
>Ahahahaha.... So your useless reference doesn't employ any nonlinear
>feedbacks. That just discredits you more and it doesn't alter the fact that
>additional sunlight = additional heating, = additional evaporation =
>additional insulation = additional heating, ice cap melting, etc. etc. etc.
Gosh, did Scott Nudds (aka VD) just slip up, and admit that the
additional solar flux results in a water feedback? So now VD agrees
with my position, and is trying to falsely attribute the opposite to
me.
The reader will note that Scott Nudds has repeatedly (and falsely)
claimed the opposite. But VD is so confused, that he can't even keep
his story straight.
Retief
Retief Turd, Exxon Turds
> What a doofus...
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
=====
[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.
[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;
Retief Turd, Exxon Turds
> his story straight.
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh, did Scott Nudds (aka VD) just slip up, and admit that the
> additional solar flux results in a water feedback?
Of course it does you pathetic Moron. But the observed increase in solar
output has been .06% over the last 40 years. Far, Far too small to account
for the observed warming.
Vendicar Decarian
>>Ahahahahahaha... Yet again, you provide yet another reference that
>>contradicts your own claim.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh is that hilarious, Nudds... Yes, that is what the reference
> says... It says that while individual O2 and N2 molecules are
> transparent to IR, that (for example) N2-N2 collisions induce an IR
> absorption spectra.
Twice nothing is still nothing. The absorption spectra of these transients
doesn't even appear in the atmospheric spectra.
Ahahahahah.. Stupid... Loser ... Retief.
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
wrote:
Do not propagate lies in your subject lines.
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
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
NobodyYouKnow
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_pjNh.11673$_f....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.ino>
> > And irrelevant. The effect of gasses on various systems is NOT linear
> > with
> > quantity. That increase from 285 to 380 ppmv has an impact which is not
> > proportional to it's overall fraction in the atmosphere while the bulk
of
> > the gasses ( O2 and N2) have almost all of the volume but no or
> > negligeable
> > greenhouse effect.
>
> How nonlinear is it? Does linear approximation produce 50% error? 20%
> 5%.
Almost all of the Greenhouse effect is provided by CO2 and H20, which are
about 387 ppm and 3500 ppm repectively. So about 4% of the atmsphere
provides almost all the greenhouse effect , while the other 96% provides
almost none If the posters complaint about the small percentage of the
atmosphere that is CO2 had any meaning, then the O2 and N2 would provide
about 96% of the Greenhouse effect, which manifestly it does not. Since
there is no linear scaling between percentage of the atmsphere and the
Greenhouse Effect, the posters red herring is exposed as the non-sense it
is.
> I await your response with Laughter.
I'm sure you do. You really need to take your meds. And they might need to
up the dose...
>
> Ahahahahahahahah AmeriKKKan Morons.....
>
Scott. You are a bit of a clueless boob at times and here you have outdone
your usual idiocy.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Gosh is that hilarious, Nudds... Yes, that is what the reference
> > says... It says that while individual O2 and N2 molecules are
> > transparent to IR, that (for example) N2-N2 collisions induce an IR
> > absorption spectra.
>
> Twice nothing is still nothing. The absorption spectra of these
> transients doesn't even appear in the atmospheric spectra.
Really!? That's a rather amusing (and false) claim, Nudds. Gosh, I
wonder if these phenomena appear in the atmospheric spectra (and the
models thereof)?:
http://sma-www.harvard.edu/private/memos/152-03.pdf
The am Atmospheric Model
This memo documents am, a program for producing model atmospheric
emission, absorption, and excess delay spectra, at frequencies from
a few GHz up to several THz. The program may be used to produce
forward computations of model spectra, or to perform
multidimensional fits of measured spectra. Model parameters are
defined using a flexible yet easy-to-use configuration file
notation. The program operates as a stand-alone utility,
consisting of a single executable file, with interfaces designed
for straightforward use in scripts, or with other software.
Contents
N2-N2 collision-induced absorption (CIA). This is the process
whereby quadrupolar and higherorder transition moments of an N2
molecule couple to the radiation field via polarization of an N2
collision partner, and vice-versa. In the submillimeter, N2-N2 CIA
is a principal source of continuum-like opacity in the atmosphere.
The process is characterized by a binary absorption coefficient, kb
[...]
n2air is an adjustment to n2n2 to account approximately for N2-O2
CIA. With this adjustment, the bulk of the dry continuum opacity in
the submillimeter is accounted for. Consider the following:
Gosh, even NASA thinks these atmospheric spectra exist:
And again, someone from NASA has elected to catalog these spectra:
http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia
These pseudo-linelists are given for foreign-collision induced
absorption (FCIA) and self-collision induced absorption (SCIA).
They contain pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they
cover the fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2
band around 2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around
4630 cm-1. In near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2
bands around 7900, 9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist
of 5909 pseudolines with a spacing of 1 cm-1.
And, indeed, these researchers seem concerned about the spectra
arising
from O2 and N2:
http://www.sat.ltu.se/arts/misc/arts1/doc/uguide/uguide_pdf.pdf
[see PDF Page 30 (document pg 22) for O2, and PDF page 31 (doc page
23) for N2]
But how surprising that Scott Nudds would claim that they don't exist,
especially given evidence to the contrary... But we've come to expect
little more than lies, death threats and insults from Nudds.
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Twice nothing is still nothing. The absorption spectra of these
>> transients doesn't even appear in the atmospheric spectra.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Really!?
Yes. Really.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> That's a rather amusing (and false) claim, Nudds.
>
> http://sma-www.harvard.edu/private/memos/152-03.pdf
Ahahahahahahahaha... There is nothing but computed spectra in your
reference Retief.
Ahashahahahahahahah... You stupid, fucking Moron.
I said that the transients don't appear in the atmospheric spectra.
That's the Observed Spectra you Fucning Ignorant Moron.
Where are they? Show them to me in the observed atmospheric spectra.
Ahahahahahahah Retief. You really are one of the dumbest people I have
ever encountered.
Stupid... Stupid... Retief....
Shitbag Adulterer McCain
http://TobaccoDocuments.org Court Records
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Abstract
To circumvent its lack of credibility with the public, policy makers
and the media, Philip Morris (PM) uses the strategy of creating front
groups. Forming an artificial third party and then assigning it an
"umbrella cause" (one which happens to mesh perfectly with the tobacco
industry's) gives PM and the industry the opportunity to create a
wholly separate, and far more credible, mouthpiece advance its
policies and political desires. In PM's front group "Associates for
Research in Substance Enjoyment," (ARISE) "scientists" lumped tobacco
use together with innocuous substances like tea and chocolate, put out
worldwide press releases saying substance use was good for you and
declared public health advocates to be puritanical, neo-prohibitionist
party poopers. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
declared secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, PM needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM
formed "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC.
Recognizing that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group. After a 2-month, $50,000 feasibility study done hand
in hand with PM's law firm of Covington and Burling, APCO began
forming TASSC. APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for
TASSC, too. The "supporters list" (found in another document) includes
businesses from the "Family Loompya Seafood Market" and "Pinckneyville
Lighting" to sawmills, mining and chemical companies, including W.R.
Grace, Co., Amoco, and Dow Chemical. Today's document reveals the
goals of TASSC, and also APCO's enthusiasm for creating a similar
group in Europe based on its success in America and elsewhere. Title:
Thoughts on TASSC Europe Type of Document: Memo From: Tom Hockaday of
APCO Associates To: Matt Winokur, Director, Worldwide Regulatory
Affairs for Philip Morris Date: 19940324 Site: Philip Morris Tobacco
Company http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025492898/2905 Page Count: 8
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025492898/2905
03/28/94 15:25 '8`202 466 6004 APCO ASSOCIATES 0004 -3 - As a starting
point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research
and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our
European colleagues suggest include: . Global warming · Nuclear waste
disposal · Diseases and pests in agricultural products for
transborder trade · Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC products
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Date: 25 Mar 1994
-3- As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound
scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them.
Some issues our European colleagues suggest include: . Global
warming . Nuclear waste disposal . Diseases and pests in agricultural
products for transborder trade . Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC
products . Food processing and packaging
-5- decisions. The supporters of the Appeal are a loose-knit group.
The effort to expand the support of the Appeal is handled through Dr.
M. Saloman of the International Center for Scientific Ecology (Paris).
In discussions with a number of our scientific supporters and with Dr.
Fred Singer (a member of the Board of the International Center for
Scientific Ecology), there is belief that this initial support could
be organized into a more "formal movement" internationally. The
benefits of attempting to use this group as a basis of extending TASSC
include: Several of TASSC's scientists have signed the Appeal,
providing the opportunity to approach the supporters with a "peer to
peer" approach, i.e. , a "Dear Colleague" letter.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI15842109.html
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1993 THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A truth squad
for monitoring shaky science
Date: 28 Dec 1993
TASSC should work to make fiascos like the Alar scare as familiar to
students as rain forests or global warming.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/82000099.html
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
"It is neither reasonable nor prudent for major political decisions to
be based on presumptions which, in the current state of knowledge, are
still only hypotheses, although they must certainly be examined and
even taken into account. The more or less apocalyptic scenarios evoked
in the preparatory, work for the Rio conference are not the kind of
certitudes which can be used as a basis for political decisions likely
to entail major upheavals and heavy expenditure on a global scale."
~Michael Salomon, Editorial Director, Projections Quarterly, Autumn-
Winter 1992
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028363773-3791.html
Scientists for Sound Public Policy Assessment Project and Symposium
Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
EXPLANATIONS · The political decision-makers are vulnerable to
activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns · The opinion climate
tends to favour overly simplified solutions The precautionary
principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not
100 per cent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g.
global warming Europe's industry is often on the defensive. Action is
typically taken when it is too late. And industrial resistence is
perceived as protection of commercial self-interests.
Burson-Marsteller
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025493202-3207.html
Date: 26 Apr 1994 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
Many industries trying to establish groups to "communicate science"
and "to lobby" EUFIC (food industry) SAGB (biotechnology) Heidelberg
Appeal (global warming)
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024102283-2287.html
Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 5 pages
SEITZ SYMPOSIUM
*Late lst quarter/early 2nd quarter
*Procedural Options for Addressing the Scientific Issue Highlighted in
Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies, Dr. Frederick Seitz of
the George C. Marshall Institute
*40-60 regulators--Ensure credible science
*TASSC
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451070-1139.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
Date: 11 Aug 1994
Length: 70 pages
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
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
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW: From global warming and ozone depletion to
biotechnology and food additives
Dr.. S. Fred Singer (Moderator) University of Virginia; president, The
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr. S. Fred Singer, president The Science & Environmental Policy
Project. 9:15
===============
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Date: 09 Dec 1996
Length: 13 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/800298146-8158.html
Press Release of The Science & Environmental Policy Project "TOP FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 'MYTHS' OF 1995 TO BE RELEASED BY SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT: List Challenges Costly Policies Not
Supported By Sound Scientific Data," January 10, 1996
===============
Philip Morris
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 1 page
2025802449
Jump To Images
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802449.html
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178213-8216.html
Philip Morris
Possible Individuals to Be Approached for Opinion Editorials
Date: 02 Mar 1993
Length: 4 pages
Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
She has published extensively on junk science issues in the past.
Crandall' was the Director of Communications for the Center for
Strategic and International' Studies before joining, SEPP. The primary
focus of SEPP is too document the use of scientific data in the
development of federal environmental policy. SEPP is an independent,
non-profi research group that relies on private funding.
It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on
scientific integrity in the political process, Crandall has arranged
for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr.
Bernard Davis of Harvard University and1 Sir William Mitchell of'
Oxford University.
Crandall is Dr: Fred Singer's wife.
===============
Issue Report Alexis Whither Environmental Regulation
Date: 01 Jul 1993
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s2/TI31741185.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia and directs the Washington- based Science &
Environmental Policy Project. He is currently working on a study on
environmental regulation for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
===============
Philip Morris
Anthology of 950000's Environmental Myths
Date: 11 Feb 1996
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048280356-0358.html
Copyright 1996 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times
February 11, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: Part B; COMMENTARY;
Pg. B3 LENGTH: 1377 words HEADLINE: Anthology of 1995's environmental
myths BYLINE: S. Fred Singer
BODY: The primary mission of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project has been to study and analyze how science is used - or
missused - in the setting of federal environmental policies, and then
expose the most egregious examples of environmental malfeasance. There
are so many: Superfund, asbestos, Alar, acid rain, to mention just a
few - all of them costing mega-billions and backed by insubstantial
science. When we decided to list the greatest environmental myths of
1995, our board _ of experts finally settled on the following five
topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping
policies. We present them here to educate policy-makers and the public
in the hope that the publicity will lead to more cost-effective
policies and a healthier environment. (1) Global warming and the
Climate Treaty: During 1995, scare stories about a future catastrophic
greenhouse warming gained much momentum, while at the same time the
evidence for such warming became weaker and weaker. At the first
"Conference of the Parties" to the Global Climate Treaty in Berlin in
April, the science was ignored while the assembled "statesmen" went
ahead to establish a permanent secretariat and plan further mega-
meetings. In September, at the initiative of Al Gore, a Washington
conference promoted a new fear tied to global warming: a spread of
tropical diseases putting 3 billion people at risk. Finally, in
November (in Madrid) and December (in Rome), the U.N.-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific arm
of the Treaty, managed to approve two pre-drafted summary reports.
These can charitably be described as being "economical with the
truth."...
===============
Philip Morris
Is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A
Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens? A
Restricted International Scientific Seminar 930510 - Paris (France)
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 5 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385383-5387.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Is the concept of linear
relationship between dose and effoct still a valid model for assessing
risk related to low doses of ets? A restricted international
scienfific Seminar May 10, 1993 - Paris (France)
The seminar is organised by the International Centre for a Scientific
Ecology (see Introduction to the Centre in the appendix). The
scientific work is organised by Dr Michel Salomon, the coordinator of
the Heidelberg Appeal.
Prof. S. Fred Singer, Doctor of Physical Science; President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, US Weather
Satellite Program; Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of Miami; Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); American. nationality;
Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal; former
science journalist; magazine editor; French nationality.
===============
Philip Morris
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director the Science and Environmental Policy
Project
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178209.html
===============
Brown & Williamson
Public Affairs Strategies.
Date: 1900
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/1059809.html
(#8) SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT From a strategic
standpoint, we believed the most effective way to publicize the report
would be through a credibl]e highly respected "third party".
So we brought the report to the attention of the 'Science &
Environmental Policy Project", SEPP, as it is known, is a Fairfax,
Va., think-tank that studies and analyzes how science is used in
federal policy-making and encourages the use of sound science. After
reading the CRS report, SEPP was equally concerned the EPA's
conclusions and agreed more visibility was in or@er.
{#9) SEPP NEWS RELEASE With B&W's assistance, SEEP launched a media
relations campaign in January calling attention to the "Top Five
Environmental Myths of 1995." While such issues as "global warming"
and radon were on the list, the focus was on ETS.
(#10) WASHINGTON TIMES "OP ED" In addition to news releases, SEPP
wrote "Op ed" pieces and conducted interviews on radio and television.
SEPP is continuing the "environmental myths" campaign, extending
discussion of the subject to speeches by Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP's
executive director. It's one strategy to help balance the debate.
===============
Mayo Clinic
Length: 37 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/85002238.html
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been
created at the beginning of 1993 under the French law for nomprolit
organizations.
The Board of the Center includes in particular:
- Mr Pierre Joly. President of the Association Francaise pour la
Recherche Therapeutique : former President of the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association ;
- Mr Constant Burg. honorary member of the State Council ; honorary
managing director of INSERM : President of the lnstitut Curie:
- Mr Gilbert Rutman. chief mining engineer: President of the Conseil
Natioflal des Ingenieurs et des Scientifiques de France:
- Prof. S. Fred Singer. Doctor of Physical Science : President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project : former Director US Weather
Satellite Program : Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences.
University of Miami : Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :
- Mr Gary Nash. Secretary General of the International Council on
Metals and the Environment (ICME) : former Director General in the
Canada Department of Energy. Mines und Resources :
- Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal ; former
science journalist : magazine editor.
===============
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122118.html
===============
Philip Morris
the Delaney Clause - Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501171259-1262.html
The Delaney Clause-Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice Prof.
S. Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Arlington, Virginia
===============
Philip Morris
Junk Science at the Epa
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178206-8208.html
S. Fred Singer Visiting fellovv at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and President of the Washington. D C.-baed Science &
Environrnental Policy Project
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122122.html
Philip Morris
Sepp - Environmental Myths of 950000 - Smt Participant Broadcast
Details
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122119-2121.html
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 10 Jan 1996
Length: 3 pages
===============
Philip Morris
Seminar of 930510 on the Linear Relationship
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028443741-3743.html
Opening speech by Chairman of the Seminar, Prof. Bruce N. Ames
(Biologist'4 Dir., Nat. Inst. of EnvironmentallHealth Sciences Center,
Berkeley, U.S.A.). 9/9.20 a.m. · How biofogically based modeis may
help extrapolating cancer risk to low doses.
· The Delaney amendment and its consequences on the American
regufation. Prof. S. Fred Singer (Physicist, former Dir., US Weather
Satellite Program; President, Science & Environmental Policy Project,
U'.S.A.). 10.20/10.30 a.m.
Noon · Case studies: Predictions and reality. - The Arsenic case.
Prof. Gerhard Stohrer (former chief, Dept!. of chemical risk, Research
Inst. Sloan-Kettering~ U.S.A.).
The DDT case. Dr. William Hazeltine (Ph.D., entomo!bgist, former
Manager of mosquito abatement in California, U.S:A.).
===============
Philip Morris
Update 930419
Date: 19 Apr 1993
Length: 7 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025475593-5599.html
CONFERENCE/MEETING: Scientific Integrity in the Public Process
SPONSOR: International Institute of George Mason University and the
Science and Environmental Policy Project DATE: May 24-25, 1993
LOCATION: The Madison Hotel, Washington, DC TELEPHONE NUMBER:
703-993-8200
===============
BATCo
[Note from Heather Cooke to Tom Fitzgerald regarding report issued by
The Science & Environmental Policy Project SEPP]
Date: 27 Feb 1996
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/700520244.html
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED To: FACSIMILE MR TOM
FITZGERALD I From: HEATHER COOKE Company: Brown & Williamson Phone
01784 448045 'Tobacco Corp Number: Fax No: Fax No: 0"784 448654 Date:
27/02/96 Pages To Follow: 3 Comments: I am trying to get hold of a
report issued by The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
which relates to the attached press release. Do you have a copy that
you can fax to me or know where I might be able to get hold of a copy?
Many thanks Heather Cooke Administrator, Smoking Issues
===============
Philip Morris
Toxic Policy at Dead End: the Case of Arsenic
Date: 10 May 1993 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502146148-6153.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Seminar on linear risk
assessment May 10, 1993 Toxic Policy at Dead End: The Case of Arsenic
Gerhard Strohrer Science and Environmental Policy Project 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 1003 Arlington, Virginia 22201
===============
Philip Morris
Give Industry A Bigger Science Rol
Date: 19921229/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144040.html
Patrick J. Michaels is associate professor of environmental sciences
at the University Virginia and is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environment Policy Project. The Science & Environmental
Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003, Arlington, VA 22201 .(703)
527-0130
===============
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's a rather amusing (and false) claim, Nudds.
>>
>> http://sma-www.harvard.edu/private/memos/152-03.pdf
>
> Ahahahahahahahaha... There is nothing but computed spectra in your
>reference Retief.
Just like your computed claims that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.
Oh, but computational results from Modtran don't seem to support that
claim... And yes, the spectra have been observed -- that's why they
do the computations -- to determine which species causes the spectra.
Retief
OILY Political Corruption
Maybe His Bus Will be Called the 'Flip-Flop Express'
With news that John McCain has reversed course on a key component of
his 2005 lobbying reform bill, the Carpetbagger Report has updated its
list of McCain flip-flops.
A quick sample:
McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade
to saying the exact opposite.
McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying
gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he
reversed course in February.
McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.
McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint
the image of the 'Straight Talk Express.'" Kissinger is now the
Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
It's a long list. Read it in full.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Just like your computed claims that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.
Oh, that was computed over 100 years ago. Those calculations have stood
the test of time.
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Oh, but computational results from Modtran don't seem to support that
> claim...
Is that the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to be
static at 0'C with an infinite increae in CO2?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH....
Stupid... Scieitifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Just like your computed claims that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.
>
> Oh, that was computed over 100 years ago. Those calculations have stood
> the test of time.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm
This is particularly interesting:
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2h2oarrmod.gif
It seems that Arrhenius has misidentified the source of the
absorption.
And went through several iterations of measurement:
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif
And apparently misidentified the H2O contribution as "CO2":
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/tableIIvsmodtran.gif
> Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
From Scott Nudds, who upon running Modtran, falsely identified inbound
POWER as "temperature".
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Oh, but computational results from Modtran don't seem to support that
> > claim...
>
> Is that the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to be
> static at 0'C with an infinite increae in CO2?
From Scott Nudds, who upon running Modtran, falsely identified inbound
POWER as "temperature".
> Stupid... Scieitifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who also makes this claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
Scott Nudds writes: "Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of
two protons, three neutrons and two electrons. Hydrogen can not
decay into a heavier element."
Scott Nudds doesn't know that Helium-3 has only 3 nuclei... Scott
Nudds is one of the dumbest people alive.
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm
"It is widely believed that Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted
the rise in temperature. Perhaps you are unaware that he did this
based on seriously flawed spectroscopic data."
And he still got the correct answer - About what is computed today with
the most advanced supercomputers available.
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Is that the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to
>> be
>> static at 0'C with an infinite increae in CO2?
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> From Scott Nudds, who upon running Modtran, falsely identified inbound
> POWER as "temperature".
Is thta the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to be
static at 0'C with an infinite increase in CO2?
Ahahahahahahahahahaah
Stupid... Scieitifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Scott Nudds writes: "Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of
> two protons, three neutrons and two electrons.
Wrong Retief. Helium three only has 1 neutron.
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate Retief. - Loser.
Hydrogen can not decay into a heavier element. - You pathetic fool.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Scott Nudds doesn't know that Helium-3 has only 3 nuclei...
Wrong again Retief. Helium 3 has only one nuclei, but three nucleons.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Scott Nudds is one of the dumbest people alive.
Retief isn't even consious of whom he is responding too.
Ahahahahahahaha Fucking Loser.
Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL
One Conservative Slams Another in Column on Wolfowitz
By E&P Staff
Published: April 20, 2007 11:40 AM ET
NEW YORK Conservative Pat Buchanan used his latest Creators Syndicate
column to blast conservative Paul Wolfowitz, who's fighting to save
his job as World Bank president after raising girlfriend Shaha Riza's
tax-free salary from $132,660 to $193,000.
"For a man once hailed as the brightest of the neocons, Wolfie has
behaved with a stupidity born of the arrogance of power," wrote
Buchanan. "Hailed in 2003 as architect of the Iraq victory, Wolfowitz,
by late 2004, was being singled out as the bumbler of postwar planning
and the man most responsible for what Gen. William Odom was already
calling the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history.
"With the roster of U.S. dead and wounded rising, Wolfie was looking
for a place to hide. George Bush, who had heeded his cawing for war on
Iraq from the first hours after 9-11, took pity [and] made him
president of the World Bank. ..."
Buchanan added that Wolfowitz's new position was "not your average
sinecure. The job commands a munificent salary, tax free. Nor does it
require Senate confirmation, where Wolfowitz might have had to explain
his role in deceiving us into war.
"Nor is that all. The job consists of flying first-class around the
world, dining in palaces ... and doling out billions to Third World
dictators and despots. For Wolfowitz, it was a heaven-sent chance to
rebuild his ravaged reputation. And he blew it."
Buchanan -- who noted wryly that Wolfowitz's self-proclaimed goal at
the World Bank was "fighting corruption" -- said the raise for Riza
and Wolfowitz's own World Bank pay of $400,000 illustrate "the
systematic looting of our country by parasites who are paid the
world's fattest public salaries ... supposedly to alleviate the
suffering of the world's poorest people."
Vendicar Decarian
"Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL"
<Wolfowitz.Mass.Murder.for.OIL.-.@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
> "Nor is that all. The job consists of flying first-class around the
> world, dining in palaces ... and doling out billions to Third World
> dictators and despots. For Wolfowitz, it was a heaven-sent chance to
> rebuild his ravaged reputation. And he blew it."
Is there ANYTHING. ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, these NeoKKKan FUCKUPS haven't
touched and as a result, deminished, destroyed, murdered or corrupted?
But ChickenHawk Wolfowitz, still has the compete trust and admiration of the
the retard, phoney that currently occupies the U.S. White House.
Big Glob
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:58:39 -0700, "Vendicar Decarian"
><BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> > Just like your computed claims that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.
>>
>> Oh, that was computed over 100 years ago. Those calculations have stood
>> the test of time.
>
>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm
>
>This is particularly interesting:
>
>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2h2oarrmod.gif
>
>It seems that Arrhenius has misidentified the source of the
>absorption.
Why, in the name of truth in science did you use this
in simply a rebuttal to a certified nut case when, if valid,
it totally destroys the entire case for AGW.
>And went through several iterations of measurement:
>
>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif
>
>And apparently misidentified the H2O contribution as "CO2":
>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/tableIIvsmodtran.gif
>
>Retief
Every single "scientist" or interested person should
be doing no further work with AGW without checking out
these pages and trying to verify their validity.
Big Glob
<Energy-...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 7:17 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 26, 10:57 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >[ . . . ]
>> >> The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035
>> >> % of the atmosphere.
>>
>> >Were supposed do trust this "expert" from the "Friends of Science,"
>> >who can't even get the current CO2 concentration correct? It's
>> >380 PPMV, stupid. Your information is about two decades out of
>> >date.
>>
>> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
>>
>> Actually the 0.035 makes it look like more than it is,
>> 380 PPPV is 0.000380
>> a quite small fraction.
>>
>> If a column of atmosphere were 1000 molecules
>> by 1000 molecules, there would be about one CO2
>> molecule every 50 molecules in both directions in the
>> cross section.
>>
>> C
>> OONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNONNNNO
>> 2
>>
>> Those photons emitted upward by the surface of Earth
>> must have really good aim to hit one of the CO2 molecules.
>>
>> Joe Fischer
>
>Your column of molecules fit inside the wavelength of one IR photon.
>In fact, if the IR photon is conceived as a spheroid with a diameter
>dimension of one wavelength in size then 6,769,010 molecules of CO2
>would be inside that IR photon sphere at sea level air pressure.
>
>
>
>1e-10 meters = Angstrom
>1/10,000,000,000
>
>1e-7 meters = micron, micrometer
>1/1,000,000
>
>10,000 Angstroms per micron.
>
>21.7 CO2 molecules per micron linear spacing at 381 ppmv, = 461
>Angstroms per CO2 distance apart.
>
>A photon wavelength of infrared radiation of 10.7 microns, treated as
>a spherical volume with the wavelength taken as diameter, follows the
>formula of V = 4/3 Pi x r^3 = 641.43 cubic microns, containing
>6,769,010 molecules of CO2.
>
>10.7 microns wavelength of infrared happens to be common as blackbody
>radiation frequency and also an absorption frequency of water vapor.
>H2O exists in the air in a range from 1% to 4% volume, or 10,000 to
>40,000 parts per million, compared to CO2's 381 parts per million.
>
>The frequency of water vapor is therefore a range of 26 to 105
>molecules of H2O per one CO2. The spherical volume of one 10.7 micron
>diameter IR photon then is occupied by 175,994,260 to 710,746,050
>water vapor molecules in addition to the 6,769,010 molecules of CO2 in
>the air at S.T.P. conditions.
Bush Lost Iraq War
Big Glob of Joe Fischer is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Big Glob of Joe Fischer is a sociopath utterly
without pity for his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent
video game for him, where he tries for the "most points" using weather
of mass destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000
wacked in New Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Big Glob of Joe
Fischer to spread their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Big Glob of Joe
Fischer.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm
>
> "It is widely believed that Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted
> the rise in temperature. Perhaps you are unaware that he did this
> based on seriously flawed spectroscopic data."
>
> And he still got the correct answer - About what is computed today with
> the most advanced supercomputers available.
He misidentified the contribution of water vapor, as "CO2". So he did
not compute the correct answer (for the effect of increasing CO2).
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> >> Is that the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to
> >> be
> >> static at 0'C with an infinite increae in CO2?
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > From Scott Nudds, who upon running Modtran, falsely identified inbound
> > POWER as "temperature".
>
> Is thta the program that shows the surface temperature of the earth to be
> static at 0'C with an infinite increase in CO2?
It was not a program failure that resulted in Scott Nudds falsely
identifying inbound POWER as "temperature". Instead, this
misidentification was the result of Scott Nudds' dishonesty, or his
incompetence.
> Ahahahahahahahahahaah
>
> Stupid... Scieitifically Illiterate Loser, Retief...
This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who made this claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?d...
Where Scott Nudds wrote:
"Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of two protons,
three neutrons and two electrons. Hydrogen can not decay into a
heavier element."
Scott Nudds thinks that Helium-3 has 3 neutrons!... Scott Nudds is
one of the dumbest people alive.
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Scott Nudds writes: "Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of
> > two protons, three neutrons and two electrons.
>
> Wrong Retief. Helium three only has 1 neutron.
You are just the funniest moron I have ever seen, Scott. **YOU**
wrote that helium-3 had 3 neutrons!... (Nudds = Vendicar)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
> Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate Retief. - Loser.
This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who made this claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
Where Scott Nudds wrote:
"Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of two protons,
three neutrons and two electrons. Hydrogen can not decay into a
heavier element."
Scott Nudds thinks that Helium-3 has 3 neutrons!... Scott Nudds is
one of the dumbest people alive.
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Scott Nudds is one of the dumbest people alive.
>
> Retief isn't even consious of whom he is responding too.
Scott Nudds wrote:
"Helium III is an isotope of helium consisting of two protons,
three neutrons and two electrons. Hydrogen can not decay into a
heavier element."
Scott Nudds thinks that Helium-3 has 3 neutrons!...
> Ahahahahahahaha Fucking Loser.
Scott Nudds is one of the dumbest people alive. He thinks that
Helium-3 has 3 neutrons!...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
Retief
Retief
>>This is particularly interesting:
>>
>>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2h2oarrmod.gif
>>
>>It seems that Arrhenius has misidentified the source of the
>>absorption.
>
> Why, in the name of truth in science did you use this
>in simply a rebuttal to a certified nut case when, if valid,
>it totally destroys the entire case for AGW.
You've been reading the responses here... The AGW crowd isn't about
science, nor the truth (as is evidenced by Nudds blatantly dishonest
behavior, as well as the nonsense from Parker, Coppock, and
others...).
>>And went through several iterations of measurement:
>>
>>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif
>>
>>And apparently misidentified the H2O contribution as "CO2":
>>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/tableIIvsmodtran.gif
>
> Every single "scientist" or interested person should
>be doing no further work with AGW without checking out
>these pages and trying to verify their validity.
Which means that the AGWers in these newsgroups won't read it.
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
Meanwhile....
'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the
TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years
is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of
climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures,
temperature extremes and wind patterns'
IPCC - 2007
Bonzo
> Retief wrote .
> 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
> observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
No argument there. Yes, we have had a few tenths of a degree warming in the
last 150 years.
So what?
> widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'
Seal level not rising much and melting due to ocean currents.
> 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the
> mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
> anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12.
Totally circumstantial. No believable evidence for this.
Much more evidence for a solar variability cause.
Regards
Bonzo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything
except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only
thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr.
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of
Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Bush Lost Iraq War
Bonzo is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Bonzo is a sociopath utterly without pity for his
randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game for him,
where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Bonzo to spread
their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Bonzo.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
>> observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
Bozo <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> No argument there. Yes, we have had a few tenths of a degree warming in
> the
> last 150 years.
> So what?
0.75'C = 1.35' Farenheight. So in terms that AmeriKKKans understand
temperature, the global average temperature
has risen over 1.3 degrees.
Estimates are that by the end of the century the observed increase will be
3.6 degrees Farenheight at a minimum to 9 degrees Farenheight at the upper
end, and the warming will not just stop there, but will continue to increase
for several centuries beyond that even if the levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere were to stabalize - something you argue against.
So what? Desertification, famine, massive levels of species extinction,
climatic instability, potentials for significantly higher levels of methane
production that would push the temperatures even higher.
Over 100,000 years the biosphere could be expected to adapt.
Over 100 years, it will break.
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'
Bozo <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Seal level not rising much and melting due to ocean currents.
Here is a nice graphic showing sea level rise started around the time the
earth started to warm as a result of CO2 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
So far it's risen about an inch over the last 100 years and a temperature
increase of only 1.35 degrees Farenheight.
Over the next 100 years. Over the next 100 years the anticipated rise will
be an additional 8 to 40 inches depending on the rate at which CO2 continues
to be emitted into the atmosphere. The potential for higher levels of rise
is significant if the rate of outflow from antarctic glaciers accelerates -
which is probable.
A 40 inch rise (3.3 feet) will cause the U.S. coastline to move inward on
average about 500 feet. In some areas a mile.
Much of Florida will be missing for example, and virtually all of
Bangladesh.
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since
>> the
>> mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
>> anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12.
Bozo <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Totally circumstantial. No believable evidence for this.
> Much more evidence for a solar variability cause.
Solar output has declined over the period where the earth has warmed the
fastest.
Co2 absorbs heat and reemits it back to the surface of the earth, thus
warming the surface.
This fact can not be assailed or denied scientifically. Those who do
claim that CO2 can not cause warming are either supremely ignorant or lying.
Bozo is Lying.
Bonzo
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
> >> observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
>
> Bozo <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> > No argument there. Yes, we have had a few tenths of a degree warming in
> > the
> > last 150 years.
> > So what?
>
> 0.75'C = 1.35' Farenheight. So in terms that AmeriKKKans understand
> temperature, the global average temperature
> has risen over 1.3 degrees.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
Your point is?
> Estimates are that by the end of the century the observed increase will
be
> 3.6 degrees Farenheight at a minimum to 9 degrees Farenheight at the upper
> end, and the warming will not just stop there, but will continue to
increase
> for several centuries beyond that even if the levels of CO2 in the
> atmosphere were to stabalize - something you argue against.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. ..... here come those flaky computer models
again!
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of
the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and
positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also,
computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly
including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a
major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received
radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion.
The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very
closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the
Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the
surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water
expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the
cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control
cloud cover.
AND NOW FOR THE DISCLAIMERS!
Disclaimer
The projections are based on results from computer models that involve
simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood.
Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the accuracy of
the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's
interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this
information.
And further:
Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent feedback
effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes,
biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse spatial
resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on their ability to
simulate the details of regional climate change. Future climate change will
also be influenced by other, largely unpredictable, factors such as changes
in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and chaotic variations within the
climate system itself. Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response
to the enhanced greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be
defined. Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out,
these projections should be considered with caution.
So the CSIRO's understanding of our future climate is based on a computer
models that are simplified, uncertain and limited, drawing on climate
processes that are not fully understood and unpredictable, to warn of risks
that are undefinable and cannot be relied upon.
Peter Muehlbauer
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> babbled
>
> Bozo <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> > Totally circumstantial. No believable evidence for this.
> > Much more evidence for a solar variability cause.
>
> Solar output has declined over the period where the earth has warmed the
> fastest.
>
> Co2 absorbs heat and reemits it back to the surface of the earth, thus
> warming the surface.
>
> This fact can not be assailed or denied scientifically. Those who do
> claim that CO2 can not cause warming are either supremely ignorant or lying.
>
> Bozo is Lying.
Yes, that all shows the high grade of your stupidity, denying physical laws
and constants.
Haven't you got your medicine today from those nice guys in white dresses?
Mass Murderers COALition
Peter Muehlbauer is Choosing You to be a victim of Mass Murder.
Like Cho Seung-Hui, Peter Muehlbauer is a sociopath utterly without
pity for his randomly chosen victims -- it's just a violent video game
for him, where he tries for the "most points" using weather of mass
destruction. 20,000 dead in France from Heat Wave, 3,000 wacked in New
Orleans, just points to keep score.
The longer you stay unaware that your death is his goal, the more his
words can infect you like poison to delay your self-defense plan.
Global Warming briefings were being given to tobacco company
executives two decades ago, while they were in the midst of carrying
out serial murders of 400,000 Americans per year with delay tactics of
hired science-falsifiers. They loaned part of their propaganda
apparatus to the OILY INC liars to delay actions on Global Warming, as
the court records show as early as 1988.
It wasn't until 1998 that the evidence came to light in courts of law,
but nine years later the same people are still doing the same frauds.
Since 1988 to 1998, 4 million Americans were killed by frauds that
said that the science on tobacco was unsettled. These are willful
deliberate premeditated murders, using people like Peter Muehlbauer to
spread their message.
Since 1998 another 3.6 million have been murdered by falsified science
"debate" keeping the settled science from being taken seriously by
thew victims of opportunity whom have been knowingly addicted by
corporate serial murderers, and their henchmen like Peter Muehlbauer.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
> Your point is?
From the American Geophysical Union.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December, 2003
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects
add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history.
Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot
explain
the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the
second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of
atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and
their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing
concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular
concern
is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at
any
time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts
from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s
through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of
this
increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased
levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to
thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause
global
surface climate to be warmer.
The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some
aspects
of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how
much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In
contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent
warming
will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at
higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will
warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic
cycle
will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as
flood
and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the
resulting impacts.
Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for
global
climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better
representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate
models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of
differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas
emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their
effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that
decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects
in
the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations would remain.
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an
objective the "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference
with the climate system." AGU believes that no single threshold level of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the
beginning
of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be
defined.
Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there
will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the
past
century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for
concern.
Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to
support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate
research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational
capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of
climate
scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate
research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU
also
urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making
be
based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.
Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural
hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our
ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While
human-induced
climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes
that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU
is
committed to improving the communication of scientific information to
governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate
issues
will be based on the best science.
The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that
change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict
climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe.
Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of
global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing
greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices),
technological
advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways
for
communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.
kangarooistan
wrote:
and finding ways
> for
> communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.
A total ban on all development below 67 meters will be enforced when
the truth is eventually told
We can not be 100% sure how long it will take , but when all ice
melts sea levels will rise by 67 meters or about 200 feet, but why
gamble
Simply move up the hill 67 meters and set yourself up with your own
independant food water and energy needs
OR join a community / commune that breaks free of big business
clutches while you still can
kanga
=====
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Retief wrote Nothing but stupidity.
This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who claimed that Tritium
(Hydrogen-3) could not decay into Helium-3...:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
Retief
Retief
wrote:
>"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:TaBYh.6512$WE....@read1.cgocable.net...
>> Retief wrote .
Note: Retief wrote none of the text in question.
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who claimed that Tritium
> (Hydrogen-3) could not decay into Helium-3...:
It is becoming readily apparent that Retief spoofed the header in
question.
He is a known liar and that fits his pattern of behaviour.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> This insult comes from Scott Nudds, who claimed that Tritium
>> (Hydrogen-3) could not decay into Helium-3...:
>
> It is becoming readily apparent that Retief spoofed the header in
>question.
The information is all right there:
X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1176846277 24.36.213.198 (Tue, 17 Apr 2007
17:44:37 EDT)
> He is a known liar and that fits his pattern of behaviour.
I have no need, nor desire to invent claims about you. Your
incompetence speaks for itself:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/26148460a9d924a2?dmode=source
We'll just add that false claim to a long list of nonsense that comes
from Vendicar (aka Scott Nudds).
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is becoming readily apparent that Retief spoofed the header in
>>question.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> The information is all right there:
>
> X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1176846277 24.36.213.198 (Tue, 17 Apr 2007
> 17:44:37 EDT)
Forged most probably by you.
You are a known liar and that fits his pattern of behaviour.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> I have no need, nor desire to invent claims about you. Your
> incompetence speaks for itself:
Apparently you do after being exposed as a liar and/or a fool in virtually
every message youi post.
Yes Retief. Virtual Particles, are very... Very... VERY real.
And yes, you lost that arguement as well. Ahahahahahahaah