No link between warming and hurricanes; Jossin et al. 2007 [pub. in GRL]
kwag...@hotmail.com
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/27/global-hurricane-intensity-not-increasing/
"The time-dependent differences between the UW/NCDC and JTWC best
track records underscores the potential for data inconsistencies to
introduce spurious (or spuriously large) upward trends in longer-term
measures of hurricane activity. Using a homogeneous record, we were
not able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane
intensity over the past two decades in any basin other than the
Atlantic. Since the Atlantic basin accounts for less than 15% of
global hurricane activity, this result poses a challenge to hypotheses
that directly relate globally increasing tropical SST to increases in
long-term mean global hurricane intensity."
kwag...@hotmail.com
> kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Recent study shows no upward trend in hurricanes:
>
> >http://www.worldclimatereport
> > James P. Kossin, Ph.D. Vita Date: January 2007
> > Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies
> > University of Wisconsin - Madison
> > 1225 West Dayton Street
> > Madison, WI 53706
> > 608-265-5356 (Voice)
> > 608-262-5974 (Fax)
> > kos...@ssec.wisc.edu
> >http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin
> > Education
> > Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
> > Atmospheric Science Ph.D., 2000
> > Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
> > Mathematics M.S., 1987
> > Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
> > Mathematics/Physics B.S., magna cum laude, 1985
> > Nassau Community College, Garden City, NY
> > Computer Science A.S., summa cum laude, 1983
> > Appointments
> > Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS), University of
> > Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
> > Assistant Scientist 7/2006 - present
> > Researcher 7/2004 - 7/2006
> > Associate Researcher 6/2002 - 7/2004
> > Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Fort Collins, CO
> > Postdoctoral Fellow 12/2000 - 6/2002
>
> Ah, that James P. Kossin.
Ah, THAT anonymous sockpuppet. The anonymous sockpuppet who
constantly substitutes ad hominem fallacies for logical argument.
Great to hear from you, kT.
consensually challenged
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070228/D8NID1IO1.html
more non sequitur logic to ensue. stay tuned
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172716294....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
consensually challenged
against political interference" it would mean something if the 10600 were
government scientists but as it is why didn't they sign a petition that
kittens are cute or racism is bad
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:rprFh.1078$D15...@newsfe04.lga...
> intellectually challenged wrote:
>
>> La Niño turns to La Nina trends to more hurricanes in the Atlantic.
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070228/D8NID1IO1.html
>
> Lautenbacher said.
>
> And Lautenbacher is a loser who has projected his losing qualities onto
> NOAA, and by simple logical deduction, the United States of America.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=85
>
> Ditto Kossin and Knapp, the new breed of American Mediocrity.
>
> Don't worry Brooks, I haven't blobbed your ass ... yet.
>
> --
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Why DON'T You Want Energy Security?
> Recent study shows no upward trend in hurricanes:
>
Hey LICK-A-DICK...
http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html
Increasing Frequency, Increasing Intensity of dangerous storms in
recent times.
Dora, Bondo, Favio, now Gamede, 4th super-hurricane in 2007 so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season
https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1507web.txt
https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1507.gif
Average 14 days apart, just like 2006. Gonna get super-scary this year
if you live near any tropical coast.
Kick that CO2 addiction before it kills your country.
35 MAJOR Hurricanes category 3, 4 or 5 SINCE Katrina.
Average one every 13 days. 11 super-hurricanes Category-5
GLOBAL means GLOBAL. Global Warming Action moves around but it doesn't
move to outer-space. If it's not in your backyard, it's in somebody
else's
and you can see it just by looking for it. It's very much too large to
hide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season
* 2.8 Hurricane Gordon Cat-3
* 2.9 Hurricane Helene Cat-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_hurricane_season
Storms
* 2.3 Hurricane Bud Cat-3
* 2.5 Hurricane Daniel Cat-4
* 2.10 Hurricane Ioke Cat-4
* 2.11 Hurricane Ileana Cat-3
* 2.12 Hurricane John Cat-4
* 2.14 Hurricane Lane Cat-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_typhoon_season
Storms
* 1.1 Typhoon Chanchu (Caloy) May 8 Cat-4
* 1.3 Typhoon Ewiniar (Ester) June 30 Cat-4
* 1.8 Typhoon Saomai (Juan) August 5 Cat-5
* 1.13 Typhoon Shanshan (Luis) Cat-4
* 1.14 Typhoon Yagi Cat-5
* 1.15 Typhoon Xangsane (Milenyo) Cat-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Indian_cyclone_season
Season summary
* 1.2 Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Mala (02B) April 24 Cat-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-06_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_s
eason Storms
o 2.1.5 Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Carina February 23
Catagory-4
* 2.2 Southeast Indian Ocean/Western Australia
o 2.2.2 Severe Tropical Cyclone Bertie-Alvin November 21
Cat-4
o 2.2.4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Clare January 7 Cat-3
o 2.2.5 Severe Tropical Cyclone Daryl January 21 Cat-3
o 2.2.7 Severe Tropical Cyclone Floyd March 22 Cat-4
o 2.2.8 Severe Tropical Cyclone Glenda March 24 Cat-5
* 2.4 Coral Sea/Eastern Australia
o 2.4.3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Larry March 16 Cat-5
o 2.4.4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica April 17 Cat-6
* Severe Tropical Cyclone Wati Cat-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season
* 2.1.3 Tropical Cyclone Bondo
2005 Cyclones after Katrina =================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season
* Katrina Cat-5 August 24
* Maria Cat-3
* Rita Cat-5
* Wilma Cat-5
* Beta Cat-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Pacific_hurricane_season
* Jova Cat-3
* Kenneth Cat-4
13 Cat-3s, 10 Cat-4s, 12 Cat-5s = 35
Katrina August 24, 2005 Cat-5
Hurricane Rita Cat-5
Hurricane Wilma Cat-5
Severe Tropical Cyclone Glenda March 24 Cat-5
Severe Tropical Cyclone Larry March 16 Cat-5
Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica April 17 Cat-6
Super Typhoon Saomai (Juan) August 5, 2005 Cat-5
Super Typhoon/Hurricane Ioke Cat-5
Super Typhoon Yagi Cat-5
Super Typhoon Cimaron Cat-5
Super Typhoon Durian Cat-5
Super-Cyclone Bondo Cat-5
Hurricane Kenneth Cat-4
Hurricane Daniel Cat-4
Super Typhoon Chanchu (Caloy) May 8 Cat-4
Super Typhoon Ewiniar (Ester) June 30 Cat-4
Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Carina February 23 Catagory-4
Severe Tropical Cyclone Bertie-Alvin November 21 Cat-4
Severe Tropical Cyclone Floyd March 22 Cat-4
Typhoon Shanshan Cat-4
Typhoon Xangsane (Milenyo) Cat-4
Typhoon Chebi Cat-4
Hurricane John Cat-3
Hurricane Maria Cat-3
Hurricane Beta Cat-3
Hurricane Jova Cat-3
Hurricane Bud Cat-3
Hurricane Ileana Cat-3
Severe Tropical Cyclone Clare January 7 Cat-3
Severe Tropical Cyclone Daryl January 21 Cat-3
Severe Tropical Cyclone Wati Cat-3
Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Mala (02B) April 24 Cat-3
Hurricane Gordon Cat-3
Hurricane Lane Cat-3
Hurricane Helene Cat-3
kwag...@hotmail.com
<Energy.Secur...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
>
> http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html
> Increasing Frequency, Increasing Intensity of dangerous storms in
> recent times.
>
> Dora, Bondo, Favio, now Gamede, 4th super-hurricane in 2007 so far.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyc...
>
> https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1507web.txthttps://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1507.gif
>
> Average 14 days apart, just like 2006. Gonna get super-scary this year
> if you live near any tropical coast.
I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
hurricanes here.
Your citations of storms are irrelevant. The study I cited obviously
included them in finding:
There is no upward trend for hurricanes except in 15% of the ocean
which means the theory that
AGW is causing storms is problematic.
Now take your paranoid, homophobic lunacy back to whatever rock you
scurried out from under.
Why DON'T You Want Energy Security?
> On Feb 28, 10:42 pm, "Why DON'T You Want Energy Security?"
>
> <Energy.Secur...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
>
> >http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html
> > Increasing Frequency, Increasing Intensity of dangerous storms in
> > recent times.
>
> > Dora, Bondo, Favio, now Gamede, 4th super-hurricane in 2007 so far.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyc...
>
>
> > Average 14 days apart, just like 2006. Gonna get super-scary this year
> > if you live near any tropical coast.
>
> I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
> hurricanes here.
>
> Your citations of storms are irrelevant. The study I cited obviously
> included them in finding:
Poor befuddled Jossin obviously didn't include them, which is the only
way he could arrive at his flawed results. First you lick-a-dick on
Wegman at George Mason CROOKaversity sponsored by the convicted Oilmen
Killer Koch Brothers who paid $35 million in ine fine and another $20
million in another fine, and then got caught by David's own twin
brother Bill in thousands of oil stealing that led to another big
fine, and called "Organized Crime" on national TV by twin brother Bill
and didn't sue for libel. They you lick-a-dick this Jossin guy
collecting his $10,000 bonus offered by Koch-Exxon partners through
the American Enterprise Institute...
> There is no upward trend for hurricanes except in 15% of the ocean
> which means the theory that
> AGW is causing storms is problematic.
>
> Now take your paranoid, homophobic lunacy back to whatever rock you
> scurried out from under.
I'm not phobic about lick-a-dicks. I wouldn't kiss one on the mouth
though, especially with your oozing syphilis sores on the lips.
Trakar
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172714781.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"World Climate Report" surely you jest? The report is significant and
properly qualified, WCR's accounting and take on the report are not. No
major surprise that.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/Kossin_2006GL028836.pdf'
A globally consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends
J. P. Kossin,1 K. R. Knapp,2 D. J. Vimont,3 R. J. Murnane,4 and B. A.
Harper5
Received 22 November 2006; revised 23 January 2007; accepted 30 January
2007; published 28 February 2007.
Concluding Remarks
The time-dependent differences between the UW/ NCDC and JTWC best track
records underscores the potential for data inconsistencies to introduce
spurious (or spuriously large) upward trends in longer-term measures of
hurricane activity. Using a homogeneous record, we were not able to
corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane intensity over the
past two decades in any basin other than the Atlantic. Since the Atlantic
basin accounts for less than 15% of global hurricane activity, this result
poses a challenge to hypotheses that directly relate globally increasing
tropical SST to increases in long-term mean global hurricane intensity.
[23] Efforts are presently underway to maximize the length of our new
homogeneous data record but at most we can add another 6-7 years, and
whether meaningful trends can be measured or inferred in a 30-year data
record remains very much an open question. Given these limitations of the
data, the question of whether hurricane intensity is globally trending
upwards in a warming climate will likely remain a point of debate in the
foreseeable future. Still, the very real and dangerous increases in recent
Atlantic hurricane activity will no doubt continue to provide a heightened
sense of purpose to research addressing how hurricane behavior might change
in our changing climate, and further efforts toward improvement of archival
data quality are expected to continue in parallel with efforts to better
reconcile the physical processes involved. If our 23-year record is in fact
representative of the longer record,then we need to better understand why
hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin is varying in a fundamentally
different way than the rest of the world despite similar upward trends of
SST in each basin.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
>
> "World Climate Report" surely you jest? The report is significant and
> properly qualified, WCR's accounting and take on the report are not. No
> major surprise that
Yet, another example of an industry funded source
mis-reporting the science. WCR is not the worst.
That title goes to the Idso's over at "Cee-Oh-Too"
Pseudo-science. Their so called 'summaries' are
useless.
Modeling studies predict an increase in hurricane
activity about half a century from now. The data
have a high variance and long term measurement
standards are lacking. I'm therefore very skeptical
of reports of any observed increase. The article
seems to confirm my statements.
> http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/Kossin_2006GL028836.pdf'
>
> A globally consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends
>
> J. P. Kossin,1 K. R. Knapp,2 D. J. Vimont,3 R. J. Murnane,4 and B. A.
> Harper5
>
> Received 22 November 2006; revised 23 January 2007; accepted 30 January
> 2007; published 28 February 2007.
Gee! That's a quick jump into publication.
Lloyd
>
> "The time-dependent differences between the UW/NCDC and JTWC best
> track records underscores the potential for data inconsistencies to
> introduce spurious (or spuriously large) upward trends in longer-term
> measures of hurricane activity. Using a homogeneous record, we were
> not able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane
> intensity over the past two decades in any basin other than the
> Atlantic. Since the Atlantic basin accounts for less than 15% of
> global hurricane activity, this result poses a challenge to hypotheses
> that directly relate globally increasing tropical SST to increases in
> long-term mean global hurricane intensity."
Several published (in peer-reviewed journals) found a link between
intensity and GW. So the most you can say is that this is in doubt.
James
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:rprFh.1078$D15...@newsfe04.lga...
> intellectually challenged wrote:
>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070228/D8NID1IO1.html
>
> Lautenbacher said.
>
> And Lautenbacher is a loser who has projected his losing qualities onto
> NOAA, and by simple logical deduction, the United States of America.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=85
>
> Ditto Kossin and Knapp, the new breed of American Mediocrity.
>
> Don't worry Brooks, I haven't blobbed your ass ... yet.
>
>
> --
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Ahhh that http://cosmic.lifeform.org/
kwag...@hotmail.com
The most I can reliably and soundly say is this study demonstrated no
such link, which is what I did say.
kwag...@hotmail.com
> On Feb 28, 10:22 pm, "Trakar" <TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
>
>
> > "World Climate Report" surely you jest? The report is significant and
> > properly qualified, WCR's accounting and take on the report are not. No
> > major surprise that
>
> Yet, another example of an industry funded source
> mis-reporting the science. WCR is not the worst.
> That title goes to the Idso's over at "Cee-Oh-Too"
> Pseudo-science. Their so called 'summaries' are
> useless.
I am not industry funded, I wrote the title of this post and the
concluding remarks that 'Trakar' quoted supported not only the header
I chose but that the historical record may be too short to draw any
conclusions at all.
kwag...@hotmail.com
> > concluding remarks that 'Trakar' quoted supported not only the header
> > I chose but that the historical record may be too short to draw any
> > conclusions at all.
>
You could have made a successfully misleading statement without lying,
Katy, if you had written "or" rather than "and". You're right about
the employers. The authors on the other hand think differently, as
their conclusion indicates.
kwag...@hotmail.com
<Energy.Secur...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
[snip homophobic screed]
You're unfortunately unfit for civil discourse.
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Using a homogeneous record, we were not able to corroborate the presence
> of upward trends in hurricane intensity over the past two decades in any
> basin
> other than the Atlantic. Since the Atlantic basin accounts for less than
> 15% of
> global hurricane activity, this result poses a challenge to hypotheses
> that directly relate globally increasing tropical SST to increases in
> long-term mean global hurricane intensity."
Indicating that the expected and observed trend toward more and stronger
hurricanes while present, is not sufficiently emerged from the background
fluctuation of normal hurricane intensity, with the possible exception of
the Atlantic.
Vendicar Decarian
"consensually challenged" <ell...@msn.com> wrote
> Do you even read the nonsense you quote "10600 scientist sign a petition
> against political interference" it would mean something if the 10600 were
> government scientists but as it is why didn't they sign a petition that
> kittens are cute or racism is bad
Is there some hidden meaning to the above paragraph? I can't find any.
Perhaps it's a code message to an AlQuada operative.
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
> hurricanes here.
In the U.S. Are you one of those AmeriKKKans who think the U.S. comprises
the entire globe? Can't find your own country on an unnamed map of the
world? Think that the U.S. population composes over 50% of the global
population?
Ahahahahahahahha Such is the profound Ignorance of AmeriKKKans.
Hence the Extermination of the AmeriKKKan state continues...
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> You're unfortunately unfit for civil discourse.
Lets be clear about something.....
The only good RepubliKKKan is a dead RepubliKKKan.
Is that civil enough for you?
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The most I can reliably and soundly say is this study demonstrated no
> such link, which is what I did say.
It's a statistical study and hence can not demonstrate any link. It can
only demonstrate correlation. Links are demonstrated by theory and
modeling.
Is it your position that you are vindicated because no llink is found in a
study in which finding links is impossible?
Ahahahahahaha... Poor, Pathetic, Dumb as Dirt, Kwag..... Perpetual
Loser.
kwag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Can't you read? I assume it is just your need to spin preventing your
comprehension? The "expected and observed trend" is EXACTLY what they
did NOT find. The found an upward trend only in the Atlantic and
since the Atlantic accounts for <15% of the world's ocean, they found
the AGW hypothesis spurious. Sheesh.
kwag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
You already went off on a psychotic rant once. I absolutely think
this is uncivil enough to not bother responding to you again.
Farewell to Nudds.
Peter B. P.
Yes, the home of one of the biggest crackpot sociopaths on USENET.
Nothing to see here, move along.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
> > hurricanes here.
>
> In the U.S.
Yes, I live in the US you dribbling moron. That is what is meant by
"here".
alanm...@yahoo.com
Aside from the fact that there is NO measurable trend in hurricane
activity, if a trend did exist because of heating of the ocean, it
would be a datum bolstering the argument that the SUN is the cause of
global warming.
>From "realclimate"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
"Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat
content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis
et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is
something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed
notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a
'smoking gun' for human-caused greenhouse gases.
However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here - how can a
forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean
below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few
micrometers into the ocean? "
"The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a
clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net
infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective
temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin
temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is
cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching
the sea surface
There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm
and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/
m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing
cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by
increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial
CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective
of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship."
So any warming of the sea by atmospheric feedback is negligible.-
any significant warming of the ocean must be cause by the SUN- an
argument
in favor of the cosmic ray theory proposed by Svensmark, Shaviv, etc-
A. McIntire
Night of the Living Crackpots
ExxonMobil Spent $16 Million to Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
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
Night of the Living Crackpots
Kwack, Kwack, Kwack, Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot,
Ignore.
Invasion of the Crackpots
> Aside from the fact that there is NO measurable trend in hurricane
> activity, if a trend did exist because of heating of the ocean, it
> would be a datum bolstering the argument that the SUN is the cause of
> global warming.
> A. McIntire
I document the MAJOR HURRICANES on this usenet group.
Can't you read Crackpot McInturd? Now you document the chane of
intensity of the sun since January 1st, 2007. OR SHUT UP!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/8e0cc21f05ee335e
Mar 14, 11:16 am
7th SUPER HURRICANE in 73 Days of year 2007 -- one every 10ish days so
far.
https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1907.gif
https://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/warnings/sh1907web.txt
"THE SYSTEM HAS INTENSIFIED AT A
GREATER THAN CLIMATOLOGICAL RATE OVER THE PAST 24 HOURS."
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 115 KT, GUSTS 140 KT
115 kt = 132 mph, 140 kt = 161 mph gusts.
FORECASTS:
12 HRS, VALID AT:
150000Z --- 15.0S 50.8E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 125 KT, GUSTS 150 KT
125 kt = 144 mph, 150 kt = 173 mph gusts.
CATEGORY 5 in 12 hours.
Vendicar Decarian
"Peter B. P." <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote
> Yes, the home of one of the biggest crackpot sociopaths on USENET.
For sheer insanity and ignorance the best spot on the web is...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote
> You already went off on a psychotic rant once. I absolutely think
> this is uncivil enough to not bother responding to you again.
> Farewell to Nudds.
You have said that at least twice before but don't seem capable of <not>
repsonding to my posts.
More inconsistancy and dishonesty on your part I guess.
Pathetic... Loser... Kwag...
I do find it interesting though that you tend to run away when I begin to
question you regarding which KKKonservative propaganda group you work for.
Vendicar Decarian
>> > I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
>> > hurricanes here.
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the U.S.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, I live in the US you dribbling moron. That is what is meant by
> "here".
Your an AmeriKKKan? Shit, that explains why you are such a pathetic,
ignorant, mother fucking loser.
Lloyd
You are lying. Published research shows the sun is not causing the
current warming.
> >From "realclimate"
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-...
Read some scientific liteature. The cosmic ray theory is as dead as
phlogiston.
alanm...@yahoo.com
Evidently you're mistaken-
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~epb/reprints/Palle_etal_GRL_2005.pdf
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
'NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
March 19, 2007
Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's
climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future.
Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by
satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations
in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However,
there were no measured climate records of this type until the
relatively recent scientific past.
Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering
methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice
cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow
and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain
trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past
climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university
scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and
climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly
measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest
river.
Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed
Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and
1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared
to another well-documented human record from the same time period:
observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the
Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that
happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or
following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking
variations in the sun's activity.
Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally
"spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period
they studied.
"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were
accurately measured, since they were critically important for
agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said.
"These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making
them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in
time."
A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the
same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there
routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity,
because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as
droughts and the deaths of kings.
"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting
these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating
their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by
aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale
variations."
The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and
climate variations'
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/a-new-theory-of-climate-change
"The review paper entitled 'Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges'
appears in the February issue of Astronomy & Geophysics. Here are some
of its salient points.
For more than 20 years, satellite records of low-altitude clouds have
closely followed variations in cosmic rays. Just how cosmic rays take
part in cloud-making appeared in the SKY experiment, conducted in the
basement of the Danish National Space Center. Electrons set free in
the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble the building blocks
for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make
clouds.
Cosmic ray intensities - and therefore cloudiness - keep changing
because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic
rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth.
Radioactive carbon-14 and other unusual atoms made in the atmosphere
by cosmic rays provide a record of how cosmic-ray intensities have
varied in the past. They explain repeated alternations between cold
and warm periods during the past 12,000 years. Whenever the Sun was
feeble and cosmic-ray intensities were high, cold conditions ensued,
most recently in the Little Ace Age that climaxed 300 years ago.
On long timescales the intensity of cosmic rays varies more
emphatically because the influx from the Galaxy changes. During the
past 500 million years the Earth has passed through four 'hothouse'
episodes, free of ice and with high sea levels, and four 'icehouse'
episodes like the one we live in now, with ice-sheets, glaciers and
relatively low sea levels.
Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, together with Ján
Veizer of the Ruhr University and the University of Ottawa, links
these changes to the journey of the Sun and the Earth through the
Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with
bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense. More frequent
chilling events, every 34 million years or so, occur whenever the
solar system passes through with the mid-plane of the Galaxy.
In Snowball Earth episodes around 700 and 2300 million years ago, even
the Equator was icy. At those times the birth-rate of stars in the
Galaxy was unusually high, which would have also meant a large number
of exploding stars and intense cosmic rays. Earlier still, the theory
of cosmic rays and clouds helps to explain why the Earth did not
freeze solid when it was very young. The Sun was much fainter than it
is now, but also more vigorous in repelling cosmic rays, so the Earth
would not have had much cloud cover.
While calculating the changing influx since life began about 3.8
billion years ago, Dr Svensmark discovered a surprising connection
between cosmic-ray intensities and a variability of the productivity
of life. The biggest fluctuations in productivity coincided with high
star formation rates and cool periods in the Earth's climate.
Conversely, during a billion years when star formation was slow,
cosmic rays were less intense and the Earth's climate was warmer, the
biosphere was almost unchanging in its productivity.
Near the end of his review Dr Svensmark writes: 'The past 10 years
have seen the reconnaissance of a new area of research by a small
number of investigators. The multidisciplinary nature of
cosmoclimatology is both a challenge and an opportunity for many lines
of inquiry.' Even the search for alien life is affected, because it
should now take into account of the need for the right magnetic
environment, if life is to originate and survive on the planets of
other stars.
'Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges', Henrik Svensmark, Astronomy
& Geophysics, Vol. 48, Issue 1, pages 1.18-1.24, February 2007"
> Aside from the fact that there is NO measurable trend in hurricane
activity, if a trend did exist because of heating of the ocean, it
would be a datum bolstering the argument that the SUN is the cause of
global warming.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/printer_most_active_sun_8000_years.html
"Thu, 28 Oct 2004 - The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400
years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for
the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international
group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck
Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The
scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived
thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and
Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal
"Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in
order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the
last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of
increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current
level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few
more decades.
The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is
more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has
allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to
11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age
could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high
solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last
8000 years. "
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@gmail.com> wrote
I admit to being torn between enjoying proving your wrong again and
again and being revulsed by your sociopathy. I still think you're
basically a moron for being unable to grasp that some people hold
positions contrary to your own without being paid to do so, but c'est
la vie. What do you think? Is ostracism a better response than
engagement in dealing with your homicidal mania? Let's explore this
together.
Exxon Liars & Crooks
Ignore.
Kwack, Kwack, Kwack, Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot,
Ignore.
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> The research team had already in 2003 found evidence ...
>
> read more »
Yawn. Alan McInturd's boring repeat of tedious quackery makes Al Gore
seem like the Red Hot Chili Peppers by comparison.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I do find it interesting though that you tend to run away when I begin
>> to
>> question you regarding which KKKonservative propaganda group you work
>> for.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I admit to being torn between enjoying proving your wrong again and
> again and being revulsed by your sociopathy.
Fight, lose, declar victory and run away with your tail between your legs.
It's the KKKonservative way....
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I still think you're basically a moron for being unable to grasp that some
> people hold
> positions contrary to your own without being paid to do so, but c'est
> la vie.
You are free to eat your own excrement in the privacy of your own home
Kwag. But when the stench of your breath pollutes my air, and your shit
stained fingers touch my food, your opinions over what is and isn't proper
personal hygiene become irrelevant and the recommendations of the expert
medical community take their place.
And so it goes with any other "opinion" you might have that impacts upon
any other person or living thing. Your opinions in those instances are
worthless.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Is ostracism a better response than engagement in dealing with your
> homicidal mania?
Oh I haven't killed anyone yet Kwag. But George Bush and the AmeiKKKan
people are directly responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi
civilians and indirectly responsible for the murder of more than a half
million Iraqi's in total.
This number simply adds to the 10 million or so people that the AmeriKKKan
state has murdered over the last 200 years.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I do find it interesting though that you tend to run away when I begin
>> to
>> question you regarding which KKKonservative propaganda group you work
>> for.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote...
No response...
I find the non-response to be quite an interesting omission.
What KKKonservative propaganda group do you work for Kwag?
Vendicar Decarian
> You are lying. Published research shows the sun is not causing the
> current warming.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Evidently you're mistaken-
What is the point of providing references to papers that don't support your
assertions?
Are you just presuming that people will just avoid reading the references
and presume that you aren't an ignorant fool?
Well fool.....
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~epb/reprints/Palle_etal_GRL_2005.pdf
5. Conclusions
[19] The role of clouds in the Earth's changing albedo is
largely unknown, but understanding it is essential for
studying climate change. Sustained measurements of the
earthshine are an ideal probe of this critical, evolving
parameter of climate, and provide an excellent complement
to satellite measurements. We have shown in this paper how
we performed the calibration between two earthshine telescopes.
Earthshine measurements from these two telescopes
from two different locations on the planet can be combined
together to allow a longer time line with broader geographical
coverage of the Earth's albedo. We find that earthshine
measurements at BBSO and CrAO stations are consistent
with what we would expect a priori, although a full
consistency test on seasonal and interannual scales awaits
the availability of a larger data set.
[20] We have also shown how our proposed global earthshine
network would cover the whole Earth and continuously
monitor the Earth's reflectance. The overlapping of the
several stations will provide a more homogeneous sampling
of the Earth's surface and will make a crucial contribution in
determining the relative roles of a modestly variable sun, an
evolving cloud cover, and the increasing atmospheric greenhouse
gases in global climate change
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf
In a little less than 50 years, have we crossed into a galactic spiral arm
Almanac? Ahahahahahahahaah.....
The summary of the above link.
We construct a Galactic cosmic ray (CR) di usion model while considering
that CR sources reside predominantly in the Galactic spiral arms. We nd
that the CR
ux (CRF) reaching the solar system should periodically increase each
crossing of a Galactic spiral arm. We search for this signal in the CR
exposure age record of Iron meteorites and con rm this prediction. We then
check the hypothesis that climate, and in particular the temperature, is
a ected by the CRF to the extent that glaciations can be induced or
completely hindered by possible climatic variations. We find that
although the geological evidence for the occurrence of IAEs in the past Eon
is not unequivocal, it appears to have a nontrivial correlation with the
spiral arm crossings|agreeing in period and phase. Thus, a better timing
study of glaciations could either con rm this result as an explanation to
the occurrence of IAEs or refute a CRF climatic connection.
And so it goes, reference after refrerence that don't support your
assertion.
Stupid.. Scientifically illiterate, AmeriKKKan.
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I do find it interesting though that you tend to run away when I begin
> >> to
> >> question you regarding which KKKonservative propaganda group you work
> >> for.
>
> No response...
>
> I find the non-response to be quite an interesting omission.
>
> What KKKonservative propaganda group do you work for Kwag?
I find that not responding to your horseshit prompts your
interestingly premature declarations of victory. Do you do other
things prematurely? What other premature issues do you have? I
assume you must take yourself seriously, but I can't imagine how.
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > I do and you're a homophobic moron. 2006 was a light year for
> >> > hurricanes here.
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the U.S.
> > Yes, I live in the US you dribbling moron. That is what is meant by
> > "here".
>
> Your an AmeriKKKan? Shit, that explains why you are such a pathetic,
> ignorant, mother fucking loser.
"Your" not an American? Is whatever backwater you're from a place
where they are insensitive to proper contraction? Apparently yes.
Importantly, I am a US citizen. Many Americans are not. You know,
There are actually 2 American continents and the inhabitants of either
are properly deemed American. You're none too bright are you?
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I do find it interesting though that you tend to run away when I begin
> >> to
> >> question you regarding which KKKonservative propaganda group you work
> >> for.
>
>
> > I admit to being torn between enjoying proving your wrong again and
> > again and being revulsed by your sociopathy.
>
> Fight, lose, declar victory and run away with your tail between your legs.
>
> It's the KKKonservative way....
>
>
> > I still think you're basically a moron for being unable to grasp that some
> > people hold
> > positions contrary to your own without being paid to do so, but c'est
> > la vie.
>
> You are free to eat your own excrement in the privacy of your own home
> Kwag. But when the stench of your breath pollutes my air, and your shit
> stained fingers touch my food, your opinions over what is and isn't proper
> personal hygiene become irrelevant and the recommendations of the expert
> medical community take their place.
>
> And so it goes with any other "opinion" you might have that impacts upon
> any other person or living thing. Your opinions in those instances are
> worthless.
>
>
> > Is ostracism a better response than engagement in dealing with your
> > homicidal mania?
>
> Oh I haven't killed anyone yet Kwag. But George Bush and the AmeiKKKan
> people are directly responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi
> civilians and indirectly responsible for the murder of more than a half
> million Iraqi's in total.
Where do even you get this? How did US troops manage to kill 100K
Iraqis? How is the US responsible for homicidal Islamists?
Vendicar Decarian
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Your" not an American?
Not anymore.
What KKKonservative propaganda organization do you work for Kwag?
Vendicar Decarian
>> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh I haven't killed anyone yet Kwag. But George Bush and the
>> AmeiKKKan
>> people are directly responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi
>> civilians and indirectly responsible for the murder of more than a half
>> million Iraqi's in total.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Where do even you get this? How did US troops manage to kill 100K
> Iraqis?
You AmeriKKKans are fucking ignorant Cocksuckers aren't you?
War has killed 100,000 Iraqis: study
Friday Oct, 29, 2004 6:45 am ET - CBC News
Nearly 100,000 more Iraqis have died during the American-led occupation than
would have been expected otherwise, a study posted on The Lancet medical
journal's website Thursday estimates.
Most of the extra deaths in the first 18 months of the occupation were due
to violence, the researchers said - in particular, air strikes that claimed
civilian casualties.
"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and
children," they wrote.
Previous estimates of the number of Iraqis killed during the American-led
air strikes and occupation have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.
...
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html
Retief
> You are lying. Published research shows the sun is not causing the
> current warming.
"Oceans Temps, Solar Cycles Linked"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_cycle_011116.html
Solanki, et. al:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
"The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close
to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies
that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high,
but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long."
We can check the solar flux for ourselves:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
[...] Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output
of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled
out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
evaluate meaningfully at present.
Thus the sun is not ruled out...
"Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
And it seems that it is this paper alone which is used to support the
several claims that "the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30%"
(and we note that 30% is contrary to Parker's false claim).
However, examining this paper, we discover 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 and feedback from
insolation on the soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere. Thus once
again, the change in solar flux has not been ruled out.
> > in favor of the cosmic ray theory proposed by Svensmark, Shaviv, etc-
> > A. McIntire
>
> Read some scientific liteature. The cosmic ray theory is as dead as
> phlogiston.
Gosh Parker, don't you read scientific literature? From last month:
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences
ISSN: 1364-5021 (Paper) 1471-2946 (Online)
Issue: Volume 463, Number 2078 / February 08, 2007
Pages: 385 - 396
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2006.1773
Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation
under atmospheric conditions
Henrik Svensmark AFF1, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen AFF1, Nigel D. Marsh
AFF1, Martin B. Enghoff AFF1, Ulrik I. Uggerhøj AFF1 AFF2
AFF1 Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre,
2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
AFF2 Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, 8000
Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract:
Experimental studies of aerosol nucleation in air, containing trace
amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water vapour at concentrations
relevant for the Earth's atmosphere, are reported. The production of
new aerosol particles is found to be proportional to the negative ion
density and yields nucleation rates of the order of
0.1–1cm−3s−1. This suggests that the ions are active in
generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable
clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the
atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote> Solanki, et. al:
> http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
>
> "The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close
> to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies
> that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high,
> but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long."
Ahahahahaha... Retief you Pathetic Moron. Figure 1 in your own reference
(linked above) contradicts the very paragraph you include below.
Ahahahahahahahahah.... Solar activity according to figure 1 is near it's
lowest point in the the history recorded. In this case over the last 10,000
years.
Ahahahahahahahahahah....
Can't you do anything right? You stupid.. Pathetic, Loser.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
>
> "The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close
> to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies
> that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high,
> but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long."
>
> We can check the solar flux for ourselves:
Ahahahahaha... Retief just keeps posting references that oppose his own
assertions.
From the very reference he posts above... The following paragraph clearly
states the view of the authors....
"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades. (3)"
Ahahahahahah... Retief you Pathetic... Pathetic.... Loser....
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
>
> [...] Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output
> of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled
> out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
> evaluate meaningfully at present.
Ahahahaha... Retief you Pathetic, Lying, Loser. Lets quote the enitre
article synopsis shall we... I've highlighted the appropriate section that
contradicts your stated denialist position..
Ahahahahahahah You Loser.
-Start Quote-
Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
11-year sunspot cycle.
---
The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30
years.
---
In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output
variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity
change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is
unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the
seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's
output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out.
The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully
at present.
-End Quote-
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
Pathetic... Loser.
From the conclusions section of the above reference - you provide -
Ahahahahaahhh
"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
high."
Ahahahahahahahaha..... You Fucking Stupid AmeriKKKan Loser.
alanm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If you're referring to this link,
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
figure 1 referred to delta C14, inversely related to solar activity-
A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
THAT was due to the sun. I suspect the last qualifier was thrown in
to mollify the hysterical AGW crowd- A. McIntire
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh Parker, don't you read scientific literature? From last month:
>
> http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(olbm4x555tz1gi55ojqhw055)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,19;journal,5,139;linkingpublicationresults,1:102023,1
From the Royal Society ay? Here is a portion of their Global Warming Pages.
Again contradicting your stated position Retief.
Ahahahahahah... You Pathetic, Ignorant, Loser....
Facts and fictions about climate change
It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the
scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration.
Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate and the factors that affect it. Some have
questioned the motives of the scientists who have presented the most
authoritative assessments of the science of climate change, claiming that
they have a vested interest in playing up the potential effects that climate
change is likely to have.
This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold
typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change
and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. It has been
prepared by a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal
Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document has been
endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on
scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work
of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United
States National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Good reading Retief. Educate yourself, you pathetic Loser.
Vendicar Decarian
>> "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot
>> numbers
>> may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
>> change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
>> variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
>> strong warming during the past three decades. (3)"
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> There was a lot more warming between 1650 and 1980. Evidently
> THAT was due to the sun. I suspect the last qualifier was thrown in
> to mollify the hysterical AGW crowd- A. McIntire
You suspect that they really wanted to say something for which they said
the exact opposite.
I suspect that you are a Pathetic Loser.
Vendicar Decarian
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> If you're referring to this link,
>
> http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
>
> figure 1 referred to delta C14, inversely related to solar activity-
> A. McIntire
Oh, excuse me, lower than at any time in the last 4,000 years.
Ahahahahahahah... You Pathetic... Pathetic... Loser...
GOP Adultery Party in '08
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
>may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
>change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
>variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
>strong warming during the past three decades. (3)"
UNLIKELY!!?? I thought that you claimed that you had DISPROVEN that
the Sun can be the cause? You've been lying to us, Scott!
I'll also bet that you "forgot" to include the various feedback
mechanisms, in your "detailed analysis" for solar flux effects...
(it is very important that you EXCLUDE these feedback effects, as you
might otherwise discover that the sun is sufficient, and then you'd be
a liar...)
But Scott Nudds is a liar, so why should we expect anything else from
him?
Retief
Retief
I suspect that if they had intended to say that they had DISPROVEN
that the Sun was the dominant cause, they would have said that. But
no, they did not exclude the sun as the cause (though I'll bet that
they excluded feedback mechanisms, in the computer modelled "analysis"
-- conversely, it is an experimental fact that the solar flux has
increased)
Retief
Mass Killer COALition
Mass Killer COALition
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot
>>numbers
>>may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
>>change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
>>variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
>>strong warming during the past three decades. (3)"
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> UNLIKELY!!?? I thought that you claimed that you had DISPROVEN that
> the Sun can be the cause? You've been lying to us, Scott!
I have made no claim that science proves anything. In fact I have
repeatedly told you and others - dozens and dozens of times over - as a
matter of fact, that outside of mathematics, Science doesn't deal in proof.
Never has, never will.
And here you go claiming that I had said that Science has "proven"
something.
This runs counter to everything I have said, and every one of the dozens
of instances where I or others have told you that demanding proof from
science is proof of YOUR scientific illiteracy.
Since you are now claiming that I have said that science proves anything,
you have once again exposed yourself as the KKKonservative Liar you are.
I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual liar.
Pathetic.. Lying... Perpetual Loser Retief.
Night of the Living Crackpots
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> I suspect that if they had intended to say that they had DISPROVEN
> that the Sun was the dominant cause, they would have said that.
They didn't say that they had disproven that fish crackers is the dominant
cause either.
Neither did they say that they had disproven pancakes were the dominant
cause.
In fact they didn't say they had disproven an infiniite set of things were
the dominant cause.
Does the news media spend it's time listing the infinite number of things
that were not newsworthy every day?
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate, Loser Retief..
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
by Staff Writers
Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The
sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface,
while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface
layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both
the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae
dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at
indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae
affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on
U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent
brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when
spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar
cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed
appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the
mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase
in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of
sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere
and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of
high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic
rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the
activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern
Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of
long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes
in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the
sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even
though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these
phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period,
according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar
brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with
sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that
these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar
brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says
Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic
rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the
authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because
physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National
Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Hang all Exxon Directors
alanm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote
I give you a reference, you give me an insult. Read the wording
in figure 1, don't just look at the pictures. The graph, as I said
before, was C14 production which is INVERSELY proportional to solar
activity- that means HIGH numbers on the graph indicate LOW solar
activity, and LOW numbers indicate HIGH solar activity
- A. McIntire
Insignificant Flyspecks
Vendicar Decarian
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I give you a reference, you give me an insult.
Your reference doesn't support your assertion. Hence the insult..
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Read the wording in figure 1, don't just look at the pictures. The
> graph, as I said
> before, was C14 production which is INVERSELY proportional to solar
> activity- that means HIGH numbers on the graph indicate LOW solar
> activity, and LOW numbers indicate HIGH solar activity
> - A. McIntire
Exactly. And solar activity according to YOUR interpretation of the data
is lower now than it has been for the last 4,000 years.
Global temperatures are higher.
Night of the Living Crackpots
wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I give you a reference, you give me an insult.
>
> Your reference doesn't support your assertion. Hence the insult..
>
Night of the Living Crackpots
wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I give you a reference, you give me an insult.
>
> Your reference doesn't support your assertion. Hence the insult..
>
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I suspect that if they had intended to say that they had DISPROVEN
>> that the Sun was the dominant cause, they would have said that.
>
> They didn't say that they had disproven that fish crackers is the dominant
>cause either.
Gosh, aren't you clever, Scotty?... Since they were talking about the
energy from the sun, we might expect them to say something about the
energy from the sun.
And since they weren't talking about fish crackers, this is just
another attempt from Scott Nudds to present a red
herring/non-sequitur.
But what can one expect from Scott Nudds? He lacks the intelligence,
the scientific background, and the honesty to address challenges with
anything other than logical fallacies, and death threats.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> UNLIKELY!!?? I thought that you claimed that you had DISPROVEN that
>> the Sun can be the cause? You've been lying to us, Scott!
>
> I have made no claim that science proves anything. In fact I have
Then you agree that your claims are not fact. And since you have
asserted them as fact, you have been lying.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
>> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
>
>Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
>assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
>Pathetic... Loser.
Another, typical false claim from Scott Nudds.
>From the conclusions section of the above reference - you provide -
>Ahahahahaahhh
>
>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>all
>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>high."
From Solanki, where you will discover 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
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh, aren't you clever, Scotty?... Since they were talking about the
> energy from the sun, we might expect them to say something about the
> energy from the sun.
Ok, they didn't say the energy from the sun doesn't turn spontaneously
into frogs and fruitflies.
Stupid... Pathetic, RepubliKKKan, Loser Retief.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have made no claim that science proves anything. In fact I have
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Then you agree that your claims are not fact. And since you have
> asserted them as fact, you have been lying.
Any statements that I have made that are not direct observation and that
are the result of scientific theory are not fact, they are theory. Other
statements I have made about scientific observation are fact.
However scientific theory, particularly in reference to the mundane such
as something as trivial as CO2 back scattering IR and therfore warming the
surface of the earth are fact and theory. In this case theory that is
essentially a logical tautology for which there is no counter argument and
for which there is no counter evidence.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth, is to anyone
by a philosopher conserned with the ultimate nature of truth - a fact.
Unless you are a butterfly dreaming to be a man.
Well in your case Retief, a caterpiller dreaming that he is an Ignorant,
RepubliKKKan Loser.
Hang all Exxon Directors
Vendicar Decarian
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:34:40 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
>>> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
>>
>>Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
>>assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
>>Pathetic... Loser.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Another, typical false claim from Scott Nudds.
Quoting again from YOUR OWN REFERENCE (link above)
"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
high."
Stupid, Pathetic, RepubliKKKan, Loser, Retief.
Ahahahahahahahahah...................
>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>>responsible for
>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>high."
>
> From Solanki, where you will discover that the authors of this paper
> apparently limited their analyses to:
Oh, so your reference is wrong then. You have to include some other
Quack.
From Solanki.
"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible
for
more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
high."
Ahahahahahahahahah.....
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
> soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
Translation: Your own reference doesn't support your assertion even
though you thought it did and posted it as proof that your assertion that
the Sun causes global warming is correct.
Stupid, Pathetic, RepubliKKKan, Loser, Retief.
Ahahahahahahahahah...................
Exxon Liars & Crooks
wrote:
>
> Ahahahahahahahahah...................
Unequivocal, Joe Fischer, "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
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Gosh, aren't you clever, Scotty?... Since they were talking about the
>> energy from the sun, we might expect them to say something about the
>> energy from the sun.
>
> Ok, they didn't say the energy from the sun doesn't turn spontaneously
>into frogs and fruitflies.
>
> Stupid... Pathetic, RepubliKKKan, Loser Retief.
>
>Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
And thus 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
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:34:40 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
>>>> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
>>>
>>>Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
>>>assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
>>>Pathetic... Loser.
>
>"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> Another, typical false claim from Scott Nudds.
>
>Quoting again from YOUR OWN REFERENCE (link above)
And thus 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
>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>all
>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>high."
The reader will note that the authors of this paper 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:
Retief Turd, Exxon Turds
> "Argumentum ad
> nauseam", repeatedly posting his discredited claims...
> 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
> That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
> solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote Nothing of Consequence.
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).
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And thus 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...
Ah... Discredited claims like this one.
Vendicar Decarian
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam
>
>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>all
>>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible
>>for
>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>high."
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> The reader will note that the authors of this paper 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."
Ahahahahaha... Poor little Retief. Now resorting to trying to discredit
the very paper he tried to use as a reference to support his failed claim
that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming.
Again from Retief's own reference.....
>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>>responsible for
>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>high."
Fucking Stupid, Scientifically Illiterate, Scum Sucking Loser Retief.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
> soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
Ahahahahaha.. If you didn't like the results of the paper, then why did
you use it as a reference?
Ahahahahahahahahahah... You didn't even read it did you?
Ahahahahahah... Just posted the reference because the title sounded good.
Ahahahahahahahahah
Fucking Stupid, Scientifically Illiterate, Scum Sucking Loser Retief.
Adulterer McCain Shitbag
wrote:
ANOTHER Career Criminal Organized Crime Fraud of S. FRED SINGER in
2001
COAL-sponsored FRED SINGER committed fraud in 2001 by transporting 40
paid agitators to Germany under the pretense that they were committed
acticists who paid their own way. The 2001 filing with the IRS of form
990 shows that Singer paid $44,000 costs to transport the brownshirt
goosesteppers.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/11649/newsDate/19-Jul-2001/story.htm
GERMANY: July 19, 2001 BONN, Germany - As anarchists in Genoa prepared
to storm the G8 summit this weekend, a new breed of protester was on
the streets of Bonn on Wednesday - clean-cut conservatives opposing
the climate treaty being discussed there.
While their leftist counterparts in Italy planned protests against
globalisation and US defence and environment policies, a small group
of US Republican students travelled to Germany to defend their
government's stance on global warming.
Around 20 protesters marched outside the security gates of the United
Nations negotiations which will decide the future of the 1997 Kyoto
climate pact, to back US President George W. Bush's decision to dump
the deal.
"This was an opportunity to come and support our country, support our
president and oppose a terrible treaty," said Craig Rucker, Executive
Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow which organised
the protest.
Rucker, who said he spearheaded a campaign last year against the
environmentalist US presidential candidate Ralph Nader, told Reuters
around 40 like-minded students from around the United States had paid
their own way to travel to Germany to press the rest of the world to
scrap Kyoto.
"Our purpose in this project is to prove that the average college
student isn't a Nader-voting, tree-hugging radical leftist," declared
the group's website which the students had set as the homepage on
computers available to delegates. ...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3983
Bread and Circuses By Lowell Ponte FrontPageMagazine.com | June 20,
2001Frankly, it is time for those on the Right to oppose anti-human
Leftist protesters by organizing protests themselves. Good news: this
summer the Arlington, Virginia-based Leadership Institute will be
working with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) to train college
students to travel to Bonn, Germany, as protesters against the
insanity of the Kyoto global climate treaty, a treaty that could
devastate the global economy and thereby harm the world's poorest
nations most. This will be protesting of the noblest kind, to serve
humanity, individual liberty, and economic freedom. Because CFACT's
Executive Director is Craig Rucker, you might think of this coming
contest between Right and Wrong protesters as the Rucker Society
versus the Ruckus Society.
According to SEPP 2001 filing 990 form, $44,520 was expended for a
global climate science project in Bonn, West Germany, including travel
expenses. Date given, June 06, 2001, does not correspond to date of
student protest, but may reflect the data of transfer of funds prior
to travel.
http://www.sepp.org/ [SANITIZED]
The Week That Was July 14, 2001 brought to you by SEPP
What was once a vague plan has now become reality
OUR STUDENT CLIMATE CRUSADE IS OFF TO BONN And so are we.
Fred Singer can be contacted:
* July 16, 17 and 18 at Hotel Maritim Königswinter +49-2223-7070,
fax +49-2223-707811.
* July 17 at 1730 Private briefing for media and reception at
Hotel Konigshof
* July 18 at 1600 General briefing at Hotel Maritim-Bonn (COP
headquarter hotel)
Here are excerpts from the Washington Times and from CNSNews of June
19
Conservative college students from around the nation will travel to
Washington this summer to train in preparation for protests they will
hold in Bonn, Germany, against the Kyoto climate treaty.
Following the cue of their classmates on the left, who have protested
at other high-profile world events, the students plan to demonstrate
peacefully outside of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change
in Bonn, Germany, and distributing literature. They also hope to meet
with members of the U.S. delegation to the July 16-27 conference as
well as European political leaders and media.
"The bottom line is that we think that all voices should be
represented at this conference," said Daniel LaBert, national field
director with the campus leadership program at the Arlington-based
Leadership Institute.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=600
The nonprofit training organization will host and house about 40
students for a summer workshop on July 11-13 in advance of their trip
to Germany. "We´re just going to give them training on how to get
their message out," Mr. LaBert said.
The trip is being organized by the institute along with the Science
and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Collegians for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker calls the student trip an
educational experience to teach students more about the United Nations
and how the Kyoto treaty works. "We will plan some events that will
draw attention to the fact that there are some young people in America
who do not agree with the Kyoto treaty," he said. "We´re going to give
these students some more ammunition to understand the problems with
the treaty." At a previous U.N. conference at The Hague, college
students showed up to support the agreement, he said, "stating their
opinion that all youth were for the treaty and we need to act now. We
felt it did not encompass the whole viewpoint of youth in the United
States and around the world."
CEI ... As for their reception, the group reported a favorable
response and encountered only minor controversy. "I'm glad we were
here, to do our part to promote the side of logic. Kyoto is an
expensive insurance policy for an empty threat that scientists have
not even agreed exists," said Craig Rucker, director of Committee for
a Constructive Tomorrow, the D.C.-based think tank that, along with
the Campus Leadership Program at the Leadership Institute, coordinated
the trip. As for who won the debate, Rucker opined that the very fact
the Left felt compelled to acknowledge them meant only one outcome was
possible. -- National Review Online
CEI ... Whether or not most Americans are engaged, these students took
it upon themselves to try and impact the process. When asked why they
feel suited to argue with U.N. scientists, Steve Watson of The
Leadership Institute said, "Of course environmentalists will play up
problems and allege catastrophe. That's their job-they compete with
cancer research, illiteracy, and a thousand other social problems for
funding. The larger the problem they claim, the more their funding and
salaries increase.'' ...
New Twist To Kyoto Protests: Conservative Students Join Fray By Seth
Lewis CNSNews.com Correspondent June 19, 2001... Some 35 right-leaning
college students from around the country will pass out fliers and
stage a peaceful demonstration against the Kyoto treaty at next
month's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn,
Germany.
Before appearing at the July 16-17 conference, the students, who will
pay the $1,000-plus tab themselves, will visit Washington for a three-
day training hosted by the Leadership Institute.
"We're going to give them the tools to get the message out that not
all college students on campuses are extremists," said Rich Moha,
national operations director for the institute's campus leadership
program.
Adulterer McCain Shitbag
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The reader will note that the authors of this paper 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."
>
> Ahahahahaha... Poor little Retief. Now resorting to trying to discredit
>the very paper he tried to use as a reference to support his failed claim
>that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming.
I need not discredit the paper, the authors informed us that they did
an inadequate analysis, to "prove" their claim that the sun wasn't
sufficient.
Nudds has also rejected the Solanki analysis, as he has publicly
rejected Modtran (and similar atmospheric radiative analysis programs)
as "not very accurate".
> Again from Retief's own reference.....
>
>>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>>all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>>>responsible for
>>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>>high."
>
> Fucking Stupid, Scientifically Illiterate, Scum Sucking Loser Retief.
Nudds has been shown this repeatedly, but believes that his ad nauseum
posting of his claim will change the fact that:
From the referenced Solanki paper, where you will discover 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" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
>> soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
>
> Ahahahahaha.. If you didn't like the results of the paper, then why did
>you use it as a reference?
The _conclusion_ that the sun is not adequate to produce the observed
warming is not supported their incomplete analysis. The data,
however, shows a solar maxima, which you have seemed to miss.
Retief
McCain Adulterer Shitbag
faster action on climate change
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1115279986
WASHINGTON - In a speech coinciding with his appearance in a Newsweek
cover story on global warming, Gov. Schwarzenegger on Wednesday told
an audience of college students that those who refuse to address
climate change are "fanatics."
Buoyed by new polls showing his popularity has rebounded, and by
international attention as the cover man on this week's Newsweek and
this month's Fortune magazines, California's Republican governor
appeared to be addressing those he thinks have been too slow to
counter the manmade components of global warming. Schwarzenegger, who
has been at odds with the Bush administration over how aggressively to
address climate change, said mainstream scientists, company CEOs and a
majority of Americans are convinced "global warming and climate change
is real and that we have to do something about it."
"So who are the fanatics now?" he asked during his address at
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall, which was packed with young
adults who twice gave him standing ovations. "They are the ones who
are in denial."
The governor never specified whom he meant by "they." Instead, he
likened the movement to combat global warming as one gaining the sort
of mainstream acceptance now enjoyed by body-building, a pastime he
said was once dominated by people - such as himself - who were
considered gym fanatics.
"Environmentalists were no fun," said Schwarzenegger, whose speech was
part of a Newsweek-sponsored "Global Environment Leadership
Conference."
"They were like prohibitionists at the fraternity party. We have to
make it mainstream, we have to make it sexy, we have to make it
attractive so everyone wants to participate," he said.
On the stage beside the governor, perched atop an easel, was a blowup
of the latest issue of Newsweek, which features a suit-clad
Schwarzenegger twirling a globe atop his finger, with the headline:
"Save the Planet - Or Else."
The cover story reports that the governor "is peddling feel-good,
consumer-friendly environmentalism that resonates not only with the
fluorescent-light-bulb-worshiping hybrid drivers, but also with big
business and those who think 'green' is a synonym for 'Chicken
Little.' His faith in the power of technology and free markets to slow
global warming is neither depressing nor polarizing."
Schwarzenegger's remarks came as the Field Poll released a new survey
showing California voters see global warming as a serious problem. The
random survey of 523 registered voters, conducted late last month,
found that eight of 10 California voters describe global warming as a
very serious (56 percent) or somewhat serious (25 percent) problem.
Just one in five California voters approve of the job the federal
government is doing to address the global warming problem, while more
than three times as many, or 66 percent, disapprove.
Voters are less critical of state government. The survey found that 43
percent approve of the state's efforts to address global warming,
while another 43 percent disapprove.
The Field Poll also reported last week that the governor's standing
among the state's voters has rebounded to nearly its peak level of his
first year in office.
Last year Schwarzenegger and the state legislature passed a first-in-
the-nation law requiring that California reduce its emissions of
greenhouse gases - the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming -
by 25 percent by the year 2020. Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger used
his executive powers to require a 10 percent reduction in the carbon
content of all transportation fuels by 2020. And last month, the
governor sought to shape national policy on global warming when he and
four other Western governors signed a collective strategy to curtail
greenhouse gas emission from Santa Fe to Seattle.
Some congressional Democrats - including California Sens. Dianne
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer - want to use last year's law as a model
for national legislation. Before signing the state bill, however,
Schwarzenegger first tried to water it down to appease business
interests.
The governor's fight against global warming has earned him some
criticism. Michigan's automakers accuse him of costing their industry
$85 billion nationally, and a billboard in the state reads: "Arnold to
Michigan: Drop Dead."
Said Schwarzenegger to Georgetown students Wednesday: "What I'm saying
to Michigan is: 'Get off your butt.'"
If he has earned criticism from the auto industry, the governor has
won praise and recognition from other quarters. He is featured on the
covers of Outdoor, Newsweek and Fortune magazines as an international
"green" leader. He will speak Thursday to the Council on Foreign
Relations in New York City on his environmental efforts. And at the
2007 conference of the British Conservative Party this September, he
is expected to promote a brand of Republicanism that he says can be
both friendly to the environment, and to the economy.
"We can do both: we can protect the environment and we can protect the
economy," Schwarzenegger said Wednesday of climate-friendly
technologies, noting that cell phones cost upwards of $1,600 when the
technology was first new, but that he recently purchased one for his
daughter for less than $90.
The governor met Wednesday morning with Stephen Johnson, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator, to press for a federal
waiver allowing California to restrict auto emissions. The meeting
produced no commitments from Johnson.
He met Wednesday afternoon with Feinstein, who endorsed his $6 billion
water infrastructure plan that calls for building more surface and
groundwater storage, protecting the Delta and promoting conservation
measures.
On Wednesday night, Schwarzenegger was scheduled to fly to New York to
dine with Gov. Elliot Spitzer and to appear at a fundraiser.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ahahahahaha... Poor little Retief. Now resorting to trying to discredit
>>the very paper he tried to use as a reference to support his failed claim
>>that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> I need not discredit the paper, the authors informed us that they did
> an inadequate analysis, to "prove" their claim that the sun wasn't
> sufficient.
Their claim was that the sun wasn't sufficient. In fact they claim
responsible for less than 50% of the total observed warming. And yet you
tried to use this paper as a reference to backup your claim that the sun
produced all of the observed warming.
Ahahahahahaha.... You pathetic Loser.
From the paper itself....
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970? -
"In spite of these good correlations there have been
indications that in recent years the secular variation of solar
quantities has decoupled from the evolution of global
temperature (solar irradiance [Solanki and Fligge, 1998],
solar cycle length [Thejll and Lassen, 2000], and solar
activity indices"
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
Conclusion -
"These combined records of
the solar total and UV irradiance as well as the cosmic-ray
flux are then compared with climate records. The solar
indicators correlate well with the temperature record prior to
1970 (correlation coefficients 0.83). In the case of total
and UV irradiance, although both cycle amplitude-based
and length-based reconstructions give highly significant
correlations, the correlation due to reconstructions with
secular trend following cycle length is higher than that
involving cycle-amplitude reconstructions. We have shown
that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all\
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered
here. We believe that even this fraction is too high. Solar
total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to
50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the
intercalibration between different instruments carried out by
Willson [1997] is correct."
Ahahahahaha.... Retief. You pathetic Low Life Loser...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Nudds has also rejected the Solanki analysis, as he has publicly
> rejected Modtran (and similar atmospheric radiative analysis programs)
> as "not very accurate".
Are you refrering to the ModTran program you provide a reference too
that shows the earth's surface temperature to remain fixed at 0'C even with
a tripling of CO2.
Ahahahahahahahahahahha... Retief, you Pathetic Low Life Loser.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Nudds has been shown this repeatedly, but believes that his ad nauseum
> posting of his claim will change the fact that:
>
> From the referenced Solanki paper, where you will discover 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."
And now Retief tries once again to discredit the paper he tried to use as
a reference to claim that changes in solar output can explain the observed
warming of the earth.
Ahahahahahahh Retief... You pathetic Loser.
Here is what the paper actually says....
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970? -
"In spite of these good correlations there have been
indications that in recent years the secular variation of solar
quantities has decoupled from the evolution of global
temperature (solar irradiance [Solanki and Fligge, 1998],
solar cycle length [Thejll and Lassen, 2000], and solar
activity indices"
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
Conclusion -
"These combined records of
the solar total and UV irradiance as well as the cosmic-ray
flux are then compared with climate records. The solar
indicators correlate well with the temperature record prior to
1970 (correlation coefficients 0.83). In the case of total
and UV irradiance, although both cycle amplitude-based
and length-based reconstructions give highly significant
correlations, the correlation due to reconstructions with
secular trend following cycle length is higher than that
involving cycle-amplitude reconstructions. We have shown
that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all\
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered
here. We believe that even this fraction is too high. Solar
total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to
50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the
intercalibration between different instruments carried out by
Willson [1997] is correct."
Ahahahahaha.... Retief. You pathetic Low Life Loser...
Retief wrote:
> The _conclusion_ that the sun is not adequate to produce the observed
> warming is not supported their incomplete analysis. The data,
> however, shows a solar maxima, which you have seemed to miss.
Ahahahahaha.... But it was complete enough for you to use it as a
Reference to "prove" that the sun was causing the observed warming. Pity
you didnt' read the paper Retief. Pity you aren't smart enough to actually
undersatnd what it said.
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970? -
"In spite of these good correlations there have been
indications that in recent years the secular variation of solar
quantities has decoupled from the evolution of global
temperature (solar irradiance [Solanki and Fligge, 1998],
solar cycle length [Thejll and Lassen, 2000], and solar
activity indices"
Solanki - Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
Conclusion -
"These combined records of
the solar total and UV irradiance as well as the cosmic-ray
flux are then compared with climate records. The solar
indicators correlate well with the temperature record prior to
1970 (correlation coefficients 0.83). In the case of total
and UV irradiance, although both cycle amplitude-based
and length-based reconstructions give highly significant
correlations, the correlation due to reconstructions with
secular trend following cycle length is higher than that
involving cycle-amplitude reconstructions. We have shown
that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all\
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered