EXPERTS!!
Patrick FitzGerald
Ten years ago the *Experts* were telling us the world would end when
the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
THEY WERE WRONG
Now the *Experts* are warning that unless we bankrupt ourselves by
paying all our money to Emission Trading schemes the world will end. .
Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to suggest
to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
Patrick
Matty F
The situations are different. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, computers
were very expensive and slow, and there was a real cost in holding a
year as a 4 digit number, so often the year was held as 2 digits. That
would mean that the systems would not work in the year 2000.
To computer systems analysts and programmers then, the year 2000
seemed a long way away.
For example, in 1972 in the General Foods system there was a tape file
sorted with the year in the key. As a programmer I was told to move
"99" to the year at end of file. I asked the analyst what would happen
in the year 1999 and he said to not worry about it as the programs
would have been rewritten by then.
In the 1980s it was my job to write the date routines for a large life
insurance system. Being life insurance we needed to hold dates for
people born in 1899 or terms that would expire in 2020.
We standardised on 4 digit dates and I wrote the date routines so they
would work from the year 1 to around 4000. We needed to convert from
dates to day numbers frequently, so it wasn't just a matter of holding
4 digit years. All those systems needed no change for the year 2000.
But there are old COBOL programs written in the 1970s that are still
being used. It took a lot of effort to check and repair old programs
before 2000 arrived. Because of all the work by the "Experts" the
disaster was averted.
The Y2K bugs were entirely man-made, but mankind's effect on Global
Warming if it exists is infinitesimal. The jury is still out checking
raw temperature records, since "climate scientists" have been changing
the figures with no good reason and refusing to divulge their data and
the way they manipulated it. No real scientists would do that. Every
scientific experiment must be able to be repeated or it is not valid.
John Cawston
Mmm. If Joshua could stop the Sun in its tracks, it should be no
problem for Michael Mann to stop the warming.. no?
Like Joshua, he could simply strike the Earth with his staff
(hockey stick?).
JC
>
thingy
You have just shot yourself in the foot...
1) This is becase a lot of work was done around Y2K to make sure
nothing happened. I was at a hospital at the time and while testing we
found a number of items such as automatic drug dose injectors actually
stopped giving out the metered doses when we rolled the clocks
forward...We also found that the some timers in the emergency
generator control panel also stopped working, so we replaced them and
no one died or suffered.
2) At the end of my work the hospital also had an accurate inventory
of all its important gear and its age and its condition...
3) It had a DR/emergency plan in place, communicated to staff and
tested.
You may be that stupid to think that ppls lives are not worth
protecting by mitigating reasonable risk but Im sure you would be the
first to scream if one of your loved ones died because something you
were warned about by creditable ppl was ignored.
There is some difference between "experts" and scientists, climate
scientists have been watching global warming for at least 50 years and
have been warning for nearly 25.
The science is pretty much conclusive between real climate scientists,
we have AGW and its effecting our planet...the only thing they are
arguing about is, is it bad or really bad..
ETS is a way to put a price on carbon that causes businesses and ppl
to act differently ie take financial consideration of energy use into
account in their businesses and actions...nothing more....there is
little or no proof that such ETS will cost jobs overall or effect the
economy overall, ppl and resorurces are jsut committed differently.
So indeed ETS is like Y2K work, we do it and no one has a nasty
oops....
regards
Thing
thingy
No it is not..its significant and measurable.
> The jury is still out checking
> raw temperature records, since "climate scientists" have been changing
> the figures with no good reason and refusing to divulge their data and
> the way they manipulated it.
Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with verifiable
and repeatable facts..so the papers contain the method, assumptions,
raw data and changes so these can be checked and verified. Without
such the paper wont be published in a reputable journal.
No real scientists would do that. Every
> scientific experiment must be able to be repeated or it is not valid.
Which is what it all is, unlike the denier side where none of it is.
regards
Thing
Patrick FitzGerald
<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>ETS is a way to put a price on carbon that causes businesses and ppl
>to act differently ie take financial consideration of energy use into
>account in their businesses and actions...nothing more....there is
>little or no proof that such ETS will cost jobs overall or effect the
>economy overall, ppl and resorurces are jsut committed differently.
>
Anything with *trading* in its name is an open invitation for devious
schemes which will transfer your money into the bank account of crooks
and con men.
But you will also be done out of your money legally as well as YOU
will pay for the pollution created by corporate greedies so that
they get more and more and you get to live in poverty.
The slogan is not "user pay* but *Mugs pay.*
Patrick
Patrick FitzGerald
At one time the *Experts* were warning us about global cooling and
how we would all freeze to death buried beneath piles of Ice.
What happened to that theory or was it just another delusion of false
prophets as in Y2K , Global warming, ARS, etc ...?
Patrick
hellicopter
Worse its obvious except to those pay to be dumb about it.
Everyone sees greenhouses at work, capturing heat from the Sun.
Everyone on a clear night can see Venus and Mars. We can see
the Moon! We know that planets with atmospheres have a capacity
to retain heat, this changes accordingly to the distance
and the make up of the gases in the atmosphere. Large
amounts of CO2! exist on Mars and Venus! We know that
gases will trap heat. Its frigging stupid people who believe
that the CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing excessive heating
was not put there by human activity. Completely bonkers
for anyone to deny the fact that CO2 levels are directly the
product of Humans digging up carbohydrogens and burning them.
Activity that is now measurable anywhere on the planet!
Yes, anywhere you go on the surface you can measure
a real quantity that has changed because of Human Activity.
Its frigging shocking that anyone could deny such an obvious
observation, they could go measure it for themselves, they
could try to prove CO2 does not trap heat, they aren't doing so.
Because they are either the completely stupid or paid denialists,
or Greenpeace counter propaganda to show how stupid denial
about Human Activity is.
>
>> The jury is still out checking
>> raw temperature records, since "climate scientists" have been changing
>> the figures with no good reason and refusing to divulge their data and
>> the way they manipulated it.
>
> Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
> criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with verifiable
> and repeatable facts..so the papers contain the method, assumptions,
> raw data and changes so these can be checked and verified. Without
> such the paper wont be published in a reputable journal.
>
> No real scientists would do that. Every
>> scientific experiment must be able to be repeated or it is not valid.
>
> Which is what it all is, unlike the denier side where none of it is.
>
> regards
>
> Thing
Its CO2, it got there from Human digging up oil and coal, its
not going away, it is a greenhouse gas, and it will, we will,
are, heating the climate.
thingy
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:25:54 -0800 (PST), thingy
>
>
> >ETS is a way to put a price on carbon that causes businesses and ppl
> >to act differently ie take financial consideration of energy use into
> >account in their businesses and actions...nothing more....there is
> >little or no proof that such ETS will cost jobs overall or effect the
> >economy overall, ppl and resorurces are jsut committed differently.
>
> Anything with *trading* in its name is an open invitation for devious
> schemes which will transfer your money into the bank account of crooks
> and con men.
I agree it is open to, and I am sure someone will find ways to expolit
it. It is not perfect, however there is nothing stopping the scheme
from being tightened up as necessary.
> But you will also be done out of your money legally as well as YOU
> will pay for the pollution created by corporate greedies so that
> they get more and more and you get to live in poverty.
I think there are two aspects here, a) corporations that produce
something and will indeed have to pay some reduced cost and for a
while dodge bullets..but for saying farming I have some sympathy,
stopping a cow farting is plain silly IMHO at this stage in the game.
Especially when NZ produces farm product with a smaller carbon
footprint than any other country....and yet some? all? other countries
wont carbon impact their farming...
The biggest rort I see coming is in the carbon trading and futures
market, Im sure the likes of Golman Sachs etc will be lining up to
make a killing, that I find highly offensive and agree with you 100%.
They dont produce anything real, dont make real jobs, nothing but
bonuses for themselves and misery and exploitation for others...
> The slogan is not "user pay* but *Mugs pay.*
>
> Patrick
I think maybe you/we as voters should be more focused, there are great
changes afoot, they cannot be stopped, they can be mitigated and
violent adjustments lessened by acting early to ramp "affordably" into
costly energy over an extended period rather than short term fast
adjustments that will hurt mightly.
regards
Thing
thingy
Global cooling was a bit of a fringe thought/element by some/a few
scientists, this was later not considered/proven as good science when
examined in detail.
Y2K wasnt false, as I said dealing with it saved at least discomfort
and maybe lives at the hospital I worked at.
Global warming isnt false,if you bother to look at it its pretty much
as solid a science output as you will get.
ARS?
regards
thing
thingy
If you want to spend an hour of your life listening to this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
If you dont have broadband you can download it and then watch it as a
mp4.
Hopefully you will realise that you have been conned by the people you
dislike the most (at least they are high on my list), ie laissez
faire, free marketeer scum bags....
regards
Thing
thingy
> On Dec 30, 12:36 pm, thingy <news2.th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:49 am, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> > > At one time the *Experts* were warning us about global cooling and
> > > how we would all freeze to death buried beneath piles of Ice.
>
> > > What happened to that theory or was it just another delusion of false
> > > prophets as in Y2K , Global warming, ARS, etc ...?
>
> > > Patrick
>
> > Global cooling was a bit of a fringe thought/element by some/a few
> > scientists, this was later not considered/proven as good science when
> > examined in detail.
>
> > Y2K wasnt false, as I said dealing with it saved at least discomfort
> > and maybe lives at the hospital I worked at.
>
> > Global warming isnt false,if you bother to look at it its pretty much
> > as solid a science output as you will get.
>
> > ARS?
>
> > regards
>
> > thing
>
> If you want to spend an hour of your life listening to this,
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
>
> If you dont have broadband you can download it and then watch it as a
> mp4.
here's how,
http://groups.google.com/group/nz.general/topics
regards
thing
Patrick FitzGerald
<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 11:49�am, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>ARS?
Acute respiratory syndrome
aka SARS
Patrick
Patrick FitzGerald
wrote:
>Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to suggest
>to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
>
And then there were the *Experts* that said we would all starve
death. They called themselves the Club of Rome.
I wonder if the Global Warming *Experts* have a club?
Patrick
WorkHard
> Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
> criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with
> verifiable
> and repeatable facts..
LOL A fact is a fact. It just is. It doesn't go away to only
appear and repeat itself.
Thing is, the so-called facts presented by pro- AGW scientists
have varied. There has been manipulation of facts to suit a
purpose.
Such manipulation does NOT alter the reality.
What's needed is a true and accutrate (non-adjusted)
representation of the reality, not someone's biased
interpretation and manipulation of it.
WorkHard
It's NOT GW in dispute. Everyone knows you get GW and GC.
What is in dispoute is the claims by some that man is responsible
for dramatic GW and that the world is near the end unless MONEY
is paid to someone somewhere for whatever spurious reason you can
think of. Bloody ridiculous as it is.
It's ALL ABOUT MONEY AND POWER! That is 100% certain.
That man is responsible for dramatic life-threatening GW is NOT
certain by any stretch of the imagination.
It has not even been proven that AGW is a dire threat to mankind
and the planet. Nothing like it, in fact.
hellicopter
> thingy wrote:
>
>
>> Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
>> criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with
>> verifiable
>> and repeatable facts..
>
> LOL A fact is a fact. It just is. It doesn't go away to only
> appear and repeat itself.
>
> Thing is, the so-called facts presented by pro- AGW scientists
> have varied. There has been manipulation of facts to suit a
> purpose.
Rubbish. CO2 is created when oil and coal are burned.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, look at Mars and Venus!
The facts are not manipulated, they are ignored by
you, you would not know a fact since you spend all
your time refusing to accept any!
WD
Significant it may be, but "measurable" it is not. Attributing
climate change relies on our understanding of natural variability as
well as our understanding of climate responses to known forcing. Our
understanding of both appears a bit weak and based on limited
simulations of the climate system and questionable data.
> Worse its obvious except to those pay to be dumb about it.
>
> Everyone sees greenhouses at work, capturing heat from the Sun.
"Greenhouse Gases" do not work in the same manner as a greenhouse
which restricts the circulation of air.
> Everyone on a clear night can see Venus and Mars. We can see
> the Moon! We know that planets with atmospheres have a capacity
> to retain heat, this changes accordingly to the distance
> and the make up of the gases in the atmosphere. Large
> amounts of CO2! exist on Mars and Venus! We know that
> gases will trap heat. Its frigging stupid people who believe
> that the CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing excessive heating
> was not put there by human activity. Completely bonkers
> for anyone to deny the fact that CO2 levels are directly the
> product of Humans digging up carbohydrogens and burning them.
> Activity that is now measurable anywhere on the planet!
> Yes, anywhere you go on the surface you can measure
> a real quantity that has changed because of Human Activity.
> Its frigging shocking that anyone could deny such an obvious
> observation, they could go measure it for themselves, they
> could try to prove CO2 does not trap heat, they aren't doing so.
> Because they are either the completely stupid or paid denialists,
> or Greenpeace counter propaganda to show how stupid denial
> about Human Activity is.
The properties of CO2 have never been the issue. It is generally
accepted that a doubling of CO2 will directly cause an increase of
approximately 3.7 watts per metre squared.
snip
Weihana.
WD
Well.. figures do sometimes need to be adjusted if they contain
demonstrable errors. If, for instance, you were to measure the depth
of a pool with a ruler only to find out later that the reference point
on your ruler (e.g. the zero point) began 10 centimeters from the edge
of the ruler then your measurement would be off by 10 centimeters and
you would adjust your measurement to more closely fit the reality.
But is this what they are doing with climate data? Discarding data
which doesn't fit with preconceived notions is rather different than
adjusting data to account for known errors. Also, the preconceived
notion that human induced warming is a reality assures an army of
people prepared to find errors in data when data doesn't fit with the
preconceived notion. While such errors may be real, how many people
are looking for errors in data when it does fit the preconceived
notion?
Weihana.
WD
In other words any qualified scientist which disagrees with thingy is
not a "real" scientist and should be disregarded as a crank or paid
shill.
snip
Weihana.
WD
... as opposed to the socialist scum bags trumpeting the cause of
AGW. Do we really need to start comparing which camp has caused the
most misery in human history?
Weihana.
Matty F
> On Dec 30, 10:30 am, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > The Y2K bugs were entirely man-made, but mankind's effect on Global
> > Warming if it exists is infinitesimal.
>
> No it is not..its significant and measurable.
Only if you are looking at data that has been manipulated for
political ends.
> > The jury is still out checking
> > raw temperature records, since "climate scientists" have been changing
> > the figures with no good reason and refusing to divulge their data and
> > the way they manipulated it.
>
> Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
> criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with verifiable
> and repeatable facts..so the papers contain the method, assumptions,
> raw data and changes so these can be checked and verified. Without
> such the paper wont be published in a reputable journal.
The CRU scientists and Michael Mann have contributed papers to so-
called "reputable journals" and have refused requests for the data
backing up those papers. So the papers cannot be verified, and
therefore the papers should not be cited. But the papers form the
basis for the IPCC's claims and attempts to justify crazy carbon
trading schemes.
As you can see here, Nature journal and New Scientist are trying to
justify why climate scientists don't have to release their data,
showing the editors' contempt for the scientific method:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/#more-9749
Time for some new editors methinks.
hellicopter
Irrelevant. All you done, if correct, is disproved one
aspect of the evidence for climate change.
>
>> Worse its obvious except to those pay to be dumb about it.
>>
>> Everyone sees greenhouses at work, capturing heat from the Sun.
>
> "Greenhouse Gases" do not work in the same manner as a greenhouse
> which restricts the circulation of air.
The Sun heats up because its waste from its fuel, hydrogen,
piles up, its called Iron. The waste from oil, coal, gas,
piles up and is also piling up in the atmosphere where
it cannot circulate! Its measureable today, higher CO2
levels. Hell! my driveway borders are over running with
growth from all the extra carbon dioxide fueled growth.
>
>> Everyone on a clear night can see Venus and Mars. We can see
>> the Moon! We know that planets with atmospheres have a capacity
>> to retain heat, this changes accordingly to the distance
>> and the make up of the gases in the atmosphere. Large
>> amounts of CO2! exist on Mars and Venus! We know that
>> gases will trap heat. Its frigging stupid people who believe
>> that the CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing excessive heating
>> was not put there by human activity. Completely bonkers
>> for anyone to deny the fact that CO2 levels are directly the
>> product of Humans digging up carbohydrogens and burning them.
>> Activity that is now measurable anywhere on the planet!
>> Yes, anywhere you go on the surface you can measure
>> a real quantity that has changed because of Human Activity.
>> Its frigging shocking that anyone could deny such an obvious
>> observation, they could go measure it for themselves, they
>> could try to prove CO2 does not trap heat, they aren't doing so.
>> Because they are either the completely stupid or paid denialists,
>> or Greenpeace counter propaganda to show how stupid denial
>> about Human Activity is.
>
> The properties of CO2 have never been the issue. It is generally
> accepted that a doubling of CO2 will directly cause an increase of
> approximately 3.7 watts per metre squared.
The Climate is a chaotic system, the dampers have to work
harder, for longer, to reduce heat and CO2. So I need
to put more effort to clean up the results of global warming!
CO2 fueled plant growth. I don't see any oil companies paying
me to clear up the consequences of their pollution! Companies
that pollute need to pay fees, for all their waste, including
their CO2 waste.
>
> snip
>
>
> Weihana.
hellicopter
Rubbish. Obviously we need to be concerned about future problems.
And also obviously we take efforts to reduce and mitigate the
harm. So much so that you don't see the companies that lost
market share because they upgraded their systems earlier
because the massive investment spurred lower prices.
So there are very real benefits to insulating with low
level stress, because its good business, its also makes
people aware of emergency management.
So the 'fear' industry is a public good. Its the deniers
that cost money, they deny the possibility of risks
going bad, and they create a culture of denial, so
much so that the whole economic collapse is created
off their lazy fat headed denial.
Good Businesses stress their companies routinely,
because those who don't leave less capable businesses
which inevitably are weakened and knocked over by
economic darwinism.
hellicopter
You would ignore the threat of Nazi Germany! because
Churchill headed a 'club' of experts worried about a
resurgent Germany!
Patrick FitzGerald
wrote:
>You would ignore the threat of Nazi Germany! because
>Churchill headed a 'club' of experts worried about a
>resurgent Germany!
>
Godwin's law is against you
Patrick
WD
Actually CO2 circulates in the atmosphere quite well which is why its
forcing on the climate is more or less uniform over the globe rather
than having a disproportionate effect in the northern hemisphere from
where most human emissions originate.
Anyway, putting aside your strange analogy with nuclear fusion in the
Sun, yes increased CO2 in the atmosphere from humans is measurable.
The consequent effect on climate is not measurable in any meaningful
sense of the word. We have educated guesses.. but can they be called
measurements?
If we accept that CO2 has significant effects on climate I do not
agree that you can blame such pollution on oil companies or any other
company. Our entire civilization depends on carbon emissions such
that if there is a problem we are all accountable. Whether you tax
oil companies or not we still need the energy. Punishing carbon
emitters will not give us the alternative energy technology we need.
Weihana.
whoisthis
<cf31cb2b-189f-4a80...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
WD <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
Qualified in what ???? Or do you feel a Chemist is qualified, as is a
microbiologist ?
WorkHard
Of course. That goes without saying, surely?
> But is this what they are doing with climate data? Discarding
> data
> which doesn't fit with preconceived notions is rather different
> than
> adjusting data to account for known errors. Also, the
> preconceived
> notion that human induced warming is a reality assures an army
> of
> people prepared to find errors in data when data doesn't fit
> with the
> preconceived notion. While such errors may be real, how many
> people
> are looking for errors in data when it does fit the
> preconceived
> notion?
So how does one get to the true 'raw' figures when they are not
made freely available to anyone who wants them?
Sailor Sam
>
> Ten years ago the *Experts* were telling us the world would end when
> the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
>
> THEY WERE WRONG
>
> Now the *Experts* are warning that unless we bankrupt ourselves by
> paying all our money to Emission Trading schemes the world will end. .
>
>
> Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to suggest
> to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
>
> Patrick
You forget the expert telling everyone that the earth revolved around
the sun.
You forget the expert telling everyone that the earth was round.
You forget the expert telling everyone that Matrices could be solved
much easier. (Pity the bastard was so clever he couldn't or wouldn't
teach mere mortals how to do half his majick)
Science has been wrong before, I imagine it may be wrong again, but
without those nasty things called facts, you really don't have much of a
stick to bat at them with (Look at Atkins, ridiculed for his diets,
*until* someone did some research on them, and provided *facts*)
thingy
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:46:41 +1300, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to suggest
> >to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
>
> And then there were the *Experts* that said we would all starve
> death. They called themselves the Club of Rome.
Did they give a date?
> I wonder if the Global Warming *Experts* have a club?
>
> Patrick
Given the oil input to and distribution of food, they are right....per-
oil we had 1.5 billion ppl, post maybe 2 billion.
regards
Thing
thingy
Your stupidity is astounding...
regards
thing
thingy
Try reading and not jumping.
regards
Thing
WorkHard
> Science has been wrong before, I imagine it may be wrong again,
> but
> without those nasty things called facts, you really don't have
> much
> of a stick to bat at them with (Look at Atkins, ridiculed for
> his
> diets, *until* someone did some research on them, and provided
> *facts*)
Atkins had already done the research and provided the *facts*
openly and freely. Copious amounts of them.
MOST 'medical' people, including Dr Kerry of this group, refused
to research/acknowledge it and chose to abuse him as a quack!!
You know, shoot the messenger.
Thing is, sugar is the biggest killer in the world. Atkins knew
this but how many powerful people have interests in sugar?
Funny thing is, while Atkins has been proven right, no one,
still, is prepared to come out and state categorically - SUGAR
KILLS!
Sugar causes hypoglycemia and diabetes. Many millions suffer from
hypoglycemia and don't even know it.
Anyway, Kerry embraces low-carb diets now but has yet to
apologize or give Atkins credit where due. A man infinitely more
knowledgeable, scientific and intelligent than Kerry will ever
be.
People support what they want (factual or not) because they have
an agenda. Powerful, important people have a sway over public
perceptions of truth and reality. Trouble is, most of them are
morally corrupt BECAUSE of their agendas.
WorkHard
> Your stupidity is astounding...
Your one-eyed marxist agenda is well-known. Your tactic of
abusing people rather than debating the issue is also well-known.
But then, you ARE a Marxist. Deception, mysticism and obsfucation
are your tools of trade.
In general, your agenda is the direct opposite of the words you
speak here. Vile creature that you are.
WorkHard
>>> The science is pretty much conclusive between real climate
>>> scientists,
>>
>> In other words any qualified scientist which disagrees with
>> thingy is
>> not a "real" scientist and should be disregarded as a crank or
>> paid
>> shill.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> Weihana.
>
> Try reading and not jumping.
Well then, Mr Marxist, you had better define 'real scientist'
then.
Seems to me Weihana is correct about you.
WD
> In article
> <cf31cb2b-189f-4a80-9bf9-56aef2880...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Depends on the issue at hand. Studying the climate involves a broad
range of disciplines from atmospheric physicists to
paleoclimatologists to computer scientists to statisticians and yes
chemists as well. Hence why someone like Vincent Gray has worked as
an expert reviewer for the IPCC. No one is an expert on everything to
do with climate science.
Weihana.
hellicopter
You admit the atmosphere is thicker yet still deny the
capacity to trap heat is greater. Remember the sun
as it grows older makes it harder for light to escape
leading to heat. Thicker means warmer.
I just showed you! CO2 is a known food of plants, more food, more
growth, more bloody weeds shooting up out of the laneway.
Didn't you read what I said. Its pollution and I'm not being
paid for cleaning up the CO2 spurred growth!
> I do not
> agree that you can blame such pollution on oil companies or any other
> company.
But you agree it is pollution and although any particular
company may not be directly responsible, the fact is still true.
> Our entire civilization depends on carbon emissions such
> that if there is a problem we are all accountable.
Yes, and when there is pollution we tax the polluter and
pay to clean up, and monitor for new mess. We do it to
our rivers, for example, where farmers put carbon effluent
into rivers. We tax farmers to pay people to monitor the
rivers, we charge farmers found to be big producers of
liquid carbon waste, so why not gases carbon waste?
Oh, yeah, we do now, the ETS!
> Whether you tax
> oil companies or not we still need the energy. Punishing carbon
> emitters will not give us the alternative energy technology we need.
The point is that's exactly what it will do. Making lower
energy density sources more profitable means oil companies
get to invest their rises profits from peak oil into new
alternatives, and they are avid investors! They know peak
oil means their businesses will be history if they don't
shift. Energy companies have no problem with climate change,
its just another opportunity. Capitalists, even Socialists,
all agree with climate change. It just weak fascists like
no change.
>
>
> Weihana.
hellicopter
Doesn't follow.
>
>
> Patrick
Godwin law doesn't apply to the great works of Churchill.
George
"Patrick FitzGerald" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:i7jkj5htfbr7hvedp...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Ten years ago the *Experts* were telling us the world would end when
> the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
>
> THEY WERE WRONG
>
> Now the *Experts* are warning that unless we bankrupt ourselves by
> paying all our money to Emission Trading schemes the world will end. .
>
> Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to suggest
> to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
you have a point Patrick, you are framing it wrong however. The real problem
is the 'experts' who will facilitate an ETS. No doubt some of these experts
and brokers will be the 'experts' who all but brought the world economy to
its knees, save for the state once again bailing out the market failures of
financialisation. The financial experts and the systems they designed has
left us in the economic shit. We now trust them to administer a scheme to
save the planet from excessive warming. I do not think you are being cynical
in your cynicism on this point.
rob
WD
> >> The Sun heats up because its waste from its fuel, hydrogen,
> >> piles up, its called Iron. The waste from oil, coal, gas,
> >> piles up and is also piling up in the atmosphere where
> >> it cannot circulate! Its measureable today, higher CO2
> >> levels. Hell! my driveway borders are over running with
> >> growth from all the extra carbon dioxide fueled growth.
>
> > Actually CO2 circulates in the atmosphere quite well which is why its
> > forcing on the climate is more or less uniform over the globe rather
> > than having a disproportionate effect in the northern hemisphere from
> > where most human emissions originate.
>
> > Anyway, putting aside your strange analogy with nuclear fusion in the
> > Sun, yes increased CO2 in the atmosphere from humans is measurable.
> > The consequent effect on climate is not measurable in any meaningful
> > sense of the word. We have educated guesses.. but can they be called
> > measurements?
>
> You admit the atmosphere is thicker yet still deny the
> capacity to trap heat is greater.
No I don't. I admit that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and that
a doubling of CO2 will contribute an extra 3.7 watts per sq metre.
This extra forcing will have some sort of feedback effect from the
climate. I deny that the effect is measureable, or can be measured
with decent accuracy. The effect could be trivial or it could be
significant. The argument that the effect is and will be significant
is not conclusive in my view.
> Remember the sun
> as it grows older makes it harder for light to escape
> leading to heat. Thicker means warmer.
Eh?
Yes.. weeds shooting up from the cracks in driveways.. that's a recent
development!
>
> > I do not
> > agree that you can blame such pollution on oil companies or any other
> > company.
>
> But you agree it is pollution and although any particular
> company may not be directly responsible, the fact is still true.
No I don't agree it is pollution per se. It depends, such a label
simplifies the issue too much. It has the potential to pollute and it
may already be polluting but on the other hand it may be rather
harmless.
> > Our entire civilization depends on carbon emissions such
> > that if there is a problem we are all accountable.
>
> Yes, and when there is pollution we tax the polluter and
> pay to clean up, and monitor for new mess. We do it to
> our rivers, for example, where farmers put carbon effluent
> into rivers. We tax farmers to pay people to monitor the
> rivers, we charge farmers found to be big producers of
> liquid carbon waste, so why not gases carbon waste?
> Oh, yeah, we do now, the ETS!
>
> > Whether you tax
> > oil companies or not we still need the energy. Punishing carbon
> > emitters will not give us the alternative energy technology we need.
>
> The point is that's exactly what it will do. Making lower
> energy density sources more profitable means oil companies
> get to invest their rises profits from peak oil into new
> alternatives, and they are avid investors! They know peak
> oil means their businesses will be history if they don't
> shift. Energy companies have no problem with climate change,
> its just another opportunity. Capitalists, even Socialists,
> all agree with climate change. It just weak fascists like
> no change.
We could make oil illegal and sure enough people would make use of
what was available. But it doesn't mean that the alternatives will
meet the demand. We need revolutionary technology, the current
alternatives are insufficient to keep up with the pace of human
progress and our increasing demands for more energy. Governments are
often best equipped to invest in foundational science and technology.
The US government has demonstrated this repeatedly. I don't think
market-led initiatives are what is needed to revolutionize carbon
economies. I think governments, particularly the US government,
should start looking at more pie in the sky ideas and contributing
serious funds towards research and development in those fields.
Consider what has been developed in the last 100 years and then look
at some of the fantastical theories that pop up in physics magazines
and tell yourself that we can't make at least one of them work.
Weihana.
WD
... or I could do both. :-)
You haven't said I was wrong... what do you reckon about Lindzen...
crank of paid shill?
The thing is, all the "deniers" may be wrong.. but some are so busy
trying to sell the line that the "science is settled" that the
"science is pretty much conclusive" that they avoid addressing the
arguments made by those deniers.. and sure enough eventually large
sections of the public start asking the same questions and getting
little in return except "the science is settled". It's no wonder that
public confidence in the AGW theory is falling. Only a couple years
ago acceptance of AGW was almost universal.
Weihana.
WD
> On , , Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:04:36 +1300, Re: EXPERTS!!, "WorkHard"
> One of his more persistant attributes.
> Watch out Weihana, Bilderbeck will have his tongue up your arse before you
> straighten up.
You know this from experience?
Weihana.
Katipo
> the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
>
> THEY WERE WRONG
>
> Now the *Experts* are warning that unless we bankrupt ourselves by
> paying all our money to Emission Trading schemes the world will end. .
>
>
they have to do is give farmers a subsidy for the purchase of corks!
John Cawston
It was never universal. Over most of the last decade surveys were
showing the public had mixed views about AGW. It might have a
majority acceptance that AGW was real, but also a majority view
that it was exaggerated.
The fact is that any idea like AGW has to prove out reasonably
consistently.. and AGW failed that test miserably in the last few
years.
The contradictions and conflicts were and are piling up.. there's
been no statistically significant warming, possibly since 1995,
in 2000 the Brits were told by the CRU that snow was becoming "a
rare and exciting" event, that 2008 was going to be the hottest
year ever (as is predicted for 2010), that we should have
experienced maybe a half degree of warming since 1998, the seas
should have risen dramatically, that Al Gore is a disinterested
warmer rather than on his way to becoming a carbon billionaire,
that the Chairman of the IPCC is making millions from AGW, that
Jeanette Fitsimmins has no financial stake in warming, that
warmer scientists have no financial stake in an $80 billion
dollar industry, that Cap and Trade is "fair" to the man in the
street and industrialist alike, that giving a trillion dollars to
African dictators will help African peoples, that cows are the
new enemy of civilisation and that the weather has or will
cooperate with the mad schemes of the politicians.
JC
>
>
> Weihana.
colp
> The science is pretty much conclusive between real climate scientists,
Like Seth Borenstein's report of "nothing to see here, move along" was
pretty much conclusive, right?
Patrick FitzGerald
wrote:
You are an ignorant Moron Helicopter, Godwin's law is against you
because you called in the Nazis
Patrick
Patrick FitzGerald
<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Did they give a date?
>
>> I wonder if the Global Warming *Experts* have a club?
IIRC it was circa 1965 - 1975
Patrick
Geoff Rait
wrote:
>It was never universal. Over most of the last decade surveys were
>showing the public had mixed views about AGW. It might have a
>majority acceptance that AGW was real, but also a majority view
>that it was exaggerated.
Like the public view of evolution, you mean? Because of the wonderful
variety of 'information' now at our fingertips, equating a majority
public view with reality is rather dangerous. Better to take the view of
scientific acadamies and societies - which are not, note, dominated by
climate scientists - and see what they have to say on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You might like to check how well statements of scientific societies on
creationism match the 'public view', too.
>The fact is that any idea like AGW has to prove out reasonably
>consistently.. and AGW failed that test miserably in the last few
>years.
>
>The contradictions and conflicts were and are piling up.. there's
>been no statistically significant warming, possibly since 1995,
Honestly, where *do* you get such crap?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/
Your own view has evidently been formulated from information of the same
quality as that from the 'intelligent design' people.
>in 2000 the Brits were told by the CRU that snow was becoming "a
>rare and exciting" event, that 2008 was going to be the hottest
>year ever (as is predicted for 2010), that we should have
>experienced maybe a half degree of warming since 1998, the seas
>should have risen dramatically, that Al Gore is a disinterested
>warmer rather than on his way to becoming a carbon billionaire,
>that the Chairman of the IPCC is making millions from AGW, that
>Jeanette Fitsimmins has no financial stake in warming, that
>warmer scientists have no financial stake in an $80 billion
>dollar industry, that Cap and Trade is "fair" to the man in the
>street and industrialist alike, that giving a trillion dollars to
>African dictators will help African peoples, that cows are the
>new enemy of civilisation and that the weather has or will
>cooperate with the mad schemes of the politicians.
CRU said all that, did they? Links to your sources, please.
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
John Cawston
> In article <hhfv2b$qnk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston
> wrote:
>
>> It was never universal. Over most of the last decade surveys were
>> showing the public had mixed views about AGW. It might have a
>> majority acceptance that AGW was real, but also a majority view
>> that it was exaggerated.
>
> Like the public view of evolution, you mean? Because of the wonderful
> variety of 'information' now at our fingertips, equating a majority
> public view with reality is rather dangerous. Better to take the view of
> scientific acadamies and societies - which are not, note, dominated by
> climate scientists - and see what they have to say on the matter:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Well done! You cut out the comment to which I was replying..
" It's no wonder that
public confidence in the AGW theory is falling. Only a couple
years ago acceptance of AGW was almost universal."
>
> You might like to check how well statements of scientific societies on
> creationism match the 'public view', too.
>
>> The fact is that any idea like AGW has to prove out reasonably
>> consistently.. and AGW failed that test miserably in the last few
>> years.
>>
>> The contradictions and conflicts were and are piling up.. there's
>> been no statistically significant warming, possibly since 1995,
>
> Honestly, where *do* you get such crap?
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/
This guy shows warming of around 0.2C over the 14 year period.
Thats not statistically significant and already below the "best"
estimate of 3 degrees for the next 100 years given by the Fourth
IPCC Assessment Report.
>
> Your own view has evidently been formulated from information of the same
> quality as that from the 'intelligent design' people.
The indisputable evidence from the Climategate emails is that
Phil Jones, Michael Mann and co are the ones involved in
"intelligent design".
>
>> in 2000 the Brits were told by the CRU that snow was becoming "a
>> rare and exciting" event, that 2008 was going to be the hottest
>> year ever (as is predicted for 2010), that we should have
>> experienced maybe a half degree of warming since 1998, the seas
>> should have risen dramatically, that Al Gore is a disinterested
>> warmer rather than on his way to becoming a carbon billionaire,
>> that the Chairman of the IPCC is making millions from AGW, that
>> Jeanette Fitsimmins has no financial stake in warming, that
>> warmer scientists have no financial stake in an $80 billion
>> dollar industry, that Cap and Trade is "fair" to the man in the
>> street and industrialist alike, that giving a trillion dollars to
>> African dictators will help African peoples, that cows are the
>> new enemy of civilisation and that the weather has or will
>> cooperate with the mad schemes of the politicians.
>
> CRU said all that, did they? Links to your sources, please.
I could have used a full stop up near the top, however I guess
reasonable people know where it should have gone.
Here's the prediction for snow..
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a
striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from
our lives.
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a
striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from
our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find
that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing
part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists
are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer
white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant
snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only
moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a
trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in
the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and
sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995
the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was
in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased
amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the
international community. Average temperatures in Britain were
nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is
estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the
coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred
in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters
which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr
David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research
unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years
winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming
apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's
biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street
store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia,
now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of
the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they
have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember
being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a
generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the
greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world
- open-air skating".
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic
implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests
and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are
likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the
cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility,
for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of
Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see
snow, it will remain culturally important.
"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are
still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what
they look like," he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could
have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they
might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it
does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught
out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy
snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as
Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who
wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually
settling and loosely lying".
Not any more, it seems.
>
> Geoff
>
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Geoff Rait wrote:
>> In article <hhfv2b$qnk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It was never universal. Over most of the last decade surveys were
>>> showing the public had mixed views about AGW. It might have a
>>> majority acceptance that AGW was real, but also a majority view
>>> that it was exaggerated.
>>
>> Like the public view of evolution, you mean? Because of the wonderful
>> variety of 'information' now at our fingertips, equating a majority
>> public view with reality is rather dangerous. Better to take the view of
>> scientific acadamies and societies - which are not, note, dominated by
>> climate scientists - and see what they have to say on the matter:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>
>Well done! You cut out the comment to which I was replying..
>
>" It's no wonder that
>public confidence in the AGW theory is falling. Only a couple
>years ago acceptance of AGW was almost universal."
I suspect it arises from the passion our media have for trying to
create conflict out of anything - the purported even-handed-ness of
'showing both sides'. It has regretably encouraged publicity seeking
nutters on many issues.
<large snip>
Will Spencer
Lindzen is a real scientist... One of the trivially small minority who
agree that CO2 is warming the earth, but argue with the extent.
The problem is that Lindzen has been wrong so many times that no one can
take him seriously at this point.
-ws
Patrick FitzGerald
About 1900 the *Experts* were predicting the end of science as in
their *Expert* opinion everything that could be discover had been
discovered.
I wonder if they had a panel of scientists , similar to IPCC to
propagate their erroneous opinions.
Patrick
WD
My impression has been that huge majorities have previously accepted
the propositions put forth by organizations like the IPCC. This
impression could like be wrong. I'm going from memory here probably
based on a few selective surveys. In any case though I certainly see
that the strength of the consensus view is slipping and this is before
climategate. Whatever the reason (advocates of AGW would suggest it
is the success of denier propaganda), a real debate exists and the
proponents of AGW should act like it is a debate rather than referring
to their opponents as deniers and morons. I don't think such tactics
will be successful for the increasing number of people becoming
interested in the issue and wanting to find out the answers to the
questions the deniers are raising.
Weihana.
WD
John Cawston
Initially I thought that the data collection and management, plus
the codes and programmer comments would be the most important,
but more and more I think the emails in a law court would be
absolutely devastating to the public positions these guys have taken.
One of the defenses these frauds have raised is that they were
deluged with Freedom of Information requests.. especially from
McIntyre and his supporters, and this was the reason they were so
defensive etc. However McIntyre and his Climate Audit supporters
raised just 3 FOI with US scientific institutions over a five
year period, and just three for the CRU from 1990.. imagine
trying that on a formal investigation to justify paranoia about
their supposed tormentor McIntyre.
JC
>
>
> Weihana.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> Ten years ago the *Experts* were telling us the world would end when
> the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
The only “experts” saying that were blowhard pundits like you.
The real “experts” just got on with fixing the problem. And they managed to
get most, though not all, of it
<http://www.google.com/search?q=comp.risks+y2k>.
And remember folks, it wasn’t a millennium bug, it was a century bug. Those
who forget history are condemned to repeat it—90 years from now.
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:52:33 -0800 (PST), thingy
<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 1:04�pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> thingy wrote:
>> > Blatently not true. When you write scientific papers one of the
>> > criteria is, you must be able to back up your claims with
>> > verifiable
>> > and repeatable facts..
>>
>> LOL A fact is a fact. It just is. It doesn't go away to only
>> appear and repeat itself.
>>
>> Thing is, the so-called facts presented by pro- AGW scientists
>> have varied. There has been manipulation of facts to suit a
>> purpose.
>>
>> Such manipulation does NOT alter the reality.
>>
>> What's needed is a true and accutrate (non-adjusted)
>> representation of the reality, not someone's biased
>> interpretation and manipulation of it.
>
>Your stupidity is astounding...
Set that last line to music and we can all come in with the
chorus.
"And so say all of us".
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Matty F
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <i7jkj5htfbr7hvedpfvalo1hp39av1o...@4ax.com>, Patrick FitzGerald
It's about 28 years to the 2038 date overflow. But I don't care!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
e3f102...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Matty F wrote:
> It's about 28 years to the 2038 date overflow.
ldo@theon:~> date -d "+30 years"
Sat Dec 31 21:18:04 NZDT 2039
What “2038 date overflow”?
Matty F
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <347e348c-1c7c-4e5f-a098-
>
> e3f102dc5...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Matty F wrote:
> > It's about 28 years to the 2038 date overflow.
>
> ldo@theon:~> date -d "+30 years"
> Sat Dec 31 21:18:04 NZDT 2039
>
> What “2038 date overflow”?
Results 1 - 10 of about 48,300 for 2038 date overflow
Nicolaas Hawkins
I should imagine that, at the age of 93, I shall have other things to worry
about ... or not!
--
Happy New Year!
- Nicolaas
Matty F
So you haven't worked on life insurance systems with policies that
mature after 2038?
Some insurance companies will have no problems i.e. the ones that I
worked on!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Dec 31, 9:18 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <347e348c-1c7c-4e5f-a098-e3f102dc5...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Matty F wrote:
>> > It's about 28 years to the 2038 date overflow.
>>
>> ldo@theon:~> date -d "+30 years"
>> Sat Dec 31 21:18:04 NZDT 2039
>>
>> What “2038 date overflow”?
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 48,300 for 2038 date overflow
As you can see, it doesn’t happen on my system.
Will Spencer
> WD wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30, 5:32�pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>> WD wrote:
>>> > On Dec 30, 12:11�pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>> >> thingy wrote:
>>> >> > On Dec 30, 10:30�am, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Dec 30, 7:46 am, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> > Ten years ago �the *Experts* were telling us the world would end
>>> >> >> > when the turn of the century unleashed the Y2K Bug.
>>>
>>> >> >> > THEY WERE WRONG
>>>
>>> >> >> > Now the *Experts* are warning that unless we bankrupt �ourselves
>>> >> >> > by paying all our money to Emission Trading schemes the world
>>> >> >> > will end. .
>>>
>>> >> >> > Given the track record of the *Experts* would it be cynical to
>>> >> >> > suggest to suggest that the *Experts* are wrong in 2009.
>>>
>>> >> >> The situations are different. Back in the 1960s and 1970s,
>>> >> >> computers were very expensive and slow, and there was a real cost
>>> >> >> in holding a year as a 4 digit number, so often the year was held
>>> >> >> as 2 digits. That would mean that the systems would not work in the
>>> >> >> year 2000. To computer systems analysts and programmers then, the
>>> >> >> year 2000 seemed a long way away.
>>>
>>> >> >> For example, in 1972 in the General Foods system there was a tape
>>> >> >> file sorted with the year in the key. As a programmer I was told to
>>> >> >> move "99" to the year at end of file. I asked the analyst what
>>> >> >> would happen in the year 1999 and he said to not worry about it as
>>> >> >> the programs would have been rewritten by then.
>>>
>>> >> >> In the 1980s it was my job to write the date routines for a large
>>> >> >> life insurance system. Being life insurance we needed to hold dates
>>> >> >> for people born in 1899 or terms that would expire in 2020.
>>> >> >> We standardised on 4 digit dates and I wrote the date routines so
>>> >> >> they would work from the year 1 to around 4000. We needed to
>>> >> >> convert from dates to day numbers frequently, so it wasn't just a
>>> >> >> matter of holding 4 digit years. All those systems needed no change
>>> >> >> for the year 2000.
>>>
>>> >> >> But there are old COBOL programs written in the 1970s that are
>>> >> >> still being used. It took a lot of effort to check and repair old
>>> >> >> programs before 2000 arrived. Because of all the work by the
>>> >> >> "Experts" the disaster was averted.
>>>
>>> >> >> The Y2K bugs were entirely man-made, but mankind's effect on Global
>>> >> >> Warming if it exists is infinitesimal.
>>>
>>> >> > No it is not..its significant and measurable.
>>>
>>> > Significant it may be, but "measurable" it is not. �Attributing
>>> > climate change relies on our understanding of natural variability as
>>> > well as our understanding of climate responses to known forcing. �Our
>>> > understanding of both appears a bit weak and based on limited
>>> > simulations of the climate system and questionable data.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. All you done, if correct, is disproved one
>>> aspect of the evidence for climate change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Worse its obvious except to those pay to be dumb about it.
>>>
>>> >> Everyone sees greenhouses at work, capturing heat from the Sun.
>>>
>>> > "Greenhouse Gases" do not work in the same manner as a greenhouse
>>> > which restricts the circulation of air.
>>>
>>> The Sun heats up because its waste from its fuel, hydrogen,
>>> piles up, its called Iron. The waste from oil, coal, gas,
>>> piles up and is also piling up in the atmosphere where
>>> it cannot circulate! Its measureable today, higher CO2
>>> levels. Hell! my driveway borders are over running with
>>> growth from all the extra carbon dioxide fueled growth.
>>
>> Actually CO2 circulates in the atmosphere quite well which is why its
>> forcing on the climate is more or less uniform over the globe rather
>> than having a disproportionate effect in the northern hemisphere from
>> where most human emissions originate.
>>
>> Anyway, putting aside your strange analogy with nuclear fusion in the
>> Sun, yes increased CO2 in the atmosphere from humans is measurable.
>> The consequent effect on climate is not measurable in any meaningful
>> sense of the word. We have educated guesses.. but can they be called
>> measurements?
>
> You admit the atmosphere is thicker yet still deny the
> capacity to trap heat is greater.
Well to put it simply, the observed warming we are seeing now is simply a
direct result of applying the laws of physics to the change in composition
of the atmosphere. The magnitude of the expected rise was computed first
over 100 years ago. Current models simply refine and confirm those earlier
hand computations.
0.74'C rise and accelerating.
-ws
Will Spencer
> On Dec 30, 11:21�pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> WD wrote:
> snip
>>>> The Sun heats up because its waste from its fuel, hydrogen,
>>>> piles up, its called Iron. The waste from oil, coal, gas,
>>>> piles up and is also piling up in the atmosphere where
>>>> it cannot circulate! Its measureable today, higher CO2
>>>> levels. Hell! my driveway borders are over running with
>>>> growth from all the extra carbon dioxide fueled growth.
>>
>>> Actually CO2 circulates in the atmosphere quite well which is why its
>>> forcing on the climate is more or less uniform over the globe rather
>>> than having a disproportionate effect in the northern hemisphere from
>>> where most human emissions originate.
>>
>>> Anyway, putting aside your strange analogy with nuclear fusion in the
>>> Sun, yes increased CO2 in the atmosphere from humans is measurable.
>>> The consequent effect on climate is not measurable in any meaningful
>>> sense of the word. �We have educated guesses.. but can they be called
>>> measurements?
>>
>> You admit the atmosphere is thicker yet still deny the
>> capacity to trap heat is greater.
>
> No I don't. I admit that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and that
> a doubling of CO2 will contribute an extra 3.7 watts per sq metre.
> This extra forcing will have some sort of feedback effect from the
> climate. I deny that the effect is measureable, or can be measured
> with decent accuracy. The effect could be trivial or it could be
> significant. The argument that the effect is and will be significant
> is not conclusive in my view.
Yup the effect is trivial. Only a a 0.71'C increase and the polar ice caps
are observed to be melting.
That tells us something about the sensitivity of the earth's climate.
What does it tell you Weiner?
>>> I do not
>>> agree that you can blame such pollution on oil companies or any other
>>> company. �
>>
>> But you agree it is pollution and although any particular
>> company may not be directly responsible, the fact is still true.
>
> No I don't agree it is pollution per se. It depends, such a label
> simplifies the issue too much. It has the potential to pollute and it
> may already be polluting but on the other hand it may be rather harmless.
Well then let me make it real simple for you Weiner. CO2 is a metabolic
waste product. Just as urea is a metabolic waste product and is excreted
for the same reasons.
If you take issue with that fact, then I envite you to hold your breath for
60 seconds and experience the feeling of a build up of CO2 in your blood.
Get back to us with the result of your experiments. OK Weiner!?????
-ws
WD
Nonsense. "Applying the laws of physics" as you put it assumes
everything remains constant, and yes with a doubling of CO2 such
physics predicts a temperature rise of approx 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
Not very significant.
Current models attempt to discern the sensitivity of the climate as
the ultimate effect depends on whether there are negative or positive
feedbacks. Is the climate relatively stable or relatively unstable?
This is not a matter of basic physics computed "over 100 years ago".
Weihana.
WD
It shows bugger all as the observed increase is not necessarily
anthropogenic and the melting of ice is but one factor among many
which affect the climate's sensitivity. Water vapour on the other
hand is an important factor in determining climate sensitivity and
water vapour is intimately related to cloud formation, something very
poorly understood and barely modelled at all due to resolution
difficulties.
> >>> I do not
> >>> agree that you can blame such pollution on oil companies or any other
> >>> company.
>
> >> But you agree it is pollution and although any particular
> >> company may not be directly responsible, the fact is still true.
>
> > No I don't agree it is pollution per se. It depends, such a label
> > simplifies the issue too much. It has the potential to pollute and it
> > may already be polluting but on the other hand it may be rather harmless.
>
> Well then let me make it real simple for you Weiner. CO2 is a metabolic
> waste product. Just as urea is a metabolic waste product and is excreted
> for the same reasons.
>
> If you take issue with that fact, then I envite you to hold your breath for
> 60 seconds and experience the feeling of a build up of CO2 in your blood.
>
> Get back to us with the result of your experiments. OK Weiner!?????
Though we're not talking about CO2 in the blood, we're talking about
CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. But I'm sure such distinctions
are unimportant to oversimplistic simpletons.
Weihana.
John Cawston
Whats amazing the experts at the moment is the proportion of CO2
emitted to the atmosphere and then reabsorbed on land and sea has
remained constant for over 150 years.
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
The European glaciers are "melting" at a slower rate than in the
1940s:
..and hurricane frequency is up, but not intensity or number of
strikes on mainland US:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090922112207.htm
JC
>
>
> Weihana.
BR
wrote:
>Yup the effect is trivial. Only a a 0.71'C increase and the polar ice caps
>are observed to be melting.
There has been no statistically significant change in the amount of
polar ice since accurate records were started in 1979.
Bill.
whoisthis
BR <bugg...@spammer.com> wrote:
oh ??? Want to give a reference to that information.