OT: Recent Global Warming Data
LeBaron & Alrich
Rob Adelman
LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994310
Yes, scary indeed. Global warming is real and we should be very
concerned about it. CNN also did a piece on this today.
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/24/arctic.warming.ap/index.html>
Rich Andrews
75267.news.uni-berlin.de:
The part we don't know for sure is if this is a normal cycle or not. We
are guessing that this phenonema has been caused or exacerbated by
greenhouse gases. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything to say
that this has never happened in the past and is not part of a natural
cycle.
r
--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
Justin Ulysses Morse
"When compared with ground-based surface temperatures, the rate of
warming in the Arctic between 1981 and 2001 was eight times the rate of
warming over the last 100 years, said Comiso, whose work will be
published November 1 in the American Meteorological Society's Journal
of Climate. "The Arctic is in the process of being transformed," he
said. "
We can debate whether the gradual warming over the last century would
have happened to some extent without all the coal and wood and
petroleum we burned. This bit about the last 20 years ought to put the
debate to rest for anybody who doesn't have a vested political or
financial interest in denying the obvious.
ulysses
ar3a
"Rich Andrews" <no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941EEF7948D65m...@216.168.3.44...
> Rob Adelman <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote in news:bncqnl$1014fc$1@ID-
> 75267.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> >
> > LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994310
> >
> > Yes, scary indeed. Global warming is real and we should be very
> > concerned about it. CNN also did a piece on this today.
> > <http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/24/arctic.warming.ap/index.html
> >
> >
>
> The part we don't know for sure is if this is a normal cycle or not. We
> are guessing that this phenonema has been caused or exacerbated by
> greenhouse gases. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything to say
> that this has never happened in the past and is not part of a natural
> cycle.
Yep. There's no way to know for sure, I guess. We could be experiencing a
change that our planet just goes through naturally ever hundred thousand
years..hell every million years for all we know. The human race, especially
recorded history, is but a blink of an eye in comparison to how old our
planet is. Who knows? We should still go ahead and stop polluting the hell
out of the planet too though...just in case. :-)
John L Rice
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
news:251020030014358098%uly...@rockmusic.com...
While I agree that we as humans need to be really careful with the big
things we try to pull off ( like weapons, war, genetics, and the even worse
stuff we'll eventually try in the future, etc ) and we need to keep a sharp
eye on the cumulative and long reaching effects of the smaller stuff ( like
stuff we burn, chemicals we put into the water and air etc ) I'd say that
considering 20 years of data out of a possible 4.5 billion years of mostly
unknown data is far from obvious.
The article also said "Although winters have cooled, that effect was more
than offset by rising spring, summer and autumn temperatures". So, how come
the winters are colder than normal instead of warmer? Is it because
sunlight reflects off the increased gas in the atmosphere due to the
increased angle of the earth to the sun in winter OR is it because we are
starting to go into a natural period of global cooling but because of the
un-natural warming caused by the man made green house effect we are
unwittingly slowing down the inevitable effects of the new ice age?
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Sean Conolly
news:vpk40ce...@corp.supernews.com...
Indeed, especially when one considers that until the widespread use of
weather satillites (starting maybe 25 years ago?) we didn't know a lot about
oceanic weather, which is what really controls the climate on a global
scale. I think it would be extraordinary that the climate started heating up
at right about the same time we started making wide scale observations.
Sean
John L Rice
"Sean Conolly" <sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote in message
news:WLomb.46664$W77....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Heh, maybe it's the satilite transmitions that are heating things up??? ;-)
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Justin Ulysses Morse
> considering 20 years of data out of a possible 4.5 billion years of mostly
> unknown data is far from obvious.
Not when the change is as dramatic as it is now. Although we haven't
been taking global surface temperature measurements for very long, we
do have enough information to tell us that the temperature rise over
the last 20 years, and to a lesser extent the last century, is a
serious departure from the last thousand or more years of natural
temperature variation
> The article also said "Although winters have cooled, that effect was more
> than offset by rising spring, summer and autumn temperatures". So, how come
> the winters are colder than normal instead of warmer?
The polar ice caps are melting before our eyes. That's a fact. What
happens when you melt a bunch of ice in a puddle of saltwater? The
saltwater gets colder. Mixing warm fluids with cold fluids causes all
kinds of turbulence (in the atmosphere as well as in the ocean). Ocean
currents carrying water around the world are changing, and they control
global weather patterns everywhere. This results in many changes in
the weather, and it's not surprising that although the overall trend is
toward warmer temperatures, the increase in extremes of weather
includes some colder weather as well. The point is that the slightly
cooler-than-usual winters are not compensating for the significantly
warmer-than-usual spring, summer, and fall. The evidence is the
retreating, thinning, and crumbling ice shelves around the poles.
One degree centigrade change over a decade doesn't sound like much, but
it is a HUGE change. One degree per century is substantial. We're
talking about global averages here, and a couple of degrees C over a
couple of decades makes the difference between a light-colored planet
which reflects solar radiation, and a darker-colored planet which
absorbs it. This is called the "albedo." There is an avalance effect
at a certain point in either direction. The Earth is habitable
specifically because it is teetering on the balancing point between
light and dark. It hasn't always been this way, and it won't always
be. But as long as it is, we get to live here.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> Yep. There's no way to know for sure, I guess. We could be experiencing a
> change that our planet just goes through naturally ever hundred thousand
> years..hell every million years for all we know. The human race, especially
> recorded history, is but a blink of an eye in comparison to how old our
> planet is. Who knows? We should still go ahead and stop polluting the hell
> out of the planet too though...just in case. :-)
The fact that the planet goes through climatic cycles should be even
more incentive to disuade us from causing synthetic climate changes.
It's true that the planet has had substantially hotter and colder
climates in the distant past. But it wasn't necessarily habitable at
those times! If you suppose that a naturally-occuring "warm" spell is
approaching, you can speculate as to the effect it might have upon
humanity. Widespread draught, flooding, famine, etc. have occurred in
the past. Our ability to endure such hardships is undermined when
we're unintentionally exacerbating the climatic causes, not to mention
killing off all the vegetation that would otherwise be helping us in a
wide variety of ways.
ulysses
Laung Anthique
uly...@rockmusic.com says...
> We can debate whether the gradual warming over the last century would
> have happened to some extent without all the coal and wood and
> petroleum we burned. This bit about the last 20 years ought to put the
> debate to rest for anybody who doesn't have a vested political or
> financial interest in denying the obvious.
The debate has most certainly not been put to rest in
the scientific community. There is no consensus that
human activity contributes significantly to global
warming.
--Nick
Laung Anthique
berlin.de>, SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com says...
> Yes, scary indeed. Global warming is real and we should be very
> concerned about it. CNN also did a piece on this today.
There's very little evidence that it has much of
anything to do with human activity. It's probably got
everything to do with changes in sun activity and
virtually nothing to do with human pollution. My
understanding is that current measurements do not
support the greenhouse theory.
Oh sure, some scientists disagree with that and think
there is something we can do. But there are equally
credible scientists who point out that radical changes
in human activity would yield results that would barely
be measurable over the long term.
We therefore should not worry about it since there's
really not a damned thing we can do, as a species, to
make a significant difference.
--Nick
Laung Anthique
uly...@rockmusic.com says...
> One degree centigrade change over a decade doesn't sound like much, but
> it is a HUGE change. One degree per century is substantial. We're
> talking about global averages here, and a couple of degrees C over a
> couple of decades makes the difference between a light-colored planet
> which reflects solar radiation, and a darker-colored planet which
> absorbs it. This is called the "albedo." There is an avalance effect
> at a certain point in either direction. The Earth is habitable
> specifically because it is teetering on the balancing point between
> light and dark. It hasn't always been this way, and it won't always
> be. But as long as it is, we get to live here.
That all may be, but there is no good evidence that
changes in global temperatures have much of anything to
do with human activity. In fact, temperature
measurements in the atmosphere do NOT support the
greenhouse warming theory.
More and more scientists believe the real culprit is a
change in sun activity. There was just a show on this
on the science channel a few weeks ago that examined the
scientific side of this debate.
--
Laung Anthique
http://www.ironia.net
http://www.cultv.com
Blind Joni
>more incentive to disuade us from causing synthetic climate changes.
>It's true that the planet has had substantially hotter and colder
>climates in the distant past. But it wasn't necessarily habitable at
>those times! If you suppose that a naturally-occuring "warm" spell is
>approaching, you can speculate as to the effect it might have upon
>humanity. Widespread draught, flooding, famine, etc. have occurred in
>the past. Our ability to endure such hardships is undermined when
>we're unintentionally exacerbating the climatic causes, not to mention
>killing off all the vegetation that would otherwise be helping us in a
>wide variety of ways.
>
Man, this is like saying a rock hitting your head is "maybe" the fault of
someone in another state throwing a rock maybe.
You mention a climatic change and then totally assume that someone or thing is
"causing" a "synthetic'...????? climate change. I'd love to see the data on
that!!
I'm not gonna get into this again but please stop speculating on things that
none of us can know....please.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Blind Joni
>specifically because it is teetering on the balancing point between
>light and dark. It hasn't always been this way, and it won't always
>be. But as long as it is, we get to live here.
>
Again, a statement of fact upon which we can, may, may not..etc have any effect
on.
Have a good weekend!
Blind Joni
>There's very little evidence that it has much of
>anything to do with human activity. It's probably got
>everything to do with changes in sun activity and
>virtually nothing to do with human pollution.
Exactly. We ought to find a way to provide trips to the sun in an SUV so we can
compare the effects. Do some people understand the orders of magnitude
involved? It seems not to be the case.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> One degree centigrade change over a decade doesn't sound like much, but
> it is a HUGE change. One degree per century is substantial. We're
> talking about global averages here, and a couple of degrees C over a
> couple of decades makes the difference between a light-colored planet
> which reflects solar radiation, and a darker-colored planet which
> absorbs it.
It seems that around 75,000 years ago a volcano in Sumatra erupted and
dropped global temperatures 5-6 degrees. About the same time (according
to mitochondrial DNA research) the human population went through a sort
of "pinch point" and dropped down to something like 10-15,000 individuals.
More fun--the entire area of Yellowstone National Park appears to be the
caldera of another supervolcano, one that erupts about every 600,000
years--covering around a third of North America with ash and dust when
it does. Last time it blew off was around 600,000 years ago so we're
due for another "very soon" in geologic terms. Note that tomorrow
morning and 20,000 years from now both of which qualify as "soon" for rocks.
LeBaron & Alrich
> We can debate whether the gradual warming over the last century would
> have happened to some extent without all the coal and wood and
> petroleum we burned.
The last century maintains a ten-thousand year trend of global warming
following the most recent known mini ice age. Knowledge of these
miniature events, as opposed to that of the major known ice ages, is a
fairly recent development. Certainly human activities, including
deforesation, devegetation, asphaltation <g>, and those you mention
above, contribute to alteration of our global climate. And intelligent
surmise at this point suggests such alteration should manifest itself as
a warming influence.
Were this to happen in the face of a global cooling phase we might not
even notice it.
> This bit about the last 20 years ought to put the
> debate to rest for anybody who doesn't have a vested political or
> financial interest in denying the obvious.
I remain surprised at the resistance to "Heads up!" If a pendulum is
swinging in a given direction, accelerating it as it approaches what
could be a turning point could well have unforeseen and severe
consequences. The result couyld be something akin to opening the
henhouse door when the fox approaches.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> So, how come the winters are colder than normal instead of warmer?
This would fall in line with a prediction that weather events would
become more extreme, and arise from decreasing stability in a changing
system.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> That all may be, but there is no good evidence that
> changes in global temperatures have much of anything to
> do with human activity.
Citations, please.
> In fact, temperature
> measurements in the atmosphere do NOT support the
> greenhouse warming theory.
You might want to read the article at the link that started this thread.
> More and more scientists believe the real culprit is a
> change in sun activity. There was just a show on this
> on the science channel a few weeks ago that examined the
> scientific side of this debate.
This thread started with a link to a scientific article.
--
ha
David Morgan (MAMS)
"LeBaron & Alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message ...
> This thread started with a link to a scientific article.
What's up Hank... worried about flooding in your neighborhood?
DM
Sean Conolly
> This thread started with a link to a scientific article.
Didn't look too scientific to me. Looking around I found this site which
seems to be a good summary of some of the hypothesized forces at work.
http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/gccsg/5-3.html
(note that Ka = 1000 years)
One area that I thought was very significant is in figure 5.12, which shows
the correlation of CO2 to sea levels. However the article also discusses the
movement of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere, and indicates (to me
anyway) that it's not clear which factor is causative and which is reactive.
That is; does CO2 in the air increase because the ocean is warmer, or does
the ocean warm because there's more CO2 in the air?
The climate has historically been quite variable on any time scale, and
since we can't go back and measure the ancient climate the way we take
current measurements it's not so obvious how the current readings would
really compare. There's no doubt that there is a climate change going on, we
just don't how much human activity is contributing to that change.
Sean
Rob Adelman
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
I don't know about Hank's neighborhood, but flooding in the mountains in
Colorado can get real extreme. Unusually warm springs proceeded by heavy
snowfalls in the winter has washed away lots of houses and people.
Laung Anthique
ku...@nv.net says...
> More fun--the entire area of Yellowstone National Park appears to be the
> caldera of another supervolcano, one that erupts about every 600,000
> years--covering around a third of North America with ash and dust when
> it does. Last time it blew off was around 600,000 years ago so we're
> due for another "very soon" in geologic terms. Note that tomorrow
> morning and 20,000 years from now both of which qualify as "soon" for rocks.
Yeah, and there's about a 50/50 chance the Earth will be
sucked into a massive black hole when Andromeda collides
with the Milky Way in 2 billion years or so.
:-)
Laung Anthique
walk...@thegrid.net>, walk...@thegrid.net says...
> Laung Anthique <anth...@NIXSPAAMcultv.com> wrote:
>
> > That all may be, but there is no good evidence that
> > changes in global temperatures have much of anything to
> > do with human activity.
>
> Citations, please.
I just did a Google search. Very first site that popped
up was: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-
earth/glob-warm.html That has some links about the sun
thing.
I just watched a show on the science channel that
interviewed a whole bunch of climatologists. Many
challenged the greenhouse gas theory as being
significant.
One guy said that if everything asked for at Kyoto had
been enacted, that it would be doubtful the results
would even be measurable over the next fifty years.
That's pretty damned interesting. Anybody suggesting
expensive changes in policy ought to put forth some kind
of reasonable forecasts regarding the benefits
associated with the costs. A forecast including changes
that are barely measurable doesn't sound like a good
deal to me.
The skeptical scientist went on to say that his
colleagues who have raised alarms about pollution and
global warming have a lot to answer for, implying that
they are either stupid or unethical.
In any case, the idea that there is no debate among
scientists on this issue is flatly incorrect. I for one
do not want to see any radical increase in spending to
correct for a problem that has not been shown to exist.
>
> > In fact, temperature
> > measurements in the atmosphere do NOT support the
> > greenhouse warming theory.
>
> You might want to read the article at the link that started this thread.
I skimmed it.
>
> > More and more scientists believe the real culprit is a
> > change in sun activity. There was just a show on this
> > on the science channel a few weeks ago that examined the
> > scientific side of this debate.
>
> This thread started with a link to a scientific article.
Yellow journalism if not junk science. The show I saw
on the science channel was far more balanced,
interviewing people on both sides of the debate. I
found the people finding fault with with the human
factor more credible myself.
This article didn't even acknowledge any dissension.
In any case, there is definitely serious debate in the
scientific community. Certainly no justification for
expensive policy changes IMHO.
S O'Neill
> One guy said that if everything asked for at Kyoto had
> been enacted, that it would be doubtful the results
> would even be measurable over the next fifty years.
He probably figured faster mitigation would be 'way too expensive.
> In any case, there is definitely serious debate in the
> scientific community. Certainly no justification for
> expensive policy changes IMHO.
How good are the economic models, though? Has anyone calculated the
entire economic output of the human population, forever? If forever's
too expensive to reach, how long until the planet is no longer
cost-effective? We could limit how fast we use up all our resources so
we can reach that point; then sell.
Laung Anthique
nos...@nospam.org says...
> Laung Anthique wrote:
> > One guy said that if everything asked for at Kyoto had
> > been enacted, that it would be doubtful the results
> > would even be measurable over the next fifty years.
>
> He probably figured faster mitigation would be 'way too expensive.
No he figured that there's no evidence that human
activity affects climate in any appreciable way. That
was his expert opinion.
> > In any case, there is definitely serious debate in the
> > scientific community. Certainly no justification for
> > expensive policy changes IMHO.
>
> How good are the economic models, though? Has anyone calculated the
> entire economic output of the human population, forever? If forever's
> too expensive to reach, how long until the planet is no longer
> cost-effective? We could limit how fast we use up all our resources so
> we can reach that point; then sell.
Well, the Earth will definitely not last forever unless
we develop technology to the point that we can move it
and eventually the whole solar system out of harm's way.
Even then it won't last forever. Even black holes don't
last forever, theoretically.
In any case, it is hardly unreasonable to ask what
projected effects of any given changes in human activity
will have on climate given the best current models. If
even radical changes that would be economically ruinous
for everyone would have little if any measurable long-
term effect, then there's no point in seriously
discussing the policy matter.
I will be exiting this discussion very soon. I hang out
here to read about audio. Not sure why I let myself get
drawn in.
Too much coffee today I guess.
Edwin Hurwitz
interesting audio theories as well at this site:
http://www.thebear.org/essays2.html#anchor506010
Edwin
--
Remove the obvious to reply
P Stamler
1) The vast majority of scientists who know anything about the subject of
climate change, and who are not being financially supported by fossil fuel
companies, agree that it is more likely than not that we are in a period of
global warming, and that that warming is being either caused or exacerbated by
the burning of fossil fuels.
2) That same vast majority projects that, if the trends continue, we could do
enormous harm to the world's ecosystems, at a minimum including a major rise in
the level of the ocean, with the result being massive economic dislocation.
3) And that same vast majority suggests that, even if they are completely
wrong, the PRUDENT thing to do is to act as if they are right. Start the
transition to non-fossil fuels such as ethanol, solar, etc.. If the majority is
right, we'll have saved ourselves some very big headaches. And if they're
wrong, we'll have taken a wad of bucks out of the pockets of Saudi Arabia, not
necessarily a bad thing in its own right.
Look, you wear a condom even if you only MIGHT need it.
Peace,
Paul
Blind Joni
>on the science channel was far more balanced,
>interviewing people on both sides of the debate. I
>found the people finding fault with with the human
>factor more credible myself.
>
There was a NOVA done on this within the last 2 years..2 hours of both
arguments.One of the significant conclusions was that even if it could be shown
that humans are having an effect..there would be no way to get enough humans to
change their own future endeavors anyway. The developing world is not going to
be stopped...and they need energy..now. I also think it is a bit short sighted
to make static predictions in what has never been a static situation.
Blind Joni
>we can reach that point; then sell.
>
This again is a static view. First, we don't really know how much "resources"
we really have and the definition of resources will surely change over the
decades...not to mention productivity, birth rates, etc..etc.
Kurt Albershardt
>> The show I saw
>> on the science channel was far more balanced,
>> interviewing people on both sides of the debate. I
>> found the people finding fault with with the human
>> factor more credible myself.
>
>
>
> There was a NOVA done on this within the last 2 years..2 hours of both
> arguments.One of the significant conclusions was that even if it could be shown
> that humans are having an effect..there would be no way to get enough humans to
> change their own future endeavors anyway. The developing world is not going to
> be stopped...and they need energy..now. I also think it is a bit short sighted
> to make static predictions in what has never been a static situation.
It's even more shortsighted to continue down the path we're currently on
knowing that there's a reasonable probability it is making the situation
worse. The price for failure is nearly infinite, at least for humans.
The price of changing our behavior is that we allocate our money a
little differently--and the massive public wealth transfer to a few
corporations shifts to a bunch of smaller, newer corporations (which
don't have nearly the political contribution record the good ol' boys have.)
Blind Joni
>knowing that there's a reasonable probability it is making the situation
>worse.
The case for the "reasonable probability" is what this discussion is dealing
with. Since the cycle has happened countless times before is it really
"probable" that we are the deciding factor this time? What are the odds of
that..really?
reddred
"Rich Andrews" <no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941EEF7948D65m...@216.168.3.44...
> Rob Adelman <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote in news:bncqnl$1014fc$1@ID-
> 75267.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> >
> > LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994310
> >
> > Yes, scary indeed. Global warming is real and we should be very
> > concerned about it. CNN also did a piece on this today.
> >
> >
>
> The part we don't know for sure is if this is a normal cycle or not. We
> are guessing that this phenonema has been caused or exacerbated by
> greenhouse gases. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything to say
> that this has never happened in the past and is not part of a natural
> cycle.
>
> r
>
The evidence we have is partially what would be called 'circumsantial' in a
court of law (but science is not a court.) We know exactly what greenhouse
gasses do to the atmosphere. It has been shown in controlled tests again and
again. We know that for the last hundred years or so, human emsissions of
carbon dioxide in particular correspond almost exactly with the rise in mean
temperature. It's enough scientific evidence for me to make the judgement,
as well as pretty much anyone who believes that the way in which Koeppler or
Newton worked has any validity whatsoever.
jb
reddred
"Laung Anthique"
> Yellow journalism if not junk science. The show I saw
> on the science channel was far more balanced,
> interviewing people on both sides of the debate.
There really isn't too much in the way of disagreement, but you would be on
the right track if you looked into who is paying for what research.
Media coverage of any sort always looks to make a contest, they have to have
a 'left' vs. a 'right', but in no way is this any sort of representation of
what people actually think, nor is it necessarily the way that science is
done. The majority of reputable scientific papers I've read over the last
decade have shown that the 'greenhouse effect' is a reality. This in and of
itself doesn't make them right, just that, yes, the vast majority of
scientists studying the problem believe that we are most likely fucking up
the atmosphere.
jb
reddred
"P Stamler" <psta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025161602...@mb-m21.aol.com...
The problem most energy companies have with the sun and wind is that nobosy
can really own those things. Maybe they would like to see them go away too
<g>
Vladimir Putin recently said something along the lines of "People like warm
weather, they won't have to buy as many warm things like fur coats."
jb
reddred
All the disruption in weather patterns, tidal structures... el nino, el
nina, the gulf stream.... "when the levee breaks".
jb
Chris Hornbeck
>>
>>There's very little evidence that it has much of
>>anything to do with human activity. It's probably got
>>everything to do with changes in sun activity and
>>virtually nothing to do with human pollution.
>
>Exactly. We ought to find a way to provide trips to the sun in an SUV so we can
>compare the effects. Do some people understand the orders of magnitude
>involved? It seems not to be the case.
For the last thousand years, humans have been doubling our
energy consumption (heat lost into the atmosphere) roughly
every century. If we only keep things at the same rate for
the next thousand years, the surface of the earth will be
the same temperature as the surface of the sun. That's one
view of the order of magnitude, FWIW.
Chris Hornbeck
new email address
Chris Hornbeck
<sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote:
>One area that I thought was very significant is in figure 5.12, which shows
>the correlation of CO2 to sea levels. However the article also discusses the
>movement of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere, and indicates (to me
>anyway) that it's not clear which factor is causative and which is reactive.
>That is; does CO2 in the air increase because the ocean is warmer, or does
>the ocean warm because there's more CO2 in the air?
Both are true, and that's the danger. Very large positive feedback
mechanisms are in place, balanced temporarily, but easily
unbalanced. Climate is chaotic, meaning capable of jumping
between distant stable states. Earth's climate has jumped in
and out of Ice Age size steps in periods of less than a century.
For a real headtrip, check out the influence of the
Himalayan mountains.
Roger W. Norman
Hecht of no particular scientific credentials, as shown in this quote from
Jeff.
"Second, working journalists may ask other knowledgeable observers for
comments, formally or informally. We're not experts, and real experts
on this list have been very helpful in my attempts to cover dinosaurs
and other paleontology stories." ref:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Oct/msg00157.html
For further reading and analysis of such "scientific" articles as
referenced, please view http://www.junkscience.com/links.html.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"LeBaron & Alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1g3dq3t.q42bb21qdh6fuN%walk...@thegrid.net...
Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"Roger W. Norman" <rno...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:bnf7q3$232$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
LeBaron & Alrich
> I'm not gonna get into this again but please stop speculating on things that
> none of us can know....please.
I hope you read the article. The rate of change as perceived from that
sat is eight times what we'd thought it is based upon our ground
measurements.
Like I said, I don't get the head-in-the-sand stance exept for folks
with deeply vested political and economic strangleholds on monetary flow
insured by the status quo.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> The climate has historically been quite variable on any time scale, and
> since we can't go back and measure the ancient climate the way we take
> current measurements it's not so obvious how the current readings would
> really compare. There's no doubt that there is a climate change going on, we
> just don't how much human activity is contributing to that change.
So I'll ask again, if we remove vegetation and replace it with asphalt
what is the aniticipated influence on global temperature? That is but
one single factor in the whole of our human activities here on Earth.
If a trend that would be in place without our presence is headed toward
a warmer planet until the pendulum swings back toward the cooling phase,
what is the wisdom of ignoring the near certainty that our own
activities accelerate that move?
We like to think we're pretty smart, as species go. But we'll never know
it all and in this instance waiting until we think we know for certain
that even a petrochemical company financed laboratory scientist accepts
our influence on global warming could mean our ass is toast.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> I for one
> do not want to see any radical increase in spending to
> correct for a problem that has not been shown to exist.
And there we have the worldwide crux of the pecuniary viewpoint.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> ku...@nv.network says...
> > More fun--the entire area of Yellowstone National Park appears to be the
> > caldera of another supervolcano, one that erupts about every 600,000
> > years--covering around a third of North America with ash and dust when
> > it does. Last time it blew off was around 600,000 years ago so we're
> > due for another "very soon" in geologic terms. Note that tomorrow
> > morning and 20,000 years from now both of which qualify as "soon" for rocks.
> Yeah, and there's about a 50/50 chance the Earth will be
> sucked into a massive black hole when Andromeda collides
> with the Milky Way in 2 billion years or so.
Great example of reductio absurdum? We've been needing that. <g>
--
ha
Roger W. Norman
news:10671146...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
> It's even more shortsighted to continue down the path we're currently on
> knowing that there's a reasonable probability it is making the situation
> worse. The price for failure is nearly infinite, at least for humans.
> The price of changing our behavior is that we allocate our money a
> little differently--and the massive public wealth transfer to a few
> corporations shifts to a bunch of smaller, newer corporations (which
> don't have nearly the political contribution record the good ol' boys
have.)
You know better than that, Kurt. You're talking about making changes to
situations you don't know exist, yet you believe that the end result will be
good. Even were we, the people, to somehow come to grips with a lifestyle
that is vastly limited to what we consider reasonable today, you better
believe that our lifestyle changes would have nil effect on the
socio-political and economic factors that would necessitate a country like
ours to lay claims to as much of the earth's resources as possible, just so
that someone else can't do the same. So what is the cost? Do you count it
in human lives were it to come down to some global war for resources? Or
learn how not to build homes on land that has a tendency to drop out from
under you due to mudslides or storm battered beaches? Do you horde the
currently available resources or recognize that power, in specific, is
always going to be a growing concern and as such we'd better find other
technologies that allows us the use of power without all the associated
concerns for burning of fossil fuels in order to create power?
Certainly any of these things are possible if one situation applies and
another does not. Trying to determine which situation applies with a less
than critical mass of data isn't a solution, although it may become another
problem. This is the scary possibility, in that we try to do something
positive about our environment due to human kind's effect on that
environment, and ultimately screw it up so that maybe there's only 12
million humans left. The cost to human kind isn't to become stagnant and
worry about our little planet, but to get up off our butts, move on out into
the solar system and apply what we've learned in a thousand lifetimes
towards adapting those environments to our needs. Personally, we're too
fucking fragile sitting here on the one rock when there are so many around.
And when the big meteor or comet comes, there will be human kind living a
prospering life somewhere else. Humans won't kill planet Earth. We'll just
kill ourselves, but it won't be by global warming. However, it could be due
to making some tremendous mistakes in our working assumptions.
Roger W. Norman
>
> 1) The vast majority of scientists who know anything about the subject of
> climate change, and who are not being financially supported by fossil fuel
> companies, agree that it is more likely than not that we are in a period
of
> global warming, and that that warming is being either caused or
exacerbated by
> the burning of fossil fuels.
Oooo. Not supported by fossil fuel scientists, huh? Well, then, my good
sir, just whom do you suppose supports these self same scientists then?
Would it perhaps be the tens of millions of dollars worth of grants from
foundations looking to find global warming, somewhat like the Sierra Club or
the Nature Conservancy, who, by the way, suck something like 3 billion
dollars a year away from our tax dollars to promote their causes, passing
those grants along to scientists who know that competing for those grants
means supporting the propositions and agendas of the foundations offering
them. You need to think about the politics involved with science. The
majority of scientists that have reasonable doubt about the global warming
claims are ones that have plenty of years of credentials and NO stake
whatsoever, one way or the other. These are the guys to pay attention to.
LeBaron & Alrich
> >We could limit how fast we use up all our resources so
> >we can reach that point; then sell.
> This again is a static view.
Naaah, there'd be serious running around trying to find a buyer...
> First, we don't really know how much "resources"
> we really have and the definition of resources will surely change over the
> decades...not to mention productivity, birth rates, etc..etc.
Yep, when the petroleum runs out the definition of resources is going to
change mightily.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> Yellow journalism if not junk science.
A satellite's temperature sensors are guilty of yellow journalism?
--
ha
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:10671146...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
>
>> It's even more shortsighted to continue down the path we're currently on
>> knowing that there's a reasonable probability it is making the situation
>> worse. The price for failure is nearly infinite, at least for humans.
>> The price of changing our behavior is that we allocate our money a
>> little differently--and the massive public wealth transfer to a few
>> corporations shifts to a bunch of smaller, newer corporations (which
>> don't have nearly the political contribution record the good ol' boys
>> have.)
>
> You know better than that, Kurt. You're talking about making changes to
> situations you don't know exist, yet you believe that the end result will be
> good.
The situation (global warming) exists, and dissenting schmientists are
looking more and more fringe-ish by the week. The causes of said
warming seem clear to me, but I'll agree on the possibilities for error
in analyzing a complex chaotic system. The effects are less ambiguous,
I fear.
> Even were we, the people, to somehow come to grips with a lifestyle
> that is vastly limited to what we consider reasonable today
I'm not advocating limiting our lifestyle as much as rearranging our
priorities (and charging more for certain limited resources.)
> our lifestyle changes would have nil effect on the
> socio-political and economic factors that would necessitate a country like
> ours to lay claims to as much of the earth's resources as possible, just so
> that someone else can't do the same. So what is the cost? Do you count it
> in human lives were it to come down to some global war for resources? Or
> learn how not to build homes on land that has a tendency to drop out from
> under you due to mudslides or storm battered beaches? Do you horde the
> currently available resources or recognize that power, in specific, is
> always going to be a growing concern and as such we'd better find other
> technologies that allows us the use of power without all the associated
> concerns for burning of fossil fuels in order to create power?
More like we ought to design homes, cars, and businesses as though
fossil fuels cost $4 per gallon--since they do most other places--and if
we design for that, we loosen the grip of certain stakeholders (both
foreign and domestic) upon our lives.
> Certainly any of these things are possible if one situation applies and
> another does not. Trying to determine which situation applies with a less
> than critical mass of data isn't a solution, although it may become another
> problem. This is the scary possibility, in that we try to do something
> positive about our environment due to human kind's effect on that
> environment, and ultimately screw it up so that maybe there's only 12
> million humans left. The cost to human kind isn't to become stagnant
Ok so far...
> worry about our little planet, but to get up off our butts, move on out into
> the solar system and apply what we've learned in a thousand lifetimes
> towards adapting those environments to our needs. Personally, we're too
> fucking fragile sitting here on the one rock when there are so many around.
> And when the big meteor or comet comes, there will be human kind living a
> prospering life somewhere else. Humans won't kill planet Earth. We'll just
> kill ourselves, but it won't be by global warming. However, it could be due
> to making some tremendous mistakes in our working assumptions.
Terraforming and interstellar exodus are fascinating thought exercises,
but the realities of the situation seem to indicate we need solutions
which are sooner and closer to home than those might provide.
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>Roger W. Norman wrote:
>> Even were we, the people, to somehow come to grips with a lifestyle
>> that is vastly limited to what we consider reasonable today
>
>I'm not advocating limiting our lifestyle as much as rearranging our
>priorities (and charging more for certain limited resources.)
Our entire current manmade production of CO2 could be absorbed by
planting trees on an area equal to Arizona. China's re-emergence
will increase that number quickly, but it's still practical.
All we really lack is will, but that's a big lack. We continue
to vote for simple answers and external enemies. Same old.
Sean Conolly
> Sean Conolly wrote:
>
> > The climate has historically been quite variable on any time scale, and
> > since we can't go back and measure the ancient climate the way we take
> > current measurements it's not so obvious how the current readings would
> > really compare. There's no doubt that there is a climate change going
on, we
> > just don't how much human activity is contributing to that change.
>
> So I'll ask again, if we remove vegetation and replace it with asphalt
> what is the aniticipated influence on global temperature? That is but
> one single factor in the whole of our human activities here on Earth.
One factor of all the factors that influence the climate, which goes beyond
just human activity.
> If a trend that would be in place without our presence is headed toward
> a warmer planet until the pendulum swings back toward the cooling phase,
> what is the wisdom of ignoring the near certainty that our own
> activities accelerate that move?
From history (as per what I've read) the climate tends to stabilize at
points a few degrees above and below what we accept as the norm. In other
words what we accept is naturally unstable, and so our perceived impact may
be exaggerated. However it is true that in an unstable equilibrium even the
smallest of events could have a larger impact.
> We like to think we're pretty smart, as species go. But we'll never know
> it all and in this instance waiting until we think we know for certain
> that even a petrochemical company financed laboratory scientist accepts
> our influence on global warming could mean our ass is toast.
We burn fossil fuels, and thus are tapping energy beyond what we currently
receive from the Sun. That energy turns into heat which has to be released
into the local climate, and over time must contribute to the global climate.
The question is a matter of urgency and scale. Should we sacrifice now to
move to a non-stored energy paradigm, or can we move more gradually to one?
This question has terrible significance to the industrial nations of the
world.
Sean
Roger W. Norman
> The situation (global warming) exists, and dissenting schmientists are
> looking more and more fringe-ish by the week. The causes of said
> warming seem clear to me, but I'll agree on the possibilities for error
> in analyzing a complex chaotic system. The effects are less ambiguous,
> I fear.
Yes, global warming exists, and I'm not saying it doesn't, whether the
actual factors involved are clear to you and I or not. In fact, the problem
with the assumptions being made is that the world has been warming
significantly for the last 11,000 years, sometimes at a pace more
accelerated than now, without what could be called human intervention. And
the effects being less ambiguous is slightly disengenious if one's
assumptions are incorrect to start with.
I mean, start with the glaciers and the ice caps "pulling back" and what you
find is that for the same 11,000 years they have been doing so, and at a
rate that is no faster nor slower than currently observed, but instead well
within the deviation plots, if core sample studies are to be believed. We
also don't know a few little factors like whether the oceans absorb more CO2
due to warming periods of whether it releases CO2, although we know that
warm water itself can absorb MORE CO2 than when it's cold. I have mentioned
the billions of tons of methane sulfate and how warmer oceans can trigger
release of that green house gas which has a far greater adverse effect, so
yes, there are reasons to pay attention to cause and effect, but one good
long El Nino could adversely affect the temperature of the Gulf Stream
causing vast quantities to be released off of the Florida coast, and El Nino
has been around as an observable phenomenom for centuries longer than man's
possible effect on the environment.
And I'm NOT saying that the science is wrong. I am saying that the data is
incomplete and not of sufficient quality to make doomsday predictions
without regard to the social and economic ramifications that would ensue for
what, by the numbers presented, would be the most miniscule of changes.
Does this say that we, as people, should ignore any technologies that give
us a better grasp on how to work within our environment? No, but even those
here that are proponents of unevenly applicable solutions aren't so ready to
accept current technologies that would offer the same effect due to costs.
When I brought up solar roof shingles and geo-thermal HVAC the first
negative brought up is cost, and then the application of this technology is
only viable in certain locations, and then on down the line with why they
can't do this type of effort. That's a direct picture of the type of
economic stress that can be placed on the world when "global" demands are
made that, at best, reduce human output in green house gases by less than
the amount of methane placed in the atmosphere by cattle ranching, chicken
raising, and just letting ants continue to live in their hundreds of
trillions. And the "Greens" are currently trying (and have been for ten
years) to abolish cattle ranching in the US, which obviously isn't a
solution to about 90% of our agriculture's economy standings. It may not be
relevant to this particular rant, but it's relevant to the concept of stupid
ideas that give no thought to social, political nor economical stresses.
Sorta like the "solutions" to global warming.
Nor do I say that government restrictions of big business' release of green
house gasses should be ameliorated for the sake of growth and expansion,
because big business is really here to serve a market that happens to be
people, so when big business does things that can harm the people, they
should be restricted from such activities and monitored to make certain such
activities don't continue. In this, as a step towards reducing CO2
emissions, I have no problem even at the stake of it costing more for
products, because then only products that have some intrinsic value will
actually be produced. I do wonder just how much energy is expended along
with the rampant emissions of green house gasses and ground water pollutants
so that I can seemingly have a $Dollar Store on almost as many corners as I
have 7-11s.
New technologies come along every day and most are now following the trend
of having superior thought towards environmental effects, such as the corn
based CD that deteriorate within a span of decades after being exposed to
the elements. And I recognize that new technology has a long term R&D
recovery in a lot of cases, making the technology expensive to implement,
but just as that technology becomes recoverable through large scale use, so
could our corporations that use third world countries without pollution
monitors and such, be forced to "give (oops, a liberal word! <g>)" their
older technologies away that will enhance the conditions of doing business
in those same third world countries. Instead of building coal burning
facilities to generate electricity but burn dirty, they could and should be
held accountable for burning that same coal cleanly and more efficiently.
That requires companies that burn coal to apply the same technologies to
every plant they build. Then the third world countries can have their own
"industrial revolution" without the adverse effects, socially,
economomically and environmentally, that we went through.
There are things we can do as a people, and these are some of them. We can
ban together and boycott, not France and it's cheese and wine, but companies
that use two different sets of plant construction methods for two different
parts of the world. We can force THEM not to take advantage of countries
that certainly aren't able to ignore the economics of their situation due to
environmental concerns. And, to me, these are the exact places where
governments should be making their efforts while struggling with resources
controlled by factions that have only money in their sites. If the US, for
instance, made law that said companies with their businesses based in the US
couldn't accept contracts from foreign business interests unless the same
conditions for operations are used that exist in the US. Then France,
England and everyone else who have had to develop technologies to work more
efficiently and less emissively could do the same. It would also stop some
of the rampant merging and globalization of corporations that have a bottom
line reason to buy fading plants of questionable eco-friendly operations.
These are the places to stop the problem, if, in fact, there is a global
warming problem. The idea here is that, regardless of the outcome of that
circumstance, these actions would only be beneficial to all concerned (well,
maybe the corporations wouldn't be creating paper fucking wealth, but that's
another day's diatribe! <g>), and there aren't many programs around of which
that can be said. So rather than try to force China to develop technologies
that we've had since the 70s, or try to make them license those technologies
for a pretty penny, we should be offering significant inducements to China
to participate in pro-active green house gas reductions by donating older
technologies that have already recovered R&D expenses.
And it couldn't hurt relations with N. Korea if we were to have coal mining
companies help upgrade the flagging coal mining equipment and technologies
the N. Koreans employ. Heck, our give-aways would be technological leaps in
both their production levels and their abilities to put more people to work.
Might even just give them cause to give up this blustering and posturing
over nuclear enrichment. They have more than enough coal to fuel their own
industry but they can't mine it and they don't burn it efficiently. Two
direct areas we could use as a test case in helping the world develop and
manage their own "industrial revolution" while providing some controls on
the implementation of green house gas producing industry.
I think you can tell that I believe in controls on industry rather than
demands of countries (i.e. the Kyoto Accord). Governments change, often
quite quickly in third world countries, but if industry is built correctly
in the first place, than those government changes cannot adversely affect
the industries already built. That's a major step forward. And if Monsanto
or DOW Chemicals cannot move into a third world country without the
safeguards and controls in place that are currently being used in more
advanced countries, then these less advanced countries can't be exploited at
the risk of the population, as evidenced by DOW's chemical massacre in
India.
Phil C.
> John L Rice wrote:
>
> > So, how come the winters are colder than normal instead of warmer?
>
> This would fall in line with a prediction that weather events would
> become more extreme, and arise from decreasing stability in a changing
> system.
>
> ha
The idea that increasingly extreme swings in weather patterns or
temperatures are substantial proof of "decreasing stability in a changing
system" is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, all the scientific
evidence we currently possess tells us that "increasingly extreme events"
are inherent in even the most stable systems and that the extremity &
variety of said events is only governed by the complexity of the system.
Keep in mind that the current theories on global warming are supposedly
supported by predictive statistical models that, firstly, attempt to account
for all the "known" variables that affect global climate change; secondly,
since the known variables are dynamic, they attempt to account for how each
variable might affect the other variables. Lastly, each model is vetted
against all historical global climate data to see if the model had existed -
say, 100 years ago - would it have predicted the global climate changes we
already know have occurred over the last 100 years with a reasonable degree
of accuracy.
To my knowledge, none of the current models - including those used to
support the framework of he Kyoto treaty - have fared well when it comes to
predictive accuracy. We'll talk more about that in a moment.
For now, let's get back to our original point. Are "increasingly extreme
events" substantial proof of decreasing stability in a changing system? To
test this thesis, let's look at a very simple system with only one "major"
variable:
Heads or tails - let's flip a coin.
Anyone who's taken Statistics 101 knows that it doesn't take more than a
couple hundred tosses of a coin to convince even the most unreasonable
person that, over the long run, flipping a coin is truly a 50/50
proposition. This is a well established "predictive statistical model" that
has been vetted against a mountain of historical data. But here's the part
that often gets glossed over in Statistics 101:
Flip a coin one hundred times and you'll "probably" see sequences that are
similar to this:
heads - tails - heads - heads - tails - heads - tails - tails - tails etc.
etc.
When your hundred tosses are done, you might very well be surprised to find
that tails came up 58 times and heads came up only 42 which is surprising
because you probably didn't notice any big swings where tails came up a lot
of times in a row. Nonetheless, you know that over the long run, things
will "even out" and this is just a short term situation. You know if you
flipped the coin 1000 times the ratio of tails to heads would be closer to -
say, 52/48 - and if you flipped the coin 10,000 times, the ratio of tails to
heads would probably be close to - say, 50.5/49.5 - or vice versa.
So, the more data you analyze; the more closely your data will conform to
the "mean" of your predictive statistical model.
But here's the kicker:
The more data you analyze (i.e. the more times you flip the coin) the
greater the swings will be in either direction. In other words, if you flip
a coin 100 times, you might only see heads or tails come up 4 or 5 times in
a row at any one time. Flip a coin 1,000 times and you'll probably see
streaks where heads or tails comes up 10 or more times in a row. Flip a
coin 100,000 times and you'll see almost mind boggling streaks where heads
or tails comes up 15 - 30 times in a row, or more. If you selectively
analyze different sequences of 500 tosses within your 100,000 toss data
sample, you'll see streaks where heads or tails is so dominant that you'll
be sure that you inadvertently skewed the test. These swings will seem so
impossibly anomalous, you'll be sure that "something's wrong."
The truth is, nothing's wrong and your test isn't skewed. You've simply
illustrated a familiar saying:
"Whatever CAN happen, eventually will."
More importantly, you've illustrated the two converging trends that are
evident when we study any system with statistical models & historical data.
1. The more data you analyze the closer the data will conform to the
statistical mean.
2. The more data you analyze, the more extreme the swings will be in either
(or any) direction.
These two trends are not antithetical or anomalous - they are, in fact,
synergistic.
So, are increasingly extreme events substantial proof of the decreasing
stability of a changing system? Let's look at our simple system - heads or
tails.
It doesn't take a genius to confirm that not only is our system "non
changing," it's incredibly stable. There's only one variable - heads or
tails - and it will never change.
It follows logically, then, that increasingly extreme events are not
substantial proof of decreasing stability in a changing system but rather an
inherent component of stable, non changing systems.
I mentioned earlier that the statistical models used to support current
theories on global warming have not fared all that well when vetted against
historical climate change data. If you were to question the proponents of
these statistical models, they would probably tell you that there is simply
not enough "quality" historical data to properly vet their respective models
but that their models have shown great promise with the limited data
available. Fair enough, I can respect that response but it does leave me
with one question:
Considering the complexity of our global ecosystem, the myriad of dynamic
variables that affect global weather patterns and the lack of quality
historical climate data; is there any basis for the hysterical fear
mongering that is taking place?
Is global warming a real man made disaster? Possibly. Should we be working
diligently and concertedly to develop clean alternative forms of energy?
Absolutely: the sooner the better.
Are leftists using the "fear" of ecological disaster to dupe the "huddled
masses" into once again accepting the tyrannical rule of worthless & failed
socialist/communist doctrines? You bet.
My gut tells me that the global warming hysteria is driven less by actual
evidence and more by the leftist elite's desire to create a global crisis to
which they will be happy to provide a "global solution." A solution that
will only require we surrender our personal freedoms and individual rights
in order to adopt the dystopian doctrine of "sustainable development."
My .02 - YMMV
Roger W. Norman
> Terraforming and interstellar exodus are fascinating thought exercises,
> but the realities of the situation seem to indicate we need solutions
> which are sooner and closer to home than those might provide.
I had to answer this one separately least it get lost in the last diatribe.
A) I said nothing about terraforming nor interstellar exodus
B) thought exercises keep the mind sharp and often open up other avenues to
sometimes totally unanticipated solutions to unrelated problems
C) neither A nor B are bad
It's easy for those of us in the US to talk about laying down requirements
and making demands of other countries despite their needs, and it's easy to
place the onus on these countries when, in fact, a lot of those countries
can't even bring about a stable government that could implement long term
operations towards goals that fit the requirements. It's not reasonable to
assume that a third world country in Africa is going to abide by anything
that is placed upon them from the outside if the ramifications are less than
ideal FOR THEM. If OUR INTERESTS can totally change our world view and
offer up such delicate little items as pre-emptive strikes against countries
who's governments don't work in OUR INTERESTS, then it's pretty safe to
assume that this is a policy that will have it's negative feedback
resounding throughout the world when outside interests are placed upon these
small countries.
We need not try to push a rope. Neither here on the planet, nor out in the
solar system, where, with some clear, concise thought, we can achieve many
things, including new wealth and new industry, new medical techniques and
treatments, an environment repleat with as much for us to learn as we have
experienced on this planet within man's lifetime. We don't need to go very
far, but we do need to lay plans, overcome obstacles, and develop new
technologies. I'm saying, with my little weird statement, that it's about
as advantageous to the human race to place our efforts in this arena as it
is to try and foist requirements on uncontrollable outside interests.
Another factor is that the elimination of global warming causing emissions
here on earth have the same requirements as developing technologies that can
take us out into space. If one can't see that then one only has to realize
that shit and pee can't be plopped into a latrine and covered over in space
nor on any other planets or moons in this solar system. If, in our
endeavors towards and in space, we are going to be required to bring our own
environment, then it damned well should be the best environment we can take.
How, then, is this somehow inconsistent with what the requirements these
"global warming mavens" are laying on us for our continued endeavors on
earth?
I've said it before, but here it is again. ALL SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES need
to work at all levels and in disparate endeavors to come up with global
solutions. We need solutions that keep us at status quo. We need solutions
that take us back a century or two. We need solutions that take us forward
in small increments or in leaps and bounds; that either give us a continued
long term relationship with our mother planet, or that totally disregards
the planet for the expansion and continued existence of mankind. We need to
stop thinking that there's only one fucking solution, because whatever that
solution is, it isn't the right solution unless all other solutions are
taken into consideration. It's waaaaayyyyyy too small of a solution to any
problem if all solutions aren't conjugated, declinated, regurgitated and
speculated.
It's way too easy to see a problem, and not so easy to solve it. And it's
for damned certain that having people running around waving their arms
saying that there's a problem isn't part of any solution, particularly if
their perception of the problem is from incomplete data or inaccurate
analysis of that data. The more data we collect, the more disciplines we
have adding their disparate pieces of the puzzle, the better the resolution
of the picture and the much higher likelyhood that a "solution" will be both
ecompassing to alleviating the problem and unfettering in man's ability to
continue to strive and grow and procreate and grow vegetables. Resources
are finite but man's appetite for resources isn't. Unless a solution
provides for both the most efficient usage of these resources while placing
the least strain on those that have control of the resources, then a
solution becomes a plan for disaster. And if the solution is supposed to be
a global solution, then by default it follows that the disaster will be a
global disaster. Your disaster is eminent if we don't do anything, and my
disaster is eminent only if we do something and it's not the right thing. I
presume that doing the wrong thing is more globally stupid than doing
nothing.
Richard Crowley
> My gut tells me that the global warming hysteria is driven less by actual
> evidence and more by the leftist elite's desire to create a global crisis
to
> which they will be happy to provide a "global solution." A solution that
> will only require we surrender our personal freedoms and individual rights
> in order to adopt the dystopian doctrine of "sustainable development."
No scientific argument is effective against fervent leftist elites.
If it doesn't fit their theory-du-jour, it is suspect as obstructionist.
Laung Anthique
opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com says...
> The evidence we have is partially what would be called 'circumsantial' in a
> court of law (but science is not a court.) We know exactly what greenhouse
> gasses do to the atmosphere. It has been shown in controlled tests again and
> again. We know that for the last hundred years or so, human emsissions of
> carbon dioxide in particular correspond almost exactly with the rise in mean
> temperature. It's enough scientific evidence for me to make the judgement,
> as well as pretty much anyone who believes that the way in which Koeppler or
> Newton worked has any validity whatsoever.
Yes, but my understanding is that temperature
measurements of layers in the atmosphere do NOT support
the greenhouse model and that this is why more and more
scientists believe there is some other cause completely
unrelated to greenhouse gasses, probably changes in sun
activity. And there is nothing we can do about changes
in sun activity and its effect on global temperatures.
We simply need to adapt.
--
Laung Anthique
http://www.ironia.net
http://www.cultv.com
Laung Anthique
opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com says...
>
> "Laung Anthique"
> > Yellow journalism if not junk science. The show I saw
> > on the science channel was far more balanced,
> > interviewing people on both sides of the debate.
>
> There really isn't too much in the way of disagreement,
It sure doesn't appear that way to me.
> but you would be on
> the right track if you looked into who is paying for what research.
As would you.
I know journalism and that was yellow journalism. No
question about it.
> Media coverage of any sort always looks to make a contest, they have to have
> a 'left' vs. a 'right', but in no way is this any sort of representation of
> what people actually think, nor is it necessarily the way that science is
> done. The majority of reputable scientific papers I've read over the last
> decade have shown that the 'greenhouse effect' is a reality. This in and of
> itself doesn't make them right, just that, yes, the vast majority of
> scientists studying the problem believe that we are most likely fucking up
> the atmosphere.
Possibly, but is there a damned thing we can do about
it? Given *REASONABLE* possibilities for actions that
might occur, are there any good models for what kind of
effects we can expect? Finally, would these effects
represent a significant change over doing nothing?
FWIW, I, like many Americans, do consider the
environment in my activities and decisions.
I'd love to build myself a solar powered house, but I
can't afford it. I just keep the thermostat down and
wear a sweater. I also mostly telecommute, which
eliminates a daily drive.
Doubt it matters much though.
Laung Anthique
walk...@thegrid.net>, walk...@thegrid.net says...
Money matters. Anyone who says it doesn't is either a
complete fool or a liar.
Laung Anthique
walk...@thegrid.net says...
> Laung Anthique wrote:
>
> > Yellow journalism if not junk science.
>
> A satellite's temperature sensors are guilty of yellow journalism?
No, the writer is.
nmm
There;s some intresting info here.. even if it does come off as
conspiracy theories by it's extreme predictions:
.............
Conspiracy Theories
Behind the Chemtrails
The FREE AMERICAN
http://freeamerican.com//ChemtrailsFinal.htm
Hear Clay Douglas Every Morning at 6 AM Mountain Time on WWCR 12.160
Shortwave, Satellite from TruthRadio.com or click on the banner above
to listen live or hear archived shows!
The Shield Project.
Here we quote the communication from "Deep Shield":
Having read your email, I must say that you are full of questions.
These questions I would dismiss immediately as being the frustrated
attempts of fringe groups to bring a halt to the project, however
these reports of biological material being part of the spray should be
addressed. Therefore I will give as much attention to all of your
questions as possible.
1. What purpose do polymer threads imbedded with biological material serve in this scenario?
Polymers are part of the mixture and they do form in threads and in
`tufts'. The idea is simple and comes to us from the spider. As you
may know spider webbing is very light, some newborn spiders spin a
`parachute' to catch the prevailing breeze to travel far from their
place of birth. Spiders have been able to attain high altitudes and
travel great distances for long periods of time. Most of the elements
used in the spray are heavier than air, even in their powdered form
they are heavier and will sink quickly. Mixing them with the polymers
suspends the particles in the atmosphere high above the surface for
longer periods of time, therefore in theory we do not need to spray as
often or as much material. Since the suspended particles eventually do
settle into the lowest part of the atmosphere and are inhaled by all
life forms on the surface there is an attempt to counter the growth of
mold by adding to the mixture mold growth suppressants - some of which
may be of biological material.
Mold comes in spores that travel on the winds; the polymers can
attract mold spores through static charges created by the friction of
the polymer threads and the atmosphere. Add a bit of warmth and
moisture and mold begins to grow. The polymer is stored in a liquid
form as two separate chemicals. When sprayed they combine behind the
plane `spinning' long polymer chains (threads). Much tinkering has
been done which the chemical matrix in past years. Many polymers
(plastics) are non-biodegradable thus add to the problem of pollution.
Various formula have been used, some which even use biological agents.
It would be great if we could reproduce the same web material that
spiders make, it is extremely strong, extremely lightweight and breaks
down relatively fast in the ecology.
2. If this spraying is to mitigate global warming, why does so much of
it take place at night?
Though it would appear that the dispersal rate of the spray is fast,
it is actually takes much longer to be an effective shield. There is a
desired concentration being sought. One that is thick enough to stem
the UV and the Infrared, while being thin enough to allow visible
light through. A perpetual cloud cover would have disastrous effects
on plant life; the food chain thus disrupted would soon collapse. The
desired effect wanted is a thin cover that would theoretically create
a daytime haze that allows plenty of sunlight while providing
protection. From UV radiation and also reflect enough infrared to
maintain nominal temperatures.
The optimal condition is to use the least amount of material to
provide the maximum amount of shielding. Ideally that would be a
one-time application which would stay suspended for years, however, as
noted, barium and aluminum and other trace elements are far heavier
than air and they sink rather rapidly. The different temperatures
between day and night causes massive volumes of air to rise during the
night, the warm air trapped at the surface rises above the cooling air
above. By strategically spraying in certain areas at night, we get the
advantage of the rising air, which not only pushes the material
higher, but also causes the material to disperse into a thin layer.
I would suggest studying on the subject of weather, namely highs and
lows and how air moves to fully understand the times of spraying. I
note, it is not just global warming we are combating here, we are also
combating UV Summer. Global warming could effectively be treated by
applications during the night, when the warm air rises. However the UV
needs to be treated during the day. This is why on some days one finds
that more spraying is done during the day. The UV indexes are
monitored constantly for local areas. If the problem were simply
cooling the earth, rockets would have been used to suspend particles
in the high atmosphere. However the delicate nature of the Ozone Layer
precludes this method of shielding. More on this in the answer to
Question 6.
3. What other military programs are in place involving the spraying of
barium and what are their purposes? Do you know and understand the
chemical make up of the element?
A little knowledge will go a long way to understanding the need to use
barium: Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug
electrodes and in vacuum tubes as a drying and oxygen-removing agent.
Barium oxidizes in air, and it reacts vigorously with water to form
the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. In moist air it may spontaneously
ignite. It burns in air to form the peroxide, which produces hydrogen
peroxide when treated with water. Barium reacts with almost all of the
nonmetals; all of its water-soluble and acid-soluble compounds are
poisonous. Barium carbonate is used in glass, as a pottery glaze, and
as a rat poison. Chrome yellow (barium chromate) is used as a paint
pigment and in safety matches. The chlorate and nitrate are used in
pyrotechnics to provide a green color. Barium oxide strongly absorbs
carbon dioxide and water; it is used as a drying agent. Barium
chloride is used in medicinal preparations and as a water softener.
Barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to light; it is sometimes
used as a paint pigment. Barite, the sulfate ore, has many industrial
uses. Because barium sulfate is virtually insoluble in water and
acids, it can be used to coat the alimentary tract to increase the
contrast for X-ray photography without being absorbed by the body and
poisoning the subject.
Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the
chief gasses causing the green house effect. In my answer to Question
4 I will discuss the need to carry a current in the shield. I would
like to point out that barium and aluminum work together to diffuse
and strengthen an electrical charge. Somewhat like the current
produced when acid is introduced between two dissimilar metals, such
as iron and copper. There are military applications for everything you
can think of, can not a butter knife be used as a weapon? The same
concept holds true here.
4. What is the connection between ELF, EMF, VLF and Chemtrails
spraying? Or is there one?
To understand the use of radio waves in the shield, one first
understands how ozone is created. I cannot stress to you how dire the
situation really is. The shield in place is only a partial solution;
we must counter the depletion of the ozone- this means we must make
ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone at ground levels does no good;
indeed, ozone pollution at ground levels it what is used to determine
the air quality. Higher levels of ground level ozone mean that air
quality is bad. Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly bluish gas with a
characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a density of 2.144
grams per liter at standard temperature and pressure. Below its
boiling point (-112?) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting
point (-193?) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic
oxygen, O3, and has a molecular weight of 47.9982 atomic mass units
(amu). It is the most chemically active form of oxygen. It is formed
in the ozone layer of the stratosphere by the action of solar
ultraviolet light on oxygen. Although it is present in this layer only
to an extent of about 10 parts per million, ozone is important because
its formation prevents most ultraviolet and other high-energy
radiation, which is harmful to life, from penetrating to the earth's
surface. Ultraviolet light is absorbed when its strikes an ozone
molecule; the molecule is split into atomic and diatomic oxygen: 03+
ultraviolet light ->0+02. Later, in the presence of a catalyst, the
atomic and diatomic oxygen reunite to form ozone.
Ozone is also formed when an electric discharge passes through air;
for example, it is formed by lightning and by some electric motors and
generators. Ozone is produced commercially by passing dry air between
two concentric-tube or plate electrodes connected to an alternating
high voltage; this is called the silent electric discharge method.
Since UV radiation is the problem, we can not use UV to produce more
stratospheric ozone. Another method must be found. The shield acts
like one plate of the electrode, when tickled with certain radio
waves; it produces an opposite charge to stratospheric layers
producing low atmosphere to stratosphere lightening. Creating ozone
where it is needed.
5. If this is being done for the reasons you say, then why are other
chemicals being used, why are different sprays being used?
Correcting the ecological damage that mankind has done has NEVER BEEN
DONE BEFORE. We are relatively new to this notion of terraforming on a
real scale. That is what we are doing, Terraforming. We are trying to
recreate the ideal life-sustaining conditions on a dying planet. We
have never done this before, not intentionally. We are testing and
trying different methods. Granted, if we do nothing 89% of all species
will go extinct and humanity stands a high chance of not surviving
through two more generations (or less). However the idea of 2 billion
casualties death and permanent injury is not easy to swallow either.
Several attempts to improve the application of Shielding material and
getting the most out of each application are taking place all the
time. The combined resources of the nations of earth are not enough to
allow constant spraying. Though we have achieved a high level of
technology, there is a great surface area that needs to be covered
nearly daily. Large sections of ocean are all but ignored; the
remaining land masses are more than what can be covered effectively.
The Shield would work best if it was a single thin layer without
interruption, however due to the movement of air, weather patterns and
the sad fact that we do not have the means to place ample amounts of
material at the same level at the same time we are getting a small
fraction of the effectiveness from our applications.
6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought?
Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a
storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space
relatively clear of particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in
these areas, sometimes to dangerous levels. The shield must be
maintained. Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide,
precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of sprays are in
development and testing which may reduce the affects on precipitation.
As I stated above, this is a new technology we are working with, it is
still in its infancy and there are some problems with it.
7. Why are UFO's and disappearing spray planes reported?
I do not know.
8. What about the reports of sickness after spraying?
There are several causatives for this. Some people are more sensitive
to metals, whiles others are sensitive to the polymer chemicals. As
stated in a previous email, people will get sick, and some will die.
It is estimated that 2 billion worldwide will be affected to some
degree by the spraying. Without spraying we have a 90% + chance of
becoming extinct as a species with in the next 20 years.
9. What is the relationship between these spraying programs and One
World Order?
Personally I am against the move for globalization, and yes, there is
potential to use the Shield to speed up the process of globalization,
there are several countries that are involved in this project:
European Union Nations, USA and Russia are the largest contributors to
the project, many of the allied nations and UN Members participate to
one extent or another. The material (chemical spray as you may call
it) comes from all of these nations.
To insure that the chemicals are not tampered with, they are mixed and
sprayed over random nations. This means that chemicals produced in the
USA has a good chance of being sprayed over Russia, England and the
USA. This random spray of material means that no nation would be
certain that their chemicals will be sprayed over a nation which they
have issues with. Russian planes may be seen in USA skies, but so too
will USA planes be seen in Russian skies. The canisters used are
sealed in a third nation that has no idea where its canister is going.
Participating nations have their observers at every station where
canister loading is done. All of this to insure that the shield is not
used as a weapon. To further insure that the shield is not used as a
weapon, non participant nations are sprayed by participants who must
spray in order to get enough material to maintain their nations
shield. It is understood that not spraying is as much a military
offense as shooting at them.
Without the shield, UV poisoning would cause great death. The threat
is a common one, which has brought nations together in defense. The
natural outcome of having a common enemy is to strengthen
international ties - a step toward globalization.
10. Is the Spraying related to terrorism?
Yes and no. Recent terrorist activity can be traced to resistance
groups who feel that we should not interfere with the natural order of
things. As you know, there are many rumors out there as to what the
Shield Program is. Some believe that this is a population reduction
scheme, designed to kill off 'undesirable' peoples. While others hold
that this is a mind control program. There are many theories which
have sinister plots in them these are propagated by the resistance
groups in an attempt to stop the shield regardless of the
consequences.
The same delivery method could be used for biological and chemical
warfare. It could also be used to inoculate large populations, the
effectiveness of these uses are low, there are better methods that can
be used. As a means to fight terrorism it is ineffectual, it is far
easier to inoculate a population individually and would insure full
inoculation against germ warfare.
11. Why all the secrecy?
Due to the severity of the situation it is mandatory to maintain
public calm for as long as possible. The Earth is dying. Humanity is
on the road to extinction - without the Shield mankind will die off
with in 20 to 50 years. Most people alive today could live to see this
extinction take place. This means that an announcement of the
situation we face boils down to telling every man, woman and child on
earth that they have no future, they are going to be killed. People
would panic. There would be economic collapse, the production and
movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all cities on
earth, riots and violence would reduce civilian centers to rubble
within days. Half of the population in dense metropolitan areas would
try to leave the cities seeking 'safety' in the rural areas thinking
that they would be safe. Those left behind in the cities would be at
war with their neighbors, fighting for the remaining supplies. We
would be telling the world that the world is coming to an end, and
even with the Shield the chances of survival are small.
UV Summer and Global Warming are the immediate problems we face, there
are far greater problems that are raising their ugly heads and will
present new problems which in some cases have no viable solutions at
this time. Ecologies are collapsing. The extinction rate of species is
climbing. The amount of chemical pollutants in the water and soil are
fast approaching and in many places has surpassed the earth's ability
to heal itself. Crop failure is on the rise, even in the USA the
returns on crops are smaller than they were 10 years ago. Even with
the advances in genetically altered food crops, we are falling behind
in our ability to produce enough to go around. Throughout the 20th
century chemical fertilizers and pesticides were used to insure the
best yields. Unfortunately many of these have contaminated ground
water, killed beneficial insects along with the undesirable insects.
These chemicals have gotten into the food chain and are affected other
species besides mankind. It is only a matter of years before famine
spreads like a cancer throughout the world.
Clean fresh water is in short supply, in many places well water is
nonpotable, containing the run off of pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers that have been used on crops and lawns. The water
treatment facilities we have are unable to scrub out all of the toxins
we have placed in the soil and water supply. Many of the toxins we
find build up over time in the body, a long slow poisoning which has
been making its presence felt in many areas of the world in the form
of cancers, leukemia, sterility, birth defects, learning disorders,
immune deficiency problems, etc. These are on the rise, any good
researcher can find the records. For decades there was public outcry
for the end to pollution. For every small step we made to clean up our
production, millions where born who added to the problem. Yes,
pollution is down per individual, however there are a couple more
billion individuals producing pollution, thus the real numbers have an
increase in over all pollution produced. Name a city that does not
have problems with smog. You would be hard pressed to find one. Though
smog controls on automobiles is higher than ever before, the number of
autos on the road has increased thus the amount of smog producing
pollutants is higher than ever before. All the clean air acts passed
to curb individual factory and auto emissions did not address the
production of more factories and more autos. Here an uneasy compromise
was made between the need to maintain the economy against the need to
maintain the ecology. The ecology lost since it was estimated to be a
problem decades from now. The economy was a problem that would have
dire effects today.
All of these factors combined have produced a scenario that in shorts
boils down to the end of the world in 50 to 75 years. Even if we were
to stop all emissions of pollution today, the inertia of past decades
is enough to carry us over the brink in 100 years. However we cannot
stop the production of pollution, to do so would mean shutting down
every factory, every auto, every train, truck, ship and every
household on the planet. Electricity is used to heat many homes in the
Western World. The production of electricity produces fewer pollutants
than heating all homes with wood or coal. Cutting our power generation
abilities down to hydroelectric and fission reactors would leave a
good chunk of the world in the dark. It is an impossible situation,
our civilization is geared to the use of energy, take away our energy
and civilization will collapse.
12. When will spraying stop?
There are several factors governing this:
A. Should the Ozone layer repair itself or our active attempts at
repair reduces the amount of ground level UV to acceptable levels,
spraying will stop. Present calculations place this between 2018 and
2024.
B. Should another method be found which is more effective, less costly
or presents us with long-term solutions the Shield project would be
replaced.
C. When the other problems become too big to make the maintenance of
the shield worth the effort. The estimated date for this is 2025 to
2050.
13. Since Global Warming and UV summer are the problem, why is the
Government backing down on its pollution controls?
Because they are ineffectual and will cause more economic problems
than they would solve ecological problems. We surpassed the threshold
of Earth's ability to absorb pollutants in the 1970's. Since that time
the earth's population has nearly doubled. Emerging Industrial nations
have come into being, more pollutants are produced now than back then,
even with the stringent controls in place. The world is heading for
economic depression, more emission controls would add to the economic
problems. This translates into our being unable to do anything to
start solving the problems.
Unfortunately our technologies require a strong economy to advance. We
need that advancement, we need the trillions of dollars spent on
research that a strong economy causes. Each corporation that produces
a product has a product development program in place. Many of the past
products invented came by accident through other unrelated products.
There is a corporate drive to find methods to clean up the ecology, to
reduce emissions, etc. These goals have been in place for decades,
many of the large corporations are in the know when it comes to the
ecological problems we face thus they are spending a great deal of
money and time on finding solutions to the problems we face. Take away
the economy and their research stops.
14. How are you related to the Chemtrails? How do you know that this
is what is happening?
I would prefer to not state who I am or how I am related to all of
this. To validate what I say, would require a bit of research on your
behalf. I would recommend the following subjects to look up and study:
A. Population numbers for industrial nations and the tons of
pollutants produced annually. Start with 1975 and work your way up.
B. Number of emerging Industrial Nations.
C. Number of cases of Skin cancers worldwide.
D. Crop Production vs. land area dedicated to crop production. Simple
math will show that more acreage is needed to produce food per
individual.
E. Automobile production from 1975 to present, estimated number of
autos on the road and the average emissions of later model cars
produced as compared the emissions of earlier model cars. A little
math will show that though individual autos produce less emissions,
the amount of emissions has risen due to the number of autos on the
road. Remember that many autos are the road that were built before
present emission control standards. 1980 is a cut off date - anything
put on the road before then produces more pollutants than autos
produced today. I would include research in the number of diesel autos
produced, diesel has not been under the emissions control acts.
F. Severity of storms and the number of severe storms. Also include
heat waves and droughts in that research, you will find that the
numbers are staggering when compared to data from 1950, 1960 and 1970.
G. Research how naturally occurring Ozone is produced in the
stratosphere. Compare to how it is produced industrially.
H. Research political reforms in the past 30 years, see which
political institutions have changed, which nations have joined with
whom. Concentrate more on these from 1982 onward. This would include
the fall of the Wall and Iron Curtain.
I. Research polymers and how they are made, look at recent research
done in biological polymers, medical polymers and filaments.
J. Check out spiders and spider web and the way spiders use their
different webs and threads.
K. Research clean fresh water estimates as compared to the 1970's to
today - world wide.
L. Research the following medical conditions per capita: Birth Defects
Cancers Leukemia Immune deficiency diseases (excluding virus borne ID
illnesses such as HIV) Occurrences of Learning disabilities, including
dyslexia, ADD, and over all IQ tests Sterility for both male and
females world wide Instances of glaucoma and cataracts.
M. Compare the history of UV indexes from 1970 to present. You may
note that it was on sharp rise until 1997-99.
N. I would strongly recommend researching the reactions of different
barium and aluminum compounds and how they are used. Research how long
it takes for these metals in pure form to oxidize, how they combine
with nitrates, carbon monoxide carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons and
hydrocarbons and water vapor.
O. Research how mold propagates, the conditions it needs to grow and
just how abundant it is in the atmosphere.
If you pursue these lines of inquiry, you will see the Shield Project
as it really is.
?
At the time of the US-lead invasion of Iraq I had the opportunity to
ask a few supplementary questions. There has been no attempt to
integrate these questions and answers into the previous section
therefore some may appear somewhat out of logical order.
A couple of the questions have a Canadian approach. By the way, I
came up with the name - have to call the source something!
Here we quote the further communication from "Deep Shield":
15. Could you, "Deep Shield" - be described as a scientist or...?
Scientist is a good generic term. I do study and research in a
scientific manner. I carry papers and degrees. My official capacity is
in direct research of atmospheric issues in relation to pollutants. I
also create models of potential long-term effects of green house
gasses on the climate. Predict wind patterns, weather patterns, etc.
I have spent a good many years working on the project calculating the
amount of material needed and creating models for dispersion patterns.
I work other members who know the chemicals used and their
interactions with the atmosphere, pollution and water vapor. I am part
of a team which itself is part of a larger team, which is part of
still a larger team. Government work with many chiefs and levels above
the workers.
16. Are you prepared to comment upon your personal motives for sharing
this information?
Not at this time, no.
17. Have you signed a non-disclosure or Secrets Act document that
specifically relates to this project?
Yes.
18. To your knowledge what categories of individuals officially know
of the Project and are expected to remain silent? For example, my list
of suspects includes government down to the county level, military
especially air force, meteorologists, health specialists, mainstream
media etc.
All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who
suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable
or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume
that this situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the
dangers of this project.
It was presented to me as a matter of national security. I can see the
reasons why there is a desire to repress the information not that
spraying is taking place but the hard little fact that we are facing a
period of human history which might be the end of civilization.
19. Is the mainstream controlled media specifically ordered to avoid
any mention of chemtrails? If so, have you anything further to add
such as how was this done?
I would assume that the Media is controlled by its own desire to make
money from what it reports. Since there is enough debunking out there,
which says that contrails are part of the normal use of jet engines in
the atmosphere, this would leave a reporter with very little to report
unless there was solid evidence or pictures or something that could
not be explained away.
You must know by now all the debunking methods that have been
employed. The 'official' announcements are the media's main dish. The
rest they regulate to the realm of the National Enquirer.
20. What government agency or agencies control this program? Is it
under international control?
It is an international program. Many nations contribute in different
ways. Measures have been taken to insure that what is sprayed over all
countries is the same through triple blind deliveries; which include
not knowing where a certain canister will end up, not knowing which
aircraft a certain canister will be flown, and not even knowing who
(in military craft) will be piloting a craft which has the purpose of
spraying (Note: in today's world there is usually a mixed crew of
different nationalities flying any one military aircraft on a Shield
mission). I believe the Media caught Canadians in Iraq recently when
Canada's official say on the matter was that Canada was not giving any
support to the military might.
The fact remains that there were Canadian military with the USA
forces. Some on aircraft carriers most being pilots. I think you can
connect the dots.
21. How is the project funded - who pays for it? Have you any idea of
the total direct operating cost? Also, does Canada make a funding
contribution for the activities in our skies?
Most governments tend to over charge themselves to cover for their
black operations (unofficial operations). That money comes out of the
collection of taxes. So in effect the taxpayers of the world are
paying for this project.
I would assume Canada does contribute funding to the Project. Canada
is one of the top nations contributing time, material and funding to
this project. Most of the Free World, the Western World, has taken on
most of the burden of the costs.
22. Is the Shield Project the only such aerial spraying program?
Is it the only project designed to avert ecological disaster? Then
yes. There are countless other projects that could be taking place
which include spraying of some sort or another. Pesticides are usually
sprayed. There has been great interest in weather control such as
bringing rain to arid regions and taking the punch out of hurricanes
and typhoons.
Weather control may be one of the final options left to us.
Considering the amount of global warming that has taken place. There
is a strong need to deflect a storm's fury, or to bring rain back to
those regions which have been suffering drought.
What Mother Nature has done for millions of years automatically may
now require mankind's hand to keep the schedule.
23. There are reports of four different chemtrail programs and other
"code" names. For example, see: Holmestead: Chemtrails - what are
they? Any comments?
It is possible that the Military does have a use for similar sprays. I
cannot speak for the Military. However, my own personal research has
come across these things as well. Are they possible? Yes. Are they
practical? Only in the small scale say over the battlefield, or in the
case of say the Iraq War, over Baghdad. Global application would be
far too expensive and would require an obvious flight pattern of
grids, circles and other heavy spray patterns.
24. Is all the spraying done using the "tank kits" described earlier
or are the KC-135R and KC-10 types filled to the brim? Such aircraft
have a load capacity of 200,000 pounds or more for refueling missions.
No. Several types of craft are used. Commercial jet airliners are used
and they are not diverted from their flight paths to do so. How the
canisters and the spraying is done on this kind of craft is unknown to
me exactly. I do have my suspicions. I know best that which is my
field; this is not to say that we do not talk around the water tank.
So I know more than just my area and am able to think the matter
through to its logical end.
I do know that even all the commercial jetliners in use are not enough
to insure complete coverage all of the time. My computer models
require knowing how much material needs to be sprayed. Certain
conditions cause wide areas to suddenly (over hours) open up in the
Shield. Then and only then is mass spraying done - and would be done
with the most logical craft, a tanker.
Why not spray more from individual jetliners? That is one of the
problems. Jetliners do not carry much material (100 to 500 gallons)
because the material has to be spread out thinly.
Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium,
etc. Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an
absorber of gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect
X amount of heat and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable
(nominal) levels of UV and heat reaching the planet's surface.
Life requires a certain amount of both UV and Heat too much will kill
- so will too little. The apparent amount looks like a lot more than
what is actually being sprayed per volume of air it is covering. Most
of the whitening of the sky is not the material per se, but the
collection of water vapor, which forms into suspended ice crystals.
The introduction of the material causes the water vapor to collect
like rain collects on individual particles of dust.
Too much material would cause a "mud fall" of sorts where the
naturally occurring water vapor would precipitate carrying the
material with it.
Spraying is done in such away as to "layer" the material through a
volume that will allow an acceptable level of UV and heat through
along with all the other wavelengths of light. Photosynthesis is the
foundation of life on our planet.
Only when all the material is removed in a local area does it require
a massive spray, this is usually in the front of a weather system, or
after a heavy period of precipitation. Then a tanker is flown, fully
loaded.
25. Is there any truth in the story that some of the spraying is done
by jetliners with modifications in the "honey" or waste compartment?
For example, see mechanic story: Mechanic.
The technology used for spraying is rather simple. It requires at
least two tanks under pressure, each carries half of the mixture which
is sprayed at the same time forming a complete compound which is
designed to be lightweight (so as to be suspended for longer periods
of time).
There have been attempts to incorporate the materials in jet fuel,
however the material binds with unburned jet fuel, water vapor, etc
and does not have the added buoyancy of the polymer threads. The end
result is a spray that is less than half as effective and is more
dangerous since it can lead to sulfates, acids and other mixtures,
which are more lethal than the spray.
It is very possible that the "honey" compartment is used. The amount
of material needed is small compared to the payload of any given
commercial airliner.
However, there is a good deal of fuel tank that is not used. Airliners
only fuel their craft for the journey ahead of them; they rarely top
off the tank. This has become public knowledge in light of 9-11. It
was this small fact that caused the terrorists to pick pan-continental
flights so they would have a plane fully loaded.
The majority of flights are short range and do not require the full
capacity of an airliners fuel tanks. Any adaptations needed could
easily be done during routine maintenance, and could be easily
explained away as being a modification for safety and-or pollution
controls.
This last is my own theory.
We can assume that any means possible to deliver the material is
tried. Independent nations may favor one way of doing so over another.
26. Where are the official sources that state that a certain number of
people (worldwide?) will sicken and possibly die as a result of the
spraying? In other words, what *internal* studies have been done on
the health issues and who carried them out?
WHO (World Health Organization) carried out most of the studies. Other
nations have carried their own research on the matter. Some have said
the ill effects will be minimal - along the lines of a million or so,
while others have found the numbers to be far higher - 3 to 4 billion.
Some of the organizations include the CDC and independent labs. We are
dealing with a situation where the amount of contamination is
estimated to be far higher than what would normally take place but is
far lower than historical instances of industrial contamination. This
is important to note, the only real history we have with
barium/aluminum/titanium etc. contamination is through factory
workers, miners, etc, who receive a far greater dosage of the material
than what is to be experienced by the populace under the Shield.
The amount of spray is very small compared to the volume of the space
that is covered. Most of the harmful chemicals that are used are being
dissipated over vast areas. Near coastal regions the fall out is not
reaching land at all, but is being carried out to the oceans. The
addition of polymers to make the material remain suspended in the air
longer means that less material is being used.
Today the material used and its application is nothing like in the
early days when it was sprayed in greater quantities and settling far
faster to be inhaled by all.
The accepted Estimated Casualties (from WHO) is 2 billion over the
course of 6 decades. The majority will be either the elderly, or those
who are prone to respiratory problems. These numbers are based on the
current estimates of the general health of the population, the average
age and the occurrence of respiratory problems as a health issue. All
are estimates since there are no solid numbers to work with.
27. Could you summarize the root causes of the initial destruction of
the atmosphere that requires this "repair" work? Did it perhaps result
in part from fluorides released/produced by the nuclear weapons
programs?
In a word - Industry. Most fail to understand that the products we
use, wear and live with are made in a manner that dumps CFC's and
green houses gasses into the atmosphere. There is no one single
causative in this issue. It goes way back to the Industrial Revolution
and the use of coal to power steam engines. Since that time we have
consumed greater and greater energy resources, dumping the waste where
ever we wanted.
Up until very recently refrigeration was a big contributor, imagine
all those hundreds of millions of households that owned and operated
freon cooled refrigerators from 1940 to 1970. Not just one
refrigerator per household, but over the course of time often multiple
freon units. This doesn't include the various air conditioner systems
or industrial refrigeration systems.
For a long period when the refrigerator or air conditioner unit was
replaced, the old one was taken to the dump and thrown into the heap -
the freon was free to escape and make its way up into the stratosphere
to eat away at the ozone layer.
You can add to that list. Think of all the cars that had air
conditioners, think of all those hair spray cans with their propellant
gasses - the amount of those alone were enough to do great damage.
Styrofoam is another industry and product that has contributed to the
problem. In the scheme of things atomic energy has contributed little
compared to the consumer goods that have been manufactured during the
past century.
Think of all the cars on the road today. In the late 1970's smog
controls started getting stronger. Think of all the pre-1978 cars on
the road - they are still producing a good many chemicals that leech
into every corner of the globe.
28. Have you any comment on the use of so-called "CloudBusters" based
upon the theories of Wilhelm Reich? For an example of this see:
CloudBuster.
I could go on for hours about the particular errors of this site. Let
us just cut to the chase: I seriously doubt that this machine does as
it is reported to do. I could be wrong, but then I do not work with
alternative energy sources such as Orgone energy.
?
Points to Ponder:Conroy Penner, British Columbia.
Here is the second item mentioned above:
Conroy Penner, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada contacted me
directly with his story. He told me that some years ago he used to
work for a certain company in Western Canada and along with another
person who was a qualified aerospace welder/fabricator he was assigned
to work on construction of some special spray equipment for the United
States Air Force.
The workers were told that the USAF contract involved equipment to be
used to spray insects at airforce bases in the States. The spray
systems incorporated exotic alloys and specially machined parts with
large holding, pressure and surge tanks along with pumps. Penner
became suspicious of the actual purpose of the whole project as, in
his opinion, things simply did not "add up". He resigned after
there were confrontations with the US military people and the
management over the true purpose of the equipment.
Penner provided this photograph, that was taken in 1988 of some
finished spray equipment on a flat bed trailer. There are parts
carts in the foreground.
?
The description states that the green tank sections are coated
aluminum and the others are stainless steel for certain other
chemicals. The smaller tanks are for the solution for purging the
system. The large tanks are some 15 feet long and approximately 3
feet in diameter. The box seen at the right side of the photograph
is the control panel, and the plumbing and pumps are underneath the
tanks. It is said that these units were designed for use with
Hercules C-130 aircraft and it is understood that in total eleven
systems were to be made, this being the first.
I have on hand many other specifics from Penner but that is the
general outline. All of this took place in 1988/89.
Comments: There are obviously some problems with this - it would be
great to have the exact dates along with the names of the company
management involved. Also the names and rank of the US military
personnel involved is lacking.
As for the equipment itself - it looks much as if it could be ordinary
aerial spraying systems - that is because indeed it may be just that
with suitable modifications for the specialized USAF requirements.
At this time the aerial spraying programme (chemtrails) was in the
early stages of experimental development. Certainly at first it was
reported that the C-130 was seen being used for aerial spraying (of
unknown substances) and only later were the large refuelling tankers
seen spraying "chemtrails".
Further comments: Added 26 March 2003 - is an addition from (and
confirmed by) the source of the main item above.
The canisters that are shown above are similar to what is known to be
incorporated into this programme.
Two large ones are carried, one carrying one part of the chemical mix,
the other carrying the other part, when combined they form long
polymer chains - threads if you will. Even the green tint finish is
typical.
However, the way it is understood here, is that the small tank
provides the propellant (compressed gas) which is released into the
larger tank. Much like a large aerosol can, except the compressed
gas is stored in a separate tank which is much stronger, and able to
sustain a far greater pressure than a larger tank.
---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A
Literacy Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Johnson
Kurt Albershardt <ku...@nv.net> wrote:
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > You know better than that, Kurt. You're talking about making changes to
> > situations you don't know exist, yet you believe that the end result will be
> > good.
>
> The situation (global warming) exists, and dissenting schmientists are
> looking more and more fringe-ish by the week. The causes of said
> warming seem clear to me, but I'll agree on the possibilities for error
> in analyzing a complex chaotic system. The effects are less ambiguous,
> I fear.
OK, it's like this:
Climate is an unpredictable CHAOTIC system. Chaos is a kind of order-
it's like a sort of oscillator that operates within predictable ranges
in an unpredictable way.
If you have a chaotic variable it might go 1,4,-2,-1,-1,4,-2,-4,3,-4..
The specific VALUE of the number isn't going to be predictable. It is
chaotic.
The reason it is not RANDOM is that it 'oscillates' in a
characteristic- sometimes very characteristic- way. You're never, ever
going to see a 32 out of that series of numbers unless they ALL scale up
to that. It won't just randomly go to 32 for no reason and then go back
to 1,4,-3,2, etc.
Why do I use 32? Because 32 is eight times the max value, 4, I used.
And the report first mentioned cites ONE MEASUREMENT that happens to be
eight times out of the usual range, if I remember the article correctly.
This does not mean that measurement is a random outlier. Chaos
doesn't work like that, you don't get just isolated fluke results that
don't fit the chaotic 'pattern'.
You get a bunch of DIFFERENT phenomena, all going off the rails at
the same time, all moderately unrelated. You've got arctic ice cap
melting. You get harsher hurricanes. You get unexpected and dramatic
temperature extremes that weren't there before.
As you drive the chaotic system harder by putting more energy into it
(namely, by warming the climate), it becomes more unpredictable and
loses what patterns and habits it has. It starts to spaz out wildly.
The 'atlantic conveyor' may be ready to stop flowing, which will put
me (living in Vermont) into an 'ice age'. There will be extremes of cold
that will force me to rely on canned food and my nifty new oil lamp
because it will literally be impossible to go anywhere in, say, six feet
of snow. There will be extremes of heat- say, in places like Chicago-
where masses of people will literally be cooked to death if they don't
have protective gear, such as air conditioning.
People keep thinking, 'oh, I like summer, so global warming will help
fix those nippy Autumn evenings!', as if it was some central thermometer
somewhere. It ain't like that. Think of it as global climate spazzing.
Expect it to whap you upside the head with extremely heavy weather.
Which, if that's all you care about, will cost you money dealing with
it, and kill some of the people who can't deal with it.
You don't GET certain kinds of outlier data with 'chaos'. It's not
the same thing as random. It's a kind of pattern in which the outer
limits are quite contained. If the data is wildly exceeding these
limits, then we can expect other shit to hit the fan in turn.
We just don't know what, or how, or when- because it's chaotic. The
only thing we do know is the approximate scale of the shit. Roughly
'eight times worse than you planned for' scale, it appears.
If you don't like that you can work to continue greenhousing and all
that, insist nothing can be done, and push it to 100 times worse than
you expect. Then you'll start noticing the results, as will the rest of
us. You can enjoy cascade climate failure, or the result of pushing
climate to a point where it hits some really berserk oscillations.
Surviving that will be expensive, very expensive.
Chris Johnson
yamb...@aol.com
It is the type of view that someone who is looking for truth in an
issue may have as opposed to someone who is trying to win a battle, as
the greens and corporations are. In that respect the two sides are
very much the same; blinded by their need to win.
In my work in video, I have recorded interviews of corporate
employed scientists speaking on this issue. After one of these
interviews I was able to chat with one of these scientists when the
tape wasn't rolling. He stayed and talked for 30 min. or so with the
cameraman (who is a green) and myself. The cameraman leveled every
argument I've seen from greens at this scientist and the scientist
graciously addressed all of them. My feeling was that this scientist
was not hired by the corporation to clear them of their wrongdoings,
but instead to help forsee any potential environmental problems they
may have in their current, and future endeavors. Lets face it,
headlines of an environmental disaster caused by a corporation are not
good for business. And I think most of you will agree that the greens
have no problem getting those headlines. They have equal, if not
disproportionate power in that regard.
On the other side, as someone who reads the paper and has been to
college I am well aware of the greens arguments on this issue. Much of
it looks to me like cherry picked evidence to support a theory that
they have already decided is fact. Are there undeniable environmental
issues that need to be addressed? Absolutely. Urban smog, waste
disposal, ground water contamination are a few that come to mind, and
there are many. But greens need to be careful that their zeal not
cause more disturbances. In the case of ground water contamination,
which is a problem in my location, the ground water in some
neighborhoods has been contaminated by MTBE which, by law, is added to
gasoline to reduce emmissions from automobiles. This law may have been
well intentioned, but now we are finding that MTBE is an incredibly
soluable carcinogen that spreads in the ground water of neighborhoods
near gas stations and is near impossible to filter out. I find it to
be sickening that some corporation(s) have profited from this law, but
incredibly ironic that that would not be possible were it not for the
greens pushing for lower emmissions standards in the name of global
warming which can't be connected to automoble emmissions in the first
place.
People really need to be careful to not become so zealous in their
beliefs that winning becomes more important than truth. Many advocacy
groups start out by taking on real problems, but as they accomplish
what they have set out to do, and gain power, their causes become more
extreme and esoteric, in order, it would seem, to perpetuate
themselves forever. But this is a whole other issue.
Brendan Flaherty
and I do audio too!
Chris Johnson
"Phil C." <affi...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> "LeBaron & Alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1g3dpxl.17ruj0u1ssmde1N%walk...@thegrid.net...
> > John L Rice wrote:
> > > So, how come the winters are colder than normal instead of warmer?
> > This would fall in line with a prediction that weather events would
> > become more extreme, and arise from decreasing stability in a changing
> > system.
> The idea that increasingly extreme swings in weather patterns or
> temperatures are substantial proof of "decreasing stability in a changing
> system" is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, all the scientific
> evidence we currently possess tells us that "increasingly extreme events"
> are inherent in even the most stable systems and that the extremity &
> variety of said events is only governed by the complexity of the system.
No, no, no. Later in your post you show that you haven't the faintest
idea what chaotic behavior really is (insert usenet-poster behavior joke
*here*) and that means your conclusion ain't justified. Weather is not
random, weather is _chaotic_. It is a very specific kind of not-stable,
it's not just a roll of the dice.
> To my knowledge, none of the current models - including those used to
> support the framework of he Kyoto treaty - have fared well when it comes to
> predictive accuracy. We'll talk more about that in a moment.
That is because CHAOS IS NOT PREDICTABLE. It's called 'butterfly
effect' or extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. At any time, on
all scales from small to huge and timescales from five minutes to five
centuries, you absolutely cannot predict something like weather. It's
totally futile, and it's meaningless to critique climate models on how
they will 'predict'.
What you can do is say "the temperature will be something between 40
and 80 degrees farenheit, not -200 and 200 degrees". You can map out the
general area the chaos is happening in, and if it is being driven by a
consistent amount of energy, the RANGE it covers will be very, very
predictable, you just don't know exactly when it will hit 'its
temperatures'. It won't randomly go to 300 degrees in the shade. It
won't even go to 120 if its range doesn't extend that high at a given
time and place.
> For now, let's get back to our original point. Are "increasingly extreme
> events" substantial proof of decreasing stability in a changing system? To
> test this thesis, let's look at a very simple system with only one "major"
> variable:
> Heads or tails - let's flip a coin.
You've blown it right there. Coin flipping is not a chaotic system,
it is simple randomness. We are NOT talking about rolling dice here. You
can have a chaotic algorithm that produces output, and plot it on a
graph, and where randomness would fill the graph in uniformly, the
chaotic system will produce a series of hair-thin ellipses of a funny
shape, and refuse to put even a single data point that's not on the
ellipses. There's plots out there which are as good as artwork for
exactly that reason. And huge amounts of natural phenomena, from
dripping faucets to the planet's climate, operate on exactly the same
basis.
If you get a striking outlier in your data, and it's data about a
chaotic system like the planet, it does not mean it's a random fluke-
there ain't no such thing in chaos- it means that the REAL pattern
extends a lot farther than you thought, and can also throw up equally
flukey data where you don't expect it. Chaos is a pattern. Climate is a
pattern. It happens to be a kind of pattern that cannot be specifically
predicted, but you can be absolutely sure that it isn't going to be 150
degrees in the shade in New York City. 100, maybe.
Unless the climate alters substantially in ways that make an extreme
like that part of the overall possible pattern- and that climate pattern
expands outward to cover possible effects like that. Then it can happen,
and you still can't know exactly when it will hit.
> Are leftists using the "fear" of ecological disaster to dupe the "huddled
> masses" into once again accepting the tyrannical rule of worthless & failed
> socialist/communist doctrines? You bet.
I really must say that I prefer discussing the analysis of chaotic
systems, to yammering about reds under the bed. Dupe the huddled masses
into tyrannical rule? That's crazy talk. Settle down and maybe we can
talk about this- you do need to learn more about what chaotic systems
are, before your opinion will be worth anything. You've got it well
screwed up.
Chris Johnson
Laung Anthique
@sover.net.client.newsread.com>, jinx...@sover.net
says...
> I really must say that I prefer discussing the analysis of chaotic
> systems, to yammering about reds under the bed. Dupe the huddled masses
> into tyrannical rule? That's crazy talk.
Is it? All he's guilty of here is hyperbole. That the
leftists have seized this as one of their iconic causes
in order to support an agenda that has little if
anything to do with environmental issues is pretty
obvious.
BTW, weather does contain a plethora of random elements
that alter initial conditions on a continuous basis.
But I think the poser was making a point about
statistical fallacies and how they are being used by
people raising alarms about global warming allegedly
resulting from human activity (e.g., "The Texas
Sharpshooter Fallacy").
Bob Cain
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
>
> OK, it's like this:
What he said. Thanks, Chris, for offering that realistic
and understandable perspective on dynamical, chaotic
systems. I was trying to figure out how to do the same but
no way could I improve on what you said.
I can only summarize by saying that very tiny perturbations
to such systems can and will have very large and
unpredictable effects on the evolution of its dynamics even
when they are simple and well understood. The one we are
speaking of, the biosphere, is neither.
That said, I have no hope that this reality will penetrate
mass consiousness until nature gives us a very clear and
unambiguous demonstration at which point no directed change
can have any predictable effect. The best that can be done
is to avoid perturbation and we are almost certainly beyond
that opportunity. It's going to be an interesting ride.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Blind Joni
>what is the aniticipated influence on global temperature? That is but
>one single factor in the whole of our human activities here on Earth.
>
What about all the forests we save from fire every year?
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Blind Joni
>change mightily.
>
So you think that we will have no alternatives when that time comes? No
warning..one day the well runs dry? No money hungry company ready to offer an
alternative.
You can't believe that.
Blind Joni
>energy consumption (heat lost into the atmosphere) roughly
>every century. If we only keep things at the same rate for
>the next thousand years, the surface of the earth will be
>the same temperature as the surface of the sun.
No it won't because what you state will not happen. for one efficiency and
productivity are ever increasing. Population/energy use will stabilize long
before then..another static observation I believe.
Blind Joni
>
But, we KNOW how pregnancy happens!!
and diseases..tc
Phil C.
"Chris Johnson" <jinx...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:jinx6568-0CA95C...@sover.net.client.newsread.com...
> In article <2NOmb.34177$e01.65609@attbi_s02>,
> "Phil C." <affi...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > "LeBaron & Alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> > news:1g3dpxl.17ruj0u1ssmde1N%walk...@thegrid.net...
>
> > temperatures are substantial proof of "decreasing stability in a
changing
> > system" is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, all the scientific
> > evidence we currently possess tells us that "increasingly extreme
events"
> > are inherent in even the most stable systems and that the extremity &
> > variety of said events is only governed by the complexity of the system.
>
> No, no, no. Later in your post you show that you haven't the faintest
> idea what chaotic behavior really is (insert usenet-poster behavior joke
> *here*) and that means your conclusion ain't justified. Weather is not
> random, weather is _chaotic_. It is a very specific kind of not-stable,
> it's not just a roll of the dice.
I never asserted that weather was random - hence my use of the term "dynamic
variables." It's true that no matter how many times you flip a coin and it
comes up heads, the likelihood of of the next toss coming up heads neither
increases nor decreases; it's always a 50/50 proposition. In other words,
the occurrence of any number of events - no matter how extreme - has no
effect on future events. Weather, on the other hand, is affected by dynamic
variables that interact with each other and do influence future events.
You assert that if I "had the faintest idea of chaotic behavior" I would
understand that the statistical analysis of a chaotic system is not about
predicting specific events but rather about establishing a scale (or range
as you put it) that helps us differentiate between events that occur within
the "normal range" of a chaotic system and events that are so extreme that
they can be classified as "abnormal" and probably due to outside influences
(in this case man made) that are not inherent to said chaotic system.
If you had the faintest idea of what statisitcal analysis really is, you
would know that it doesn't matter if the system is random or chaotic;
statistical analysis is always about determining scale and never about
predicting specific events. Had you taken the time to read my post with an
open mind, you would have realized that the example I used was specifically
about the issue of scale.
My point, specifically, was that even in a stable non changing system - with
only one major variable - the extremities of the scale and the "seemingly"
wild fluctuations that occur within it often make it "seem" that something
abnormal is happening when in fact these fluctuations are quite normal.
It's a common failing of the human intellect to attach significance to
events that have no significance. If you want proof of this, put 10 people
in a room with a coin flipper; then wait till the inevitable happens and
heads or tails comes up 5 or 6 times in a row. How long do you think it
will take people to start questioning if the coin flipper is "flipping the
coin right?" I mean, come on, six times in a row? Somethin's up with that!
We have reams of scientific data to confirm that such an event is completely
normal and not extreme at all but it's human nature to see such an event as
extreme and abnormal. Why? Because we've introduced the uncertain element
of "human interaction" (a human being is flipping the coin) and it's always
tempting to believe that a human has somehow corrupted an otherwise pristine
process; Coincidentally, this is precisely the theory behind the global
warming hysteria. If you think that scientists are immune to this foilable
of human nature - well, that's a whole other conversation: however, that
leads me to my next point.
You make two assertions that I find baffling coming from someone so enamored
with chaos theory.
1. You assert that my use of a random system to make my point is fallacious
because random systems do not operate under the same constraints of scale
(or range as you put it) that the chaotic global climate system does.
This is simply not true. All systems, random or chaotic - static or
dynamic, are effectively scaled by the complexity of the variables that
define them. You might have noticed in my original post that I never talked
about the possibility of heads or tails coming up 300 times in a row. Why?
Because the simplicity of the variable renders the possibility of such an
event "effectively" nil. It's theoretically possible but it's effectively
impossible. If you believe otherwise, start flipping a coin and get back to
me in a millennia or two and we'll see how you're doing. The idea that the
analysis of random systems teaches us nothing about the analysis of chaotic
systems is pure nonsense. It always comes down to complexity and scale.
2. You assert that when I talked about heads or tails coming up 15-30 times
in a row that such a fluctuation is roughly analogous to the temperature
"randomly" increasing to 300 degrees in the shade which, of course, would be
a naive apprisal of how the chaotic global climate system functions.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth but, then again, no thanks. It's your
naivete not mine that gives rise to such a ridiculous, baseless analogy.
>
> > To my knowledge, none of the current models - including those used to
> > support the framework of he Kyoto treaty - have fared well when it comes
to
> > predictive accuracy. We'll talk more about that in a moment.
>
> That is because CHAOS IS NOT PREDICTABLE. It's called 'butterfly
> effect' or extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. At any time, on
> all scales from small to huge and timescales from five minutes to five
> centuries, you absolutely cannot predict something like weather. It's
> totally futile, and it's meaningless to critique climate models on how
> they will 'predict'.
Well you need to take this sage piece of wisdom and introduce it to the
"scientific" proponents of global warming hysteria because their "science"
is based on predictive statistical models. The Kyoto protocol was framed
using predictive statistical models. Again, contrary to the words you're
putting in my mouth, I never suggested that the purpose of these models is
to predict what the temperature will be on May 8, 2042. They are intended
to IDENTIFY (using current and historical climate data) and PREDICT general
trends towards "abnormal" climate changes factored against the overall level
of greenhouse gases (among many other factors too numerous to mention).
The problem is; when we vet these models against historical climate data,
they are remarkably inept at identifying even the most general trends and
their "predictions" as to what "should" have occurred by now are wildly
inaccurate. To any rational person (without an agenda) this should call
into question the effectiveness of these models AND the assumptions they're
based upon. At the very least, we should consider the possibility that we
need a whole lot more data before we start writing the eulogy for planet
earth.
(snip)
> If you get a striking outlier in your data, and it's data about a
> chaotic system like the planet, it does not mean it's a random fluke-
> there ain't no such thing in chaos- it means that the REAL pattern
> extends a lot farther than you thought, and can also throw up equally
> flukey data where you don't expect it. Chaos is a pattern. Climate is a
> pattern. It happens to be a kind of pattern that cannot be specifically
> predicted, but you can be absolutely sure that it isn't going to be 150
> degrees in the shade in New York City. 100, maybe.
You know, at one time mankind didn't understand weather patterns at all.
Then, slowly we began to unravel the mysteries of climate change but only on
a regional basis. It took millennia for us to even begin to understand the
global forces that effect climate patterns. We may yet find that our global
climate patterns are affected by forces we haven't even contemplated yet.
You acknowledge this very possibility with the following quote:
> If you get a striking outlier in your data, and it's data about a
> chaotic system like the planet, it does not mean it's a random fluke-
> there ain't no such thing in chaos- it means that the REAL pattern
> extends a lot farther than you thought, and can also throw up equally
> flukey data where you don't expect it.
So why do you persist in asserting that I'm introducing "random flukes" into
a system that has no place for them? If, by your own words, "the REAL
pattern extends a lot further than we thought;" then what you call a
"striking outlier" may just be a "normal deviation" completely in line with
a grander (and more complex) pattern yet to be charted. My contention has
always been that we do not have enough data to pronounce these deviations
"abnormal" or even "striking." They simply warrant further study.
It's strikes me as purposely obtuse to take 20 years of data which reflects
a "seemingly" "striking outlier" and then pronounce that we've seen enough -
the sky IS falling.
In another post, you cite the original article being discussed here and
alarmingly pronounce that "ONE MEASUREMENT" was eight times outside it's
"usual range" (usual being supported by how much data?). Well you know;
when I was 8, I was eight times as old as my 1 year old brother. However,
I'm not eight times as old as him now and no matter how impressive that
statistic sounds by itself; it's pretty useless in the "grander pattern" of
things.
Statistics are useless without context and context requires sound theory and
substantial, useful data. It's foolhardy to suggest that we are firmly in
possession of either when it comes to global warming.
> > Are leftists using the "fear" of ecological disaster to dupe the
"huddled
> > masses" into once again accepting the tyrannical rule of worthless &
failed
> > socialist/communist doctrines? You bet.
>
> I really must say that I prefer discussing the analysis of chaotic
> systems, to yammering about reds under the bed. Dupe the huddled masses
> into tyrannical rule? That's crazy talk. Settle down and maybe we can
> talk about this- you do need to learn more about what chaotic systems
> are, before your opinion will be worth anything. You've got it well
> screwed up.
As always - Just my .02 YMMV
Roger W. Norman
comments with his numerous statements.
The fallacy of itemizing earth's systems as chaotic is that real problems
exist when you try to think you understand chaos. Looking at superstring
theory might give you a little more insight into trying to apply chaos
theory in such terms as explain variables without understanding where all
the possible variables come from. Chaos theory suggests that one cannot
PREDICT with accuracy what will happen, but can establish a range of
causations and effects that define the range of what is possible.
Superstring theory basically indicates that there are elements at work that
neither you nor I can understand and consequently no prediction nor
definition of ranges or actions apply. Some of this might come from an
element of spiritualism, if one wishes to go back to some ancient belief
systems (ref: Kabbalism).
The outcome is that one can only be familiar with what one can observe, and
taking steps to make certain that the observed doesn't know it's observed is
the only way to make certain the observations are correct. That makes the
wild hair assumption that you actually KNOW that the observed doesn't know
it's being observed, which is impossible until you observe, unobserved, and
have the data necessary, which, if you were observed while observing, is
tainted data. To speculate upon all things human by observation of facts
that may or may not be facts in the long term is still simply to speculate,
so offering up chaos theory in the guise of fact is another strawman
argument.
Or, perhaps, it would be better to bring into play Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, basically saying the same damned thing I've been saying, which is
that if only one piece of data can be observed in high resolution at any
point along the line, it doesn't define the line (my paraphasing so that
Niequist theorists can understand, just to get it back to audio). Hence my
CONSISTENT stand on a multi-disciplined effort at understanding a COMPLEX
SYSTEM. Even a pebble deterring the smallest cog of the world's works may
cause catastrophic events. To suppose that we understand, much less even
know ALL the variables that just might be present in a complex system,
devined in it's essence by chaos theory is a just path to a huge
self-serving of humanity's arrogance and all that could go wrong. This is
the basic premise for medicine, first do no harm. Yes, one can argue that
the harm has been done, but until the study is done and finished and
absolute, any effort, however well thought out and well intentioned can
still do harm. No one wants to cure the problem but kill the patient.
In terms of global warming and 6.2 billion inhabitants on this planet, all
trying to eek a living out of whatever circumstances are presented to them,
steps that mandate global solutions can only cause problems, not alleviate
them, although the problems caused may well have nothing to do directly with
any facts involved with global warming. When you add 6.2 billion humans
into the equation of the complex system of earth, chaos theory does indeed
"go off the board". In terms of one analysis of one bit of datum, going off
the board does not expand the operators in chaos theory. At least two
might, 20 is probable and 100 is definite. But it might just as well mean
that we didn't have accurate measurements in the first fucking place. It
depends on when you want to take the picture as to what picture you get.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"Chris Johnson" <jinx...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:jinx6568-160345...@sover.net.client.newsread.com...
Roger W. Norman
news:1g3dpxl.17ruj0u1ssmde1N%walk...@thegrid.net...
> system.
>
> --
> ha
It would just as easily fall into line with the fact that we don't have
enough information to determine whether these events are extreme or normal.
The system may well not be decreasing in it's stability, but be more along
the norm than we have data to understand. You can surmise one possibility
but in doing so, you must also allow for all other possibilities if you
don't have the facts that support only one interpretation.
Roger W. Norman
news:dbqdnV8AT_X...@rockbridge.net...
> All the disruption in weather patterns, tidal structures... el nino, el
> nina, the gulf stream.... "when the levee breaks".
>
> jb
Shit happens. When the scientists, whose methods so far have not provided a
single model that works to predict weather we already have had come up with
a model that works, then I'll listen. Until then, shit happens and the
person that doesn't realize that shit happens is usually the person that
shit happens to.
Roger W. Norman
news:vpnnpj...@corp.supernews.com...
> No scientific argument is effective against fervent leftist elites.
> If it doesn't fit their theory-du-jour, it is suspect as obstructionist.
Patently bullshit and not worthy of consideration due to it's obvious slant.
In today's world, I generally believe I lean towards the left, but I hold
some things true in terms of protection of civil rights, the right to bear
weapons, the right to free speech, and to that last point, you have the
right to espouse what you believe, but I also have the right to say that it
bears no reasonable evidence here and you are out of order. Unfortunate
that the simple minded only see things in terms of the left or the right
when the entire world's ability to survive includes 6.2 billion humans and
most have nothing to do with left or right in our terms.
In other words, my friend, you would be the reason the bomb was dropped in
Dr. Strangelove.
Phil C.
"Roger W. Norman" <rno...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:bni0ub$g55$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Roger W. Norman
news:xs_mb.37731$Tr4.76304@attbi_s03...
> So why do you persist in asserting that I'm introducing "random flukes"
into
> a system that has no place for them? If, by your own words, "the REAL
> pattern extends a lot further than we thought;" then what you call a
> "striking outlier" may just be a "normal deviation" completely in line
with
> a grander (and more complex) pattern yet to be charted. My contention has
> always been that we do not have enough data to pronounce these deviations
> "abnormal" or even "striking." They simply warrant further study.
My only contention is that random flukes are possible in as far as they are
measurable in a time frame we have available. It's possible that we could
have 87 degree weather in February, and I, in charge of a government project
that was totally overworked at the time (1990) gave my entire crew off for
that day to increase morale. OK, so that's two flukes, but the point is
that an 87 degree day in February doesn't describe a new paradigm where
those days become more prevalent and more normal days become more sporadic.
In fact, depending on how far back the records go, 87 degree days in
February in Washington, DC might just be a part of the whole shebang without
one single goddamned good reason. Certainly I don't recall any -87 degree
days in February, but I don't discount the possibility, nor do I have all
the records.
Chris seems to think that once the "more sporadic" events start they become
part of the norm, and there's nothing in chaos theory that I know of that
allows for these wild swings to become prevalent. They just become part of
the equation, part of the definitions of swing. The level of swing and the
frequency of swing have nothing to do with each other, as you are trying to
represent with your use of statistical analysis, which is very appropriate,
btw. At least until we have more data.
yamb...@aol.com
> it all and in this instance waiting until we think we know for certain
> that even a petrochemical company financed laboratory scientist accepts
> our influence on global warming could mean our ass is toast.
It's startling how similar this logic is to the Bush
administration's justification for the preemptive war with Iraq. Just
substitute "the anti-war liberals" for "a petrochemical company
financed laboratory scientist" and "the terrorists could get their
hands on Iraq's weapons" for "our influence on global warming" and
your statement could easily pass for a line from Bush's State of the
Union address. If you don't have the time I'll do it for you.
> "We like to think we're pretty smart, as species go. But we'll never know
> it all and in this instance waiting until we think we know for certain,
> and even the anti-war liberals accepts that the terrorists could get their
> hands on Iraq's weapons could mean our ass is toast."
Well....maybe Bush's speech writers would have worded it
differently but I think the point is clear. It's amazing how
conservative you guys can be when it serves your purpose.
Brendan Flaherty
yamb...@aol.com
>
> Climate is an unpredictable CHAOTIC system. Chaos is a kind of order-
> it's like a sort of oscillator that operates within predictable ranges
> in an unpredictable way.
>
> If you have a chaotic variable it might go 1,4,-2,-1,-1,4,-2,-4,3,-4..
>
> The specific VALUE of the number isn't going to be predictable. It is
So you apply chaos theory to global warming and confidently predict
impending apocalyptic consequenses, yet the weather cannot be
predicted with any accuracy two days in advance. Oh, I know. The
weather can't be predicted because of global warming. Give me a break.
Brendan Flaherty
Bob Cain
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> Chris Johnson's comments follow my own. I see no reason to preface my
> comments with his numerous statements.
>
> The fallacy of itemizing earth's systems as chaotic is that real problems
> exist when you try to think you understand chaos.
I don't follow this statement even with the subsequent
discussion.
> Looking at superstring
> theory might give you a little more insight into trying to apply chaos
> theory in such terms as explain variables without understanding where all
> the possible variables come from. Chaos theory suggests that one cannot
> PREDICT with accuracy what will happen, but can establish a range of
> causations and effects that define the range of what is possible.
Which it can do to some extent with only the simplest of
systems.
> Superstring theory basically indicates that there are elements at work that
> neither you nor I can understand and consequently no prediction nor
> definition of ranges or actions apply. Some of this might come from an
> element of spiritualism, if one wishes to go back to some ancient belief
> systems (ref: Kabbalism).
Relating the chaotic nature of the biosphere to superstring
theory is unjustified and sheds absolutely no light on it.
>
> The outcome is that one can only be familiar with what one can observe, and
> taking steps to make certain that the observed doesn't know it's observed is
> the only way to make certain the observations are correct. That makes the
> wild hair assumption that you actually KNOW that the observed doesn't know
> it's being observed, which is impossible until you observe, unobserved, and
> have the data necessary, which, if you were observed while observing, is
> tainted data. To speculate upon all things human by observation of facts
> that may or may not be facts in the long term is still simply to speculate,
> so offering up chaos theory in the guise of fact is another strawman
> argument.
Hardly. Any attempt to relate the problems with the
Copenhagen doctrine on observation of quantum systems to
dynamical, chaotic systems is unjustified. The straw man in
this argument is assigning the Copenhagen interpretation any
relevance to the system we are actually considering.
>
> Or, perhaps, it would be better to bring into play Heisenberg's Uncertainty
> Principle, basically saying the same damned thing I've been saying, which is
> that if only one piece of data can be observed in high resolution at any
> point along the line, it doesn't define the line (my paraphasing so that
> Niequist theorists can understand, just to get it back to audio).
That's not what it says and what it does say is unrelated to
the Nyquist criterion. Further, it is unrelated to
dynamical systems. What characterizes a dynamical system
which produces what is called chaos is non-linear feedback
within the system.
> Hence my
> CONSISTENT stand on a multi-disciplined effort at understanding a COMPLEX
> SYSTEM. Even a pebble deterring the smallest cog of the world's works may
> cause catastrophic events. To suppose that we understand, much less even
> know ALL the variables that just might be present in a complex system,
> devined in it's essence by chaos theory is a just path to a huge
> self-serving of humanity's arrogance and all that could go wrong.
The worst part is that even if we did know a complete
description of the system, all its variables and all the
relationships we would be no better off in being able to
state much of anything about the evolution of its dynamics.
The only way to know the future state of such a system is to
let it evolve. In a temporal sense it is it's own shortest
description. It is sheer hubris to believe that we have any
handle at all on how the real biosphere will evolve in the
face of the perturbations we are introducing. The mere fact
that we can measure some of them and that they are
signifigant in scale indicates that there will be unknowable
effects that can very reasonably expected to be large.
> This is
> the basic premise for medicine, first do no harm. Yes, one can argue that
> the harm has been done, but until the study is done and finished and
> absolute, any effort, however well thought out and well intentioned can
> still do harm.
The problem with that is that the study will not be done
until the system has assumed whatever state it will and that
no human effort can effectively shorten that time.
>
> In terms of global warming and 6.2 billion inhabitants on this planet, all
> trying to eek a living out of whatever circumstances are presented to them,
> steps that mandate global solutions can only cause problems, not alleviate
> them, although the problems caused may well have nothing to do directly with
> any facts involved with global warming. When you add 6.2 billion humans
> into the equation of the complex system of earth, chaos theory does indeed
> "go off the board". In terms of one analysis of one bit of datum, going off
> the board does not expand the operators in chaos theory. At least two
> might, 20 is probable and 100 is definite. But it might just as well mean
> that we didn't have accurate measurements in the first fucking place. It
> depends on when you want to take the picture as to what picture you get.
Taking a picture with infinite resolution of the current
state of a dynamical system will not yield enough
information to predict its evolution. The one we are
discussing is so mind boggling in the complexity of its
interrelationships and the number of variables that it is
and will remain unknowable at almost any level of predictive
power.
yamb...@aol.com
> If it doesn't fit their theory-du-jour, it is suspect as obstructionist.
Thanks for the reality check. I guess you have to choose your
battles wisely.
The war of ideas has to be fought though. Liberals are paranoid
of loosing power and they're hastily cramming the most insane laws
through the judicial system. They no longer can pass legislation as
easily because the people have a say there. The judicial system on the
other hand has assumed the role of lawmaker, bypassing the will of the
people. The elitists think they know what's best for us and they are
determined that we not be involved in their plans for us. It's
sickening, the subversive way they work. This HAS to be stopped. Each
new law they pass weakens the constitution making it easier for them
to usurp more power. I wouldn't be supprised if it was left to the
Supreme Court to decide who is right about global warming. If they
continue on their path the executive and congress will only be
figureheads.
yamb...@aol.com
> Oh, cheerful day. Look, it's actually pretty straightforward:
>
> 1) The vast majority of scientists who know anything about the subject of
> climate change, and who are not being financially supported by fossil fuel
> companies, agree that it is more likely than not that we are in a period of
> global warming, and that that warming is being either caused or exacerbated by
> the burning of fossil fuels.
>
> 2) That same vast majority projects that, if the trends continue, we could do
> enormous harm to the world's ecosystems, at a minimum including a major rise in
> the level of the ocean, with the result being massive economic dislocation.
>
> 3) And that same vast majority suggests that, even if they are completely
> wrong, the PRUDENT thing to do is to act as if they are right. Start the
> transition to non-fossil fuels such as ethanol, solar, etc.. If the majority is
> right, we'll have saved ourselves some very big headaches. And if they're
> wrong, we'll have taken a wad of bucks out of the pockets of Saudi Arabia, not
> necessarily a bad thing in its own right.
>
> Look, you wear a condom even if you only MIGHT need it.
>
> Paul
Paul, I can't support any of your ideas except for that last one:
> Look, you wear a condom even if you only MIGHT need it.
You must be on the same page with President Bush on his preemptive
strategy in the Middle East. Maybe he could borrow that line for his
next State of the Union address.
Peace,
Brendan Flaherty
yamb...@aol.com
> systems, to yammering about reds under the bed. Dupe the huddled masses
> into tyrannical rule? That's crazy talk.
>
Is it crazy? It's happened plenty of times before in history, and
not so distant history at that. Surely an accomplished scientist like
yourself should be able to calculate that it could possibly happen
again.
Brendan Flaherty
reddred
"Laung Anthique" <anth...@NIXSPAAMcultv.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a05b1c72...@news.optonline.net...
> In article <uomdnbF9VYO...@rockbridge.net>,
> opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Laung Anthique"
> > > Yellow journalism if not junk science. The show I saw
> > > on the science channel was far more balanced,
> > > interviewing people on both sides of the debate.
> >
> > There really isn't too much in the way of disagreement,
>
> It sure doesn't appear that way to me.
>
> > but you would be on
> > the right track if you looked into who is paying for what research.
>
> As would you.
>
> I know journalism and that was yellow journalism. No
> question about it.
>
It's not about journalism. They just write the copy, and their agenda has
nothing to do with science.
> > Media coverage of any sort always looks to make a contest, they have to
have
> > a 'left' vs. a 'right', but in no way is this any sort of representation
of
> > what people actually think, nor is it necessarily the way that science
is
> > done. The majority of reputable scientific papers I've read over the
last
> > decade have shown that the 'greenhouse effect' is a reality. This in and
of
> > itself doesn't make them right, just that, yes, the vast majority of
> > scientists studying the problem believe that we are most likely fucking
up
> > the atmosphere.
>
> Possibly, but is there a damned thing we can do about
> it? Given *REASONABLE* possibilities for actions that
> might occur, are there any good models for what kind of
> effects we can expect? Finally, would these effects
> represent a significant change over doing nothing?
>
Fine, so bury yourslef and do nothing. Stand Idly by while people make
decisions for you, and support them by default as they endanger the future
of all that come after you. Because you can't figure out if you should even
bother.
jb
reddred
> "reddred" <opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dbqdnV8AT_X...@rockbridge.net...
>
> > All the disruption in weather patterns, tidal structures... el nino, el
> > nina, the gulf stream.... "when the levee breaks".
> >
> > jb
>
>
> Shit happens. When the scientists, whose methods so far have not provided
a
> single model that works to predict weather we already have had come up
with
> a model that works, then I'll listen. Until then, shit happens and the
> person that doesn't realize that shit happens is usually the person that
> shit happens to.
>
I'm not sure I follow, Roger. I don't think anybody is predicting anything
specific, just that they're looking at the disruptions that are occuring now
and make a case that it has to do with global warming.
I don't know where 'shit happens' falls in terms of scientific arguments
<g>.
jb
reddred
> Chris seems to think that once the "more sporadic" events start they
become
> part of the norm, and there's nothing in chaos theory that I know of that
> allows for these wild swings to become prevalent. They just become part
of
> the equation, part of the definitions of swing. The level of swing and
the
> frequency of swing have nothing to do with each other, as you are trying
to
> represent with your use of statistical analysis, which is very
appropriate,
> btw. At least until we have more data.
>
OK, I see what you're getting at. My only point would be is that the
theories about the effect of global warming on the overall weather patterns
are the best explanation for the anomalies in our data that we have so far.
jb
Chris Johnson
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> The only way to know the future state of such a system is to
> let it evolve. In a temporal sense it is it's own shortest
> description. It is sheer hubris to believe that we have any
> handle at all on how the real biosphere will evolve in the
> face of the perturbations we are introducing. The mere fact
> that we can measure some of them and that they are
> signifigant in scale indicates that there will be unknowable
> effects that can very reasonably expected to be large.
Exactly. We don't know what, or where, or when, but there will be
other effects on the same scale as the ones which have been seen.
Bottom line: increasing the temperature of the globe puts more energy
into the climate system, enlarging the scale of climatic effects. All
you can do is observe isolated effects and try to get a sense of what to
expect, in a general way.
It's disconcerting how some of you guys are so busy ferreting out
liberal nefarious plots that you wouldn't notice if a hurricane dropped
a wicked witch's house on your head. And considering your pet witch is
Hilary Clinton- that's a pretty big house! ;)
Just keep an eye out for other extreme weather stuff, OK? If the
global-warming people are correct, there will be more extreme weather
stuff, storms, more chaotic and unpredictable climate, unseasonal
temperatures becoming more common, heat waves, cold snaps, you name it.
Keep an eye out for if that begins consistently happening, and that will
be the sign that the system is getting out of control.
I don't believe myself that it's likely to go into thermal runaway
and become Venus or something: I think climate can be made to go
seriously bonkers before any such cataclysmic effect would happen. But
bonkers climate is enough of a problem, thank you. There's a lot of
costs associated with nature's force becoming more unmanageable.
Chris Johnson
Gene Porfido
We've been warned for years now...if this years heat waves are any
indication, the globe is in for some hot times ahead. Unfortunately as
concerned as most of us 'citizens' are...its the big greedy bloated
money sucking corporations, and the Bush money sucking admin that
controls pollution and the like. Until we all stand up and say "we've
had enough..." which will probably never happen...its not going to
change.
We let them get away with sucking us dry with taxes, laws, and all
sorts of crap. We've become exactly the Country we started out not to
be. We are taxed to death, politicians lie, lie, lie, rip us off, over
spend, and lie some more while they and the corporations are stuffing
their faces with the earths resources, our hard earned money and
eventually everything we have. It sucks...but e all must stand up and
say.." That's enough...." or it will never change.
We need a new Boston Tea Party...
geno
In article <1g3cnrw.1r2ft011ly2bf7N%walk...@thegrid.net>, LeBaron &
Alrich <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994310
>
> --
> ha
Laung Anthique
opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com says...
> It's not about journalism.
This article was.
> They just write the copy, and their agenda has
> nothing to do with science.
Boy, are you confused. How data is reported is
everything. It is just SO easy to manipulate facts.
Read "How to lie with statistics."
> > Possibly, but is there a damned thing we can do about
> > it? Given *REASONABLE* possibilities for actions that
> > might occur, are there any good models for what kind of
> > effects we can expect? Finally, would these effects
> > represent a significant change over doing nothing?
> >
>
> Fine, so bury yourslef and do nothing.
What do you want me to do, wring my hands?
> Stand Idly by while people make
> decisions for you, and support them by default as they endanger the future
> of all that come after you. Because you can't figure out if you should even
> bother.
There is no evidence that there is anything meaningful
we can actually do as a species. Therefore suggesting
we MUST do something RIGHT AWAY is silly if not stupid.
It's like saying that we've got to do something about
volcanic eruptions.
Again, what should I do? Wring my hands some more?
I care about pollution and conservation, but that's not
because of global warming. There are other and far
better arguments to support doing the right thing as far
as that goes.
Hell, I'd love to see BIG tax incentives that encourage
telecommuting. That could have a huge effect on
emissions, not to mention on the quality of life of
millions of commuters.
Excuse me, but I've got to remind the kids to turn the
lights off before they go to school. They're getting
pretty good, but I better check.
LeBaron & Alrich
> >So I'll ask again, if we remove vegetation and replace it with asphalt
> >what is the aniticipated influence on global temperature? That is but
> >one single factor in the whole of our human activities here on Earth.
> What about all the forests we save from fire every year?
Doesn't mtch our deforestation, and has created a situation where the
fires that reak out are increasingly uncontrollable. That's at the root
of the drive to start thinnning seriously. Just went through this with a
local forester.
--
ha
LeBaron & Alrich
> I don't believe myself that it's likely to go into thermal runaway
> and become Venus or something: I think climate can be made to go
> seriously bonkers before any such cataclysmic effect would happen. But
> bonkers climate is enough of a problem, thank you. There's a lot of
> costs associated with nature's force becoming more unmanageable.
Given trends in email, the planet might turn into penis.
--
ha
Roger W. Norman
> Fine, so bury yourslef and do nothing. Stand Idly by while people make
> decisions for you, and support them by default as they endanger the future
> of all that come after you. Because you can't figure out if you should
even
> bother.
>
> jb
JB, your answer is no better than the opposite extreme. So why not rush in,
willy nilly, and fuck with the fundamental elements of global economy,
socio-political realities and simply make any efforts nil? Prove to me that
placing Kyoto Accord restrictions on third world countries and on China, the
US and others who are industrialized nations makes one whit of a difference
in the overall. Don't yell and shout that you're right and the stupid ones
of us are wrong, because their are a lot of us that don't go along with the
proof offered, and a lot of THEM (I don't include myself in that rarified
air) don't accept what is offered as proof. And don't start with "all
scientists that don't agree with global warming" are fossil fuel paid
lackeys. It's simply not true.
What is true is that there is some data out there that, under certain
slants, have been analyzed and presented as foolproof evidence of a
situation that requires THIS PARTICULAR solution. But the question isn't
whether there's data to support a conclusion or not, the question is whether
the solution is a solution and what impact on other aspects of global
existence are adversely effected by the "solution". If man must adapt by
changing his development and use of power systems then that is going to
adversely effect the global economy, and perhaps in ways that we can't
understand right now because we don't have THAT data. And if, as the Kyoto
Accord has built into it, one country can somewhat "buy" credits to their
green house emmision causing power operations, then just how does that tally
in the world view? If the US can buy enough credits to maintain a constant
level of it's emissions, then it creates a somewhat class oriented world
where third world countries are going to always be third world countries
because money is more important in the near term than the possibility of
development. I'm sure that it's not an element of world politics that Bush
thought about when he decided that we wouldn't be a part of the Kyoto
Accord, but the fact is that his decision is probably a pretty good one for
right now, even if the decision making process wasn't for the right reasons.
The fact is that only truly stable governments can make plans and establish
protocols for the long run. Third world countries have to live in the
"today" and don't have the luxury of making a 50 year plan. In order to do
anything on a global basis, the solution has to incorporate the ability of
every country to make those decisions for themselve in a planning effort
that will effect their countries for years, perhaps after their governments
are memories. Not very likely, is it? And if it is global warming, then
the solution can only be a global one, incorporating all the countries of
the world, which I've just shown cannot be accomplished unless we bring all
the third world countries into the first world of industrialized nations
with a stable economy and a stable government.
Grabbing at any straw is a drowning man's last option. This is not earth's
last option and yet it's possible that we may have global warming and it may
become an adverse situation and it may not, but what the concern about
global warming cannot do is cause governments to grasp at straws because of
the hype, for today or 10 minutes from now, or in 50 years, the situation
could well be different or the data may show other alternatives. The last
thing we want to do is grasp at straws while drowning in our own 3' sea of
fear when the answer is "stand up, dummy".
Justin Ulysses Morse
> The idea that increasingly extreme swings in weather patterns or
> temperatures are substantial proof of "decreasing stability in a changing
> system" is patently and demonstrably false.
<snip> thoughtful examination of the topic. Good points.
> Considering the complexity of our global ecosystem, the myriad of dynamic
> variables that affect global weather patterns and the lack of quality
> historical climate data; is there any basis for the hysterical fear
> mongering that is taking place?
I don't know where you're seeing hysterical fear mongering. I'm mostly
seeing a lot of apathy and a general lack of concern or activity, even
among the "leftist elite." Even Ted Kennedy didn't want some windmills
cluttering his view off Martha's Precious Vinyard.
> Is global warming a real man made disaster? Possibly. Should we be working
> diligently and concertedly to develop clean alternative forms of energy?
> Absolutely: the sooner the better.
>
> Are leftists using the "fear" of ecological disaster to dupe the "huddled
> masses" into once again accepting the tyrannical rule of worthless & failed
> socialist/communist doctrines? You bet.
I think the frenzy of apocalyptic fearmongering is coming from places
other than "the left." There's still a subculture in America (and
elsewhere, I would bet) pining for some cataclysmic event to shake
their dreary lives. The folks who were dreaming of a Y2K disaster are
pinning their hopes on volcanoes and asteroids as much as the
possibility of man-made disaster. These people aren't the "leftist
elite." They're lazy slobs who want the world to change them, rather
than the other way around.
But to your point, I'd really like to know how you think some foresight
in our environmental policy equates to socialism, communism, and
tyranny. I'm looking for specifics here. Our federal government has
fuel economy standards for vehicles now. Would raising those standards
be tyrannical? Would eliminating tax breaks for SUVs be a socialist
act? Would regulating the emission of CO2 by industry make us a bunch
of commie pinko bastards? The cold war is over. We no longer have to
reject good ideas just because the Commies might have also thought it
was a good idea. I bet Stalin also ate food and had sex too. I don't
think he was much of a tree-hugger.
Maybe you're worried that we'll end up outlawing newspapers and books
and houses in an attempt to save trees. Does that mean we shouldn't
give tax breaks to companies that use more recycled paper? Isn't there
some sane middle ground between encouraging people to buy inefficient
vehicles (which is the current state) and legislating what type of
vehicle a person can drive?
The American public currently is not expressing any concern over fuel
economy, and a lot of people who are paying attention to the long-range
impact of this trend think it's having, and will have, a detrimental
impact on the environment, the short-term and long-term economy,
national security, and general quality of life. Are these people
"elitist" because they think they know what's best for the public at
large?
> My gut tells me that the global warming hysteria is driven less by actual
> evidence and more by the leftist elite's desire to create a global crisis to
> which they will be happy to provide a "global solution." A solution that
> will only require we surrender our personal freedoms and individual rights
> in order to adopt the dystopian doctrine of "sustainable development."
This is the thing that troubles me the most. We're talking about
preserving the environment, and there's always this "libertarian"
perspective that personal freedoms are going to be restricted. I would
identify with the Libertarian viewpoint a whole lot more if they fought
for the individual's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water
rather than an "individual's" right to dump shit into the river and
force the rest of us to deal with it. I believe a person should be
free to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't stop
anybody else from doing the same. In the case of the air breather vs.
the shit dumper, I don't understand the logic that says the air
breather is interfering with the shit dumper's right to dump shit.
That's just stupid.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> The war of ideas has to be fought though. Liberals are paranoid
> of loosing power and they're hastily cramming the most insane laws
> through the judicial system. They no longer can pass legislation as
> easily because the people have a say there. The judicial system on the
> other hand has assumed the role of lawmaker, bypassing the will of the
> people. The elitists think they know what's best for us and they are
> determined that we not be involved in their plans for us. It's
> sickening, the subversive way they work. This HAS to be stopped. Each
> new law they pass weakens the constitution making it easier for them
> to usurp more power. I wouldn't be supprised if it was left to the
> Supreme Court to decide who is right about global warming. If they
> continue on their path the executive and congress will only be
> figureheads.
I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't "the liberals" who passed the
Patriot Act. And when the Supreme Court elected the President, who did
they vote for? The guy who's done more than any other President to
weaken our constituionally guaranteed freedoms, that's who. I don't
understand how a person can worry about "the liberals" consipiring
against your freedoms while John Fucking Ashcroft literally puts
Justice under a shroud.
You're right about one thing though, it has to be stopped.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> It's easy for those of us in the US to talk about laying down requirements
> and making demands of other countries despite their needs, and it's easy to
> place the onus on these countries
But Roger, it's the US that refuses to sign on to the Kyoto treaty.
The rest of the world appears willing to make the effort. They're
waiting for us.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> >So I'll ask again, if we remove vegetation and replace it with asphalt
> >what is the aniticipated influence on global temperature? That is but
> >one single factor in the whole of our human activities here on Earth.
> >
>
> What about all the forests we save from fire every year?
They are a tiny morsel compared to the forests we light up every year.
The wildfires in the western US that get battled every year are most
often started by humans. Think about this for a minute. Wildfires
have always occurred, you know, in the wild, before Manfolk showed up
to start them and stop them. But how did they get started? By
lightning, that's how. Fires started by lightning don't burn millions
of acres at a time because they generally happen in the rain, or at
least in areas that are getting some storm activity. The real danger
comes during draughts and in very dry areas that are susceptible to the
fire spreading uncontrollably. But these areas don't start on fire by
themselves. So we may be able to put out a whole bunch of *small*
naturally-occurring fires when they threaten our towns or parks or
summer homes, but we start a smaller number of much, much larger fires
on a regular basis.
But the fires inside the US are pretty inconsequential when you compare
them to what's happening in South America and other large, previously
unspoiled forests areound the world. Staggeringly large areas of land
are being burned intentionally in order to clear land for agricultural
and other industrial purposes. This is happening for the most part
because developing countries are being convinced that allowing it is
the only way to attract international industry and commerce. We in the
US had the opportunity to squander our natural resources on ourselve
during a century and a half of explosive growth. Other developing
countries are forced to forfeit the majority of their potential to gain
entry into the global economy. I only mention this because it
illustrates how we (Americans, Europeans, and generally People With
Computers) really can have some control over this process.
ulysses
Justin Ulysses Morse
> > "We like to think we're pretty smart, as species go. But we'll never know
> > it all and in this instance waiting until we think we know for certain,
> > and even the anti-war liberals accepts that the terrorists could get their
> > hands on Iraq's weapons could mean our ass is toast."
>
> Well....maybe Bush's speech writers would have worded it
> differently but I think the point is clear. It's amazing how
> conservative you guys can be when it serves your purpose.
You have a very good point. A significant difference between the two
compared issues does exist however. The Bush administration used this
logic to justify attacking another country, dropping thousands of bombs
and killing a bunch of people. The "Leftist Elite" uses this logic to
justify shifting our tax breaks from purchases of SUVs to purchases of
hybrids, and raising federal fuel economy standards, and spending some
tax money on R&D for alternative energy. But I don't think even the
most hardcore treehuggers are asking for $87 billion dollars. The
irony is that in either case, all those tax dollars go to the same
place. Whether a tax incentive supports SUVs or Hybrids, you write out
your check to the same place. And whether we're rebuilding oil wells
in Iraq or putting up windmills in New Mexico, the same energy giants
would probably get the contracts.
The way I see it, there are exactly TWO factors that determine whether
or not manmade environmental emissions of greenhouse gasses are causing
or will cause global warming:
1. Whether or not manmade environmental emissions of greenhouse gasses
are capable of causing global warming.
2. Whether or not mankind continues to emit large quantities of
greenhouse gasses into the environment.
Too many folks are hung up on #1. It's true that we won't and can't
know for absolute certainty unless and until it actually happens, at
which point it would be too late. But rather than worry about the
factor that we have no control over (it's either true or it isn't, and
although we can find out the truth, we can't change it), why don't we
worry about the factor that we DO have control over? Regardless of
what we eventually learn about the impact of our emissions, we are
completely capable of reducing them and rendering the whole issue
irrelevant.
Reducing our collective emissions would NOT be an economic hardship.
IT would be a boon to research and development, which would benefit
society and industry and commerce in general and lead to numerous
growth opportunities. It's like downloading music: There's a
fantastic financial growth opportunity for those who aren't intimidated
by the paradigm shift. The figureheads of the oil industry who work in
the White House might be afraid of losing profits under a new model,
but they would also have an opportunity to capitalize on it and make up
for it in other areas. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the oil
industry does not inherently embody the values and ideals of
conservative America, and for it to lose its stranglehold on our
society would not represent a Liberal Elite victory over the common
man.
Likewise, there is no ominous threat to personal libery expressed in
the environmental movement. People worried about losing their
god-given right to drive a truck that gets 6MPG should consider the
personal freedom they'd gain from breathing less carbon monoxide on
their commute and spending less on gas to get there. Are you guys
really worried about losing YOUR constitutional right to release large
quantities of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? Or have you been
snookered into defending the "rights" of interests only pretending to
share your values?
ulysses
Roger W. Norman
news:1g3ei8z.1n901q83v4268N%walk...@thegrid.net...
> Laung Anthique wrote:
>
> > I for one
> > do not want to see any radical increase in spending to
> > correct for a problem that has not been shown to exist.
>
> And there we have the worldwide crux of the pecuniary viewpoint.
>
> --
> ha
OK, Hank, let's say that I give it to you that global warming is occurring.
Now what do we do? About the only thing that has been presented to the
world is the Kyoto Accord based on the analysis of "data" by global warming
scientist. Have you even read the Kyoto Accord?
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/kyoto/kyoto1.html
will get you started.
My question to you is whether you want to give the UN this much extra power
in terms of dictating what every country can do/must do when the stakes are
so high for some countries that drive the world's economy and
socio-political policies. If we, meaning the people of the US, want to make
an effort then we need to understand that the Kyoto Accord brings all
countries DOWN to a certain level when, in fact, we should be advocating
bringing all countries UP to our level, not in emissions, but in emission
controls and monitoring. It's about time to make the world equal in terms
of technology, in terms of productivity and in terms of personal endeavors.
Horse and buggy solutions are not solutions. Burning coal is not a
solution, but burning coal cleanly and efficiently is a solution, or at
least a partial one. Getting rid of internal combustion engines isn't a
solution, but getting better gas mileage is a partial one. Developing
sustainable and renewable sources of fuel is a partial solution, yet
allowing inefficient methods of using that fuel simply because it is
renewable isn't a solution.
What part of "total global solution" isn't questionable when the variables
are so great that one can't encompass them all in a single thought? I could
sit here all day and describe individual areas that need to be addressed,
and then research and apply that area based on this country or that, and
still, one solution that doesn't fit the "global" portion simply doesn't
fit.
You mentioned in another post that your area has changed, although I believe
you wanted it to represent a global change and it only meets the "microcosm"
standard. You said that the trees had changed and that new forms of flora
and fauna were taking over your area, and this was your proof that things
are changing. OK, so? Something has replaced something else, and that's
not a bad thing, nor even indicative of some greater problem. This shit
happens all the time. When I was growing up we used to hunt squirrels.
Gray squirrels and that's all there was. Now we have gray squirrels, brown
squirrels, red squirrels and black squirrels, and there are just as many
"squirrels" around as ever. But there aren't just as many gray quirrels.
Should I view this as some spector in the night, haunting my visions of ever
being able to simply hunt gray squirrels again, or should I simply admit
that gray squirrel or red or brown or black, they all taste the same when
cooked correctly? I have no clue why anyone would think that an evolving
world wouldn't simply continue to evolve around us even if we stood still.
Roger W. Norman
> > news:dbqdnV8AT_X...@rockbridge.net...
> >
> > > All the disruption in weather patterns, tidal structures... el nino,
el
> > > nina, the gulf stream.... "when the levee breaks".
> > >
> > > jb
> <g>.
>
> jb
Your statement about weather disruptions, tidal structures, el nino, la
nina, ...
These are "shit happens" statements because we know for a fact that these
things have occurred well before man's abilities to make a mark on them
happened. An observation of present conditions that appear to be outside of
other observed conditions is only that, an observation. There is no cause
and effect relationship between two observations, nor can there be.
Consequently, to use such "items" as some part of an argument either for or
against is simply a misapplied speculation without supporting evidence. Not
that I mind, because it's obvious to me that, in the overall, we don't have
a greater occurance of hurricanes or tornadoes or floods, etc., but in the
"now" of it, it certainly appears that something is different. And I'm not
saying that it couldn't be indicative. But it's like the floods of '93 in
the US when everyone said it's a 500 year flood. Well, then we had another
almost right on top of it and suddenly the speculation went up that
something was wrong. It's just an observation and the real observation to
me is that "shit happens". Who knows, it may be another 1000 years before
such a devasting flood hits again, or it could be next year. Since we don't
even have records of such floods over the past 500 years, it's not likely
that we'll know whether it's really a 500 year flood or something that
happens much more frequently than we first surmised. But to make an
assumption that such floods predict some "global" pattern is simply another
assumption made from not enough data.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"reddred" <opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Go-dnY6ahPx...@rockbridge.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rno...@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:bni1h9$hub$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> >
Roger W. Norman
is whether conclusions drawn by one side of the scientific question can be
ratified by the other or not. Global warming, if in fact it is global
warming, and if in fact it would be devastating or not, is far more
important than whether one party or the other IN THE US can get something
done or not. It's assinine to go there because it has no relevance.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rockmusic.com> wrote in message
news:271020030911286471%uly...@rockmusic.com...