global warming hoax
David Staup
as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
what say you now?
Tom McDonald
I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
Bert Hyman
<tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
> David Staup wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>>
>> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk
>> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit
>> and advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human
>> nature.
>>
>> what say you now?
>
> I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
Without knowing exactly who those "peers" are, it's difficult to say.
Still, IBD apparently provides value to its subscribers.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I say that you haven't demonstrated in the past sufficient education or
intelligence to even voice an opinion on the matter... or on any matters
of science.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
yourmommycalled
Why don't you try reading the content of the supposed "smoking gun"
emails. You might learn something, but since you use Investors
Business Daily as your source of information you obviously are wearing
a tinfoil hat to protect you from the mind control rays. By the way
Investors Business Daily also claimed that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't
have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say
the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is
essentially worthless." As Hawking was born and has always lived in
the United Kingdom, and receives his medical care from the British
National Health Service, Investors Business Daily is a beacon of
accuracy.
Bob Lablaw
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Quadibloc
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
> and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
> by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
I say you're crazy.
Anthropogenic global warming is not junk science. It is recognized as
*valid* science by the overwhelming majority of scientists. There are
a few objectors, yes - and their number becomes significantly fewer
when you exclude likely corporate shills.
However, I will grant you this: trying to give up fossil fuels in
favor of warm and fuzzy renewable energy sources like solar power,
wind power, geothermal... would lead to a reduction in our industrial
capacity. Even if the decline in living standards could be tolerated
as a necessity, there is still the question of the industrial base
needed for national defense; the world still has well-armed
dictatorships in it, like mainland China - and also Russia, it
strongly appears.
Fortunately, there is a way out. Nuclear power. The facts are not so
unpleasant that they can't be faced.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Innews:54%Nm.14994$tz6....@newsfe02.iadTom McDonald
> <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
> Without knowing exactly who those "peers" are, it's difficult to say.
> Still, IBD apparently provides value to its subscribers.
Yes, but that only indicates competency in its area of specialization.
They understand the stock market. Global climate is the field of
meteorologists. I would not rely on Investor's Business Daily to tell
me how to build a particle accelerator.
John Savard
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:s81hg55brs3gtjicb...@4ax.com...
chuckle,
I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and
intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national
labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than
enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first
to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and
planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an
article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer
image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have
you done with your vast intelligence Chris?
David Staup
"Bob Lablaw" <B...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XX%Nm.54499$PH1.46274@edtnps82...
David Staup
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:40005e51-a07c-4d14...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
the advancement of mankind and civilazation has followed closely the advance
of energy availability. first from cooperative effort and slavery, then
beasts of burden and wind/ hydro power, then fossil fuels and nuclear power.
the next step function increase will likely come from fusion or something
even more exotic.
other than that I don't accept your premise that consensis exists and/or if
it does that it reflects the facts. the history of science is littered with
examples of bad science becomming ingrained in the minds of otherwise
brilliant men and has been responsible for many "truths" being held back,
sometimes for centuries.
notice I didn't call you crazy or redicule your beliefs.. debate of any kind
is best served when minds are not closed and the acedimical philosophy
(mitigated skepticism is understood and utilized...read Hume
Dennis Woos
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I see where you are coming from. I especially like:
----
Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their
views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats
over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd
way, this is cheering news."
If true, this is massive scientific fraud.
----
I wonder what the author could mean by "If true"? Did the scientist gloat,
or didn't he? And if he did gloat, what does that have to do with scientific
fraud? Thanks for sharing this wacko article - what a hoot.
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and
>intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national
>labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than
>enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first
>to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and
>planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an
>article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer
>image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have
>you done with your vast intelligence Chris?
If that's true, I'm sorry for your loss. It's terrible when people lose
their intelligence.
(BTW, myself, and many others, were using lucky imaging techniques-
stacking thousands of frames- well before 2003. I'm guessing from your
mental decline that you perhaps meant 1903?)
Regardless of what you dud in the past, your recent posts here
demonstrate that you are not competent in the area of science. The fact
that you don't believe in AGW is proof-positive of this, as much as not
believing in evolution, or not believing the Earth is a sphere.
Quadibloc
> notice I didn't call you crazy or redicule your beliefs.. debate of any kind
> is best served when minds are not closed and the acedimical philosophy
> (mitigated skepticism is understood and utilized...read Hume
It certainly is true that science progresses, and things that were
believed and widely accepted in the past as fact are now known to be
wrong.
Even so, when the accepted wisdom of the scientific community is
saying one thing, that is usually the way to bet 99% of the time.
A start to understanding why might be to read "Fads and Fallacies in
the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner.
Basically, global warming isn't rocket science. The Earth is not
nearly as hot as the Sun, so while the Sun radiates energy in the form
of light and short-wave infrared, the Earth radiates long-wave
infrared into space instead - which is why places cool off at night.
Carbon dioxide blocks long-wave infrared, and is warmed by it.
Measurements show that the oceans are more acidic than they once were,
and are absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they
once did.
There's no _reason_ to think that global warming is a colossal hoax.
Yes, some of the advocates of its seriousness are recommending that
things be done to stop global warming that would carry a heavy price
tag. If there were no other choices, global warming would indeed be
"an inconvenient truth" that people would prefer to ignore.
I think people shouldn't be fooled by the radical environmentalist
agenda _or_ the oil company agenda. There is another way.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
Hey David, You'll just love these!
See: http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916
The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group
of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who
include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect
their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the
request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist
Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received
the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November
2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review
of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We
recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS]
council almost unanimously decided to go with that."
Different positions
The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from
human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and
adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS
also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating
actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and
ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."
More, see: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916
yourmommycalled
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:s81hg55brs3gtjicb...@4ax.com...
Tis really sad to see the stupid puff themselves up to make themselves
feel better. If you really did work at Argonne, Oak Ridge and Sandia
with top secret clearance you wouldn't be bragging about it. Every
year when the ROTC students get ready to graduate someone from the
Defense Intelligence Agency visit with me and ask a series of
questions about each student. One question that gets asked is if the
ROTC student brags about current/future positions within the military
and if they talked about security clearance. I always wondered why
they asked this kind of question. The answer is simple "Lose Lips Sink
Ships" No one who would talk about their security clearance or
sensitive position (Sandia/Oak Ridge/Argonne) would ever be hired or
hold their job. Given your bragging it is clear you are another member
of the tinfoil hat brigade. You could even a basic background check
yourmommycalled
yet he can provide nothing to show for it. But can resort to
obscenities Scientist Yeah right
spud
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>...you don't believe in AGW...
>_________________________________________________
>
>Chris L Peterson
>Cloudbait Observatory
>http://www.cloudbait.com
No warming for the next 10 years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7376301.stm
No warming for the last 11 years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
But the believers say Artic will be Ice Free in 20 years:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59E18W20091015
While Artic Sea Ice is no longer declining:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html
And Polar Bear Populations are increasing:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html
believe - is the right word, oh brilliant one...
Steve
Oregon
Chris L Peterson
>No warming for the next 10 years:
I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.
Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.
L.A.T.
foresaw the global financial crash?
Not one!
What say you now?
spud
Oh briillant one...
So you willingly disregard the same gov't priests that are paid to
promote global warming if they don't write what you believe. That's
damn convenient. No requirement to be objective if you are a true
believer, eh?
But I'm not a CalTech alum and indoctrinated in uh, the believers
group think scientific methods. You know, fitting data to comply with
the agenda (er, uh theory?), and actually conspiring to stifle
opposing models.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-emails-conspiracy-or-tempest-in-a-teapot/
So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect
can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
You know, your usual cowardly retort.
Steve
Oregon
Sam Wormley
Hey Steve, You'll just love these!
Chris L Peterson
>So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect
>can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
You said it, not me.
All I'll say is that you are wasting bandwidth on a science forum,
someplace you have no business posting.
L.A.T.
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
the like, not one predicted, or even hinted at, the global economic
meltdown. Not one!
Obviously they are not to be taken seriously.
spud
I have a great deal of respect for you and your method of discussion.
I have read each of these when you posted them in an earlier
discussion. I do not disregard the assurtions.
I am not saying AGW is not true, but neither am I a BELIEVER. I
viciously object to scientists prostituting themselves and there staff
for muliti-million dollar grants and promise of hitchiking fame on the
coattails on the likeness of the high priest AlGore.
The money granted to gov't agencies, universities and think-tanks to
apparently promote an AGW is billions. There is a vested interest in
this agenda!
Here's an example. Several years ago I read NASA press releases that
indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto.
Most long term readers of saa remember this. I simply cannot find
them online anywhere, any-search anyway anymore. They have evaporated
into the ether. Why is that?
Additionally I have had many enviro' truly friends in my professional
lifetime. I have had fine professional people to my home for dinner,
wine and converstaion. Many have flatfooted, eye to eye lied to me
about research, about models, about conclusions, about objecives.
Enviromentalism is a multibillion dollar international industry. It
is no different than Phillip Morris. Yes, I mean it. They will do
what they have to to keep the money flowing and chicken little crisis
is the easiest way to generate millions. It's all about the money.
I remain skeptical, like my science profs taught me to be.
Steve
Oregon
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:33:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote:
spud
Did you work on the Mars Climate Orbiter by chance?
Steve
Oregon
spud
I also said it was a cowardly retort. Which you proved yet again.
Steve
Oregon
Dennis Woos
"spud" <midn...@theoasis.com> wrote in message
news:dgjhg59bcrlju6a9g...@4ax.com...
So how come the cabal publishes data that doesn't neatly fit the agenda? In
fact, the very data you cite here is produced by those you claim are
untrustworthy! I am not claiming that science as it is practiced is totally
pure, but dishonesty on the level you seem to accept as fact is, I think,
for most folks simply incredible. Your statement that "It's all about the
money." is not in the same ball park as your "I remain skeptical", and you
are kidding yourself if you think that your hypothesis isn't right up there
with the UFO stuff.
Dennis
Sam Wormley
Steve, I worked with Fritz Franzen as he was we were both trying
to understand the basic physics and chemistry of global climate
change to first order. When our number came within a few percent
of those from the climatologists... we quit being so skeptical.
On USENET, I'm not seeing any credible arguments against global
warming... and I'm not seeing any credible arguments against the
warming being driven by CO2 liberated from the burning of fossil
fuels and cement production.
I could be wrong... but I'm going to challenge nay-sayers to bring
out their scientific evidence or lack thereof.
Regards,
-Sam
oriel36
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
> and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
> by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
These guys here cannot explain the annual cyclical temperature
variations which requires the understanding of only two dynamics and
the specifics of each motion - the constant rotation of Earth allied
with the specific orbital way the planet orbits the Sun.The old
explanation which dumps everything on to variable 'tilt' no longer
serves the purpose in an era that needs a clear distinction between
global climate background and the hemispherical weather patterns that
occur against the background and the two major components are overall
distance from the Sun and the changing relationship between daily
rotational and orbital dynamics.
If astronomers existed,none of this particularly awful conclusion
which turns carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial to the
exclusion of all else would have happened
spud
wrote:
>
>So how come the cabal publishes data that doesn't neatly fit the agenda? In
>fact, the very data you cite here is produced by those you claim are
>untrustworthy! I am not claiming that science as it is practiced is totally
>pure, but dishonesty on the level you seem to accept as fact is, I think,
>for most folks simply incredible. Your statement that "It's all about the
>money." is not in the same ball park as your "I remain skeptical", and you
>are kidding yourself if you think that your hypothesis isn't right up there
>with the UFO stuff.
>
>Dennis
>
Well, read the articles yourself Dennis, find THIER own explanation to
the inconsistencies. Are the explaiantions science based or need for
funding?
It's reminds me of the stories we know of Tycho Brahe. Damn the data!
Steve
Oregon
Sam Wormley
Tycho's consistent accuracy was ~2 minutes of arc. Had he been able
to sight consistently better than 0.5 minutes of arc, he would have
likely measured the parallax of Mars and embraced the Copernican
system of sun centered universe.
That's probably on the harry edge... perhaps Tycho needed 0.1 minutes
of arc. At any rate, Kitty Ferguson, argues in "Tycho & Kepler" that
Tycho rejected the Copernican system for lack of finding Mars parallax.
Sam Wormley
> These guys here cannot explain the annual cyclical temperature
> variations which requires the understanding of only two dynamics and
> the specifics of each motion - the constant rotation of Earth allied
> with the specific orbital way the planet orbits the Sun.The old
> explanation which dumps everything on to variable 'tilt' no longer
> serves the purpose in an era that needs a clear distinction between
> global climate background and the hemispherical weather patterns that
> occur against the background and the two major components are overall
> distance from the Sun and the changing relationship between daily
> rotational and orbital dynamics.
>
> If astronomers existed,none of this particularly awful conclusion
> which turns carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial to the
> exclusion of all else would have happened
The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
months later.
Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
of which you appear to have so much trouble.
http://edu-observatory.edu/mcc/homework/homework.ch.1-3/H.A.Rey.orbit.gif
Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
basic scientific fact?
TBerk
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
> and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
> by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
I would say this:
Despite my not having run the numbers personally myself I find the
lack of understanding how destructive the Human Race can be is
disturbing.
We seem to be on a course to wreck the only place we have to live, all
for Quarterly Growth and Trade Balances in our favor, whomsoever
anyone determines 'us' to be.
Life is beautiful. But Power can corrupt and our own inherent Will to
Survive needs a self check lest we get to the point of disaster. If we
don't deal with ourselves, we'll get dealt with. I don't think anyone
here on the planet wants to get 'dealt with'.
Now, we can play Cain and Able while Rome Burns and rearrange those
deck chairs as long as the band plays, but if you think things are bad
now- well lets just keep on going the way we seem to be headed and see
what happens. OK?
berk
Thad Floryan
> [...]
> On USENET, I'm not seeing any credible arguments against global
> warming... and I'm not seeing any credible arguments against the
> warming being driven by CO2 liberated from the burning of fossil
> fuels and cement production.
You might want to expand your "view" to include the 1000s of known
active under-sea and under-ice volcanos.
These are being found in the eastern Pacific basic (over 1,600 just
a short bit off the coast of Peru), under the North Pole, under the
South Pole, under Greenland, and many, many other places by ESA's
satellites and many countries' research vessels and submarines. One
correspondent at the ESA wrote he was amazed to see volcanic fires
through miles of clear ice at the South Pole in their sat's imagery.
Think what happens to a pot of ice placed on a kitchen stove after
the stove's burner is turned on -- it melts.
And volcanos emit a LOT of CO2 (among other things).
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:fe7hg5tu3ujdk21gh...@4ax.com...
Chris I didn't say I started lucky imaging in '03 I said I was the first to
describe and use it for planetary imaging using hundreds then thousands of
frames for stacking. I started manually stacking up to 64 frames in '97 and
switched to astrostack and hundreds and then thousands of frames in '99
when I first started publishing my images online and describing my methods
also online. while it's true stacking was being done the use of webcams and
"many" frame stacking was not. the article was published in '03 by myself
and another who had the contacts at S&T. I taught him the method in '99.
I notice you didn't mention any of your vast occomplishments. what's up with
that?
and yes unfortunately there are cognitave and memory adverse effects
potentially from statin use. I suspect you are probably taking a drug to
lower cholesterol yourself from your retorts and sugest you see the
following links for some of the truth concerning another bad science
situation (the lipid hypothosis and artificial cholesterol lowering is good
for you) half are writtin by a former NASA astronaut who is also former
doctor and space medicine researcher and who is also a victim.
http://www.spacedoc.net/cause_statin_side_effects
see this concerning the bad science :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
and this for unadulterated data:
http://www.spacedoc.net/great_cholesterol_con
I sincerely hope I'm wrong about you taking a statin but if you or anyone
you know is taking a statin please inform yourself and them. the
non-remitting side effects appear in as many as 5% of statin users and make
life a true horror.
The Intelligenizer
quite the contrary in this group. Of course, that didn't surprise you did
it as you already knew the reaction you would have :)).
You know, for a supposedly astronomy group which I have been monitoring for
quite some time, I overall find a bunch of arrogant, vain, immoral
characters each with an "agenda" supposedly "hidden" in scientific jargon.
Laughable to say the least.
The Intelligenizer
-----------------------------------------------------
Along with intelligence comes stupidity and blindness if one is not careful.
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
starburst
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote:
> >No warming for the next 10 years:
>
> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
> pretty overwhelming.
>
> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
> support their ideology.
You know, you've often seemed a sanctimonious jerk, with an
extraordinary inability to understand human nature, but you're hitting
new lows with this latest mantra.
Of all the crap that's come out of the hacked files, this is the one I
find most revealing:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”
If you don't realize how fucked up this is, and how common in academe,
then you miss the problem of groupthink. Skepticism is HEALTHY for
science. And that means occasionally saying, "I wonder if there might
be a better explanation than gravity."
You'd have us all on our knees on an altar somewhere.
David Staup
have been pleasantly supprised in some cases though.
It is truly sad that todays educational system turns out so many blind sheep
who have no understanding of history and human nature. that they attack
rather than consider is indicative of the true nature of the change that has
been wrought by the progressive movement they so cherish. It worries me that
my granchildren will have to grow up in such a world.
you should change "Along with intelligence comes stupidity and blindness if
one is not careful." to Along with education comes stupidity and
blindness if one is not careful.
"The Intelligenizer" <be...@lmarks.net> wrote in message
news:hebclj$hoa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I think it definitely IS a hoax, although, not surprisingly, you'll find
>quite the contrary in this group. Of course, that didn't surprise you did
>it as you already knew the reaction you would have :)).
>
> You know, for a supposedly astronomy group which I have been monitoring
> for quite some time, I overall find a bunch of arrogant, vain, immoral
> characters each with an "agenda" supposedly "hidden" in scientific jargon.
> Laughable to say the least.
>
> The Intelligenizer
> -----------------------------------------------------
> >
The Intelligenizer
> you should change "Along with intelligence comes stupidity and blindness
> if one is not careful." to Along with education comes stupidity and
> blindness if one is not careful.
>
How true! Maybe I have a better one.
The Intelligenizer
----------------------------------------------------------
Too much education will be our undoing.
Dennis Woos
>Of all the crap that's come out of the hacked files, this is the one I
>find most revealing:
>�This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
>publishing in the �peer-reviewed literature�. Obviously, they found a
>solution to that�take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
>...
>If you don't realize how fucked up this is, and how common in academe,
>then you miss the problem of groupthink. Skepticism is HEALTHY for
>science. And that means occasionally saying, "I wonder if there might
>be a better explanation than gravity."
>You'd have us all on our knees on an altar somewhere.
I find it hard to believe that you or anyone agrees with the overblown way
in which this stuff has been portrayed. Is it flattering? No, it isn't. Is
it evidence of how all, or most, or even many scientists involved in climate
research think? There is absolutely no evidence that it is. Is it evidence
of any kind of a conspiracy? Only in the minds of folks who are severely
paranoiic. I think that to most folks who have a relatively realistic world
view this stuff is just not that "fucked up", or even "fucked up" at all.
Sorry - your freak out over this leads me to conclude that you are not
hitting on all cylinders. However, I realize that you must think the same
thing of me, so let's accept that and lighten up! Had any good observing
lately?
Dennis
Martin Brown
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
> and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
> by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
I treat their bogus claims with all the opprobium they deserve.
IBD are the same bunch of lying Neocon shiesters that claimed Stephen
Hawking would not be alive today if he was a Brit. They are pathologial
liars and cannot be trusted at all. More fool anyone that subscribes.
Fooled by the fact that his voice synthesiser has a US accent.
They cannot even bring themselves to apologise for their scurrilous
claims about Hawking and his NHS treatment in the UK. Funny really that
they did not know he was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge,
England. He retired from that position this October aged 66.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David Staup
"Too much modern education will be our undoing. "
"The Intelligenizer" <be...@lmarks.net> wrote in message
news:hebffv$6c4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
William R. Mattil
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:36 -0800, spud <midn...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>
>> So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect
>> can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
>
> You said it, not me.
>
> All I'll say is that you are wasting bandwidth on a science forum,
> someplace you have no business posting.
Chris,
Given that you yourself are guilty of exactly this same offense from
time to time I find it curious that you choose to paint him with the
same brush.
And I would also add that he has the same right to post here as you do.
Even as OT as AGW crap is on s.a.a.
Thanks
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Sam Wormley
These heat and CO2 sources must turn off during periods of glaciation.
Dennis Woos
> are severely paranoiic.
On reading my post, I regret the "severely paranoiic" and I want to
apologize. I know many folks who share the same level of paranoia on other
issues who I would never label as "severely paranoiic". Paranoiic for sure,
but only obviously so when discussing certain topics. The previous
president/administration brought out the worst in them, and they are now
largely in some kind of remission. Of course they love Obama et. al. but
this doesn't change the fact that they believe that the military industrial
complex, the health care system, the financial system, etc. are all run by
evil gnomes who are working in concert to turn everyone into wealth-creating
zombies. You and they must think of folks like me as happy idiots, who don't
see these more subtle (or not so subtle) threats!
Dennis
Sam Wormley
> oriel36 wrote:
>
>> These guys here cannot explain the annual cyclical temperature
>> variations which requires the understanding of only two dynamics and
>> the specifics of each motion - the constant rotation of Earth allied
>> with the specific orbital way the planet orbits the Sun.The old
>> explanation which dumps everything on to variable 'tilt' no longer
>> serves the purpose in an era that needs a clear distinction between
>> global climate background and the hemispherical weather patterns that
>> occur against the background and the two major components are overall
>> distance from the Sun and the changing relationship between daily
>> rotational and orbital dynamics.
>>
>> If astronomers existed,none of this particularly awful conclusion
>> which turns carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial to the
>> exclusion of all else would have happened
>
>
> The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
> But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
> sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
> hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
> months later.
>
> Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
> of which you appear to have so much trouble.
>
>
> Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
> for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
> basic scientific fact?
>
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.1-3/H.A.Rey.orbit.gif
Chris L Peterson
<wrma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The offense I'm referring to isn't discussing something non-topical on
the forum (which I personally don't consider an "offense" at all), but
talking about non-science (i.e. pseudoscience or bad science) on a
science forum. That's what is out of place.
Chris L Peterson
<jet200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you don't realize how fucked up this is, and how common in academe,
>then you miss the problem of groupthink.
There is no "groupthink" problem. Skepticism is alive and well in
science (and in climate science in particular). Of course, there's no
real skepticism any more that AGW is real, because virtually everybody
has been convinced by the overwhelming evidence. Read some papers, and
you'll see all sorts of varying opinion about all sorts of major issues
in climate science, however.
All these released emails demonstrate is that scientists are human
beings like everyone else. This kind of discussion is normal everywhere,
and it is normal in science as well- people just don't usually see it.
It has nothing to do with the science itself.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Chris I didn't say I started lucky imaging in '03 I said I was the first to
>describe and use it for planetary imaging using hundreds then thousands of
>frames for stacking.
Okay.
>I notice you didn't mention any of your vast occomplishments. what's up with
>that?
I wasn't particularly impressed by yours, and I have no interest in
having a "mine is bigger than yours" contest here.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>And volcanos emit a LOT of CO2 (among other things).
The Earth operates under a carbon cycle- there are CO2 sources and there
are CO2 sinks. Normally the system is stable, with sources and sinks in
balance. The system as a whole shows negative feedback (which is why it
is stable). There is no evidence that volcanic activity worldwide has
changed in the last few million years, and certainly not in the last few
hundred years. In recent history, all that has changed in the carbon
cycle is the addition of CO2 from human sources. It doesn't matter at
all what natural sources of CO2 exist, because these are fixed inputs to
the system. It is humans who have simultaneously increased the CO2 input
while creating changes that reduce the capacity of CO2 sinks (to the
point that the feedback system is showing saturation, and therefore
failing).
The result is, of course, obvious in the data.
Quadibloc
> The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
> But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
> sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
> hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
> months later.
>
> Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
> of which you appear to have so much trouble.
>
> http://edu-observatory.edu/mcc/homework/homework.ch.1-3/H.A.Rey.orbit...
>
> Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
> for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
> basic scientific fact?
Sadly, he is unlikely to reply. But his posts are confusing as to what
he does, or does not, accept.
He claims that a *variable* tilt was originally advanced as an
explanation for the seasons. He rightly states that the Earth's
orientation is not variable.
He notes that the degree of the inclination of a planet's axis to its
orbital plane determines whether its seasons are "equatorial" or
"polar". So he _does_ acknowledge that "tilt" is connected with the
seasons as we understand it.
I have theorized - as the evidence from his posts is too sketchy to
really see what he believes - that his main issue is that the word
"tilt" implies tilting - or a variable inclination. I have gone
further out on a limb, and supposed that perhaps, given that the
orientation of the Earth's axis is fixed (Polaris is always the pole
star) but the seasons change (sometimes it is summer, another time it
is spring), clearly a thing that is always the same cannot _cause_
something that changes - which is why he emphasizes that it is the
Earth's _orbital motion_ that is the "true" cause of the seasons, in
how it interacts with the relation of the Earth's axis to the plane of
the ecliptic *and* the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit, these
things *both* being included in his term "orbital specific".
The problem, thus, is not so much that he has a false conception of
what causes the seasons, but that he does not explain his ideas
clearly - because he refuses to reason through the logical
consequences of each statement he makes, even (or rather,
particularly) if that means he might have to correct earlier
statements.
In other areas, his ideas are in direct contradiction to the facts.
Given how the Sun and Jupiter do not have one simple rotation period,
because the gas in different bands, which is all we see, moves around
with different periods, he has concluded - using the principles of
"structural astronomy", I suppose - that the molten magma in the Earth
must also rotate in bands at different speeds. This is of a piece with
his rejection of Newton's using gravity to explain planetary orbits -
one is to understand the heavens by intuition and analogy, not by
reducing it to *physical mechanisms* like (ugh, yuck) ballistics!
So he ignores the fact that the viscosity of magma is a bit high for
Coriolis forces and the like to create differential rotation there -
and, also, that where the numbers *are* right, the Earth _does_ have
trade winds, which should be enough to slake his thirst for analogy.
And with regards to the "sidereal day", he seems to have ignored some
facts, but it's again not certain whether he has the facts wrong, or
it's just a matter of taste in how to describe nature.
The apparent rotation of the constellations around Polaris is
*uniform* when measured by a mechanical clock (as far as anyone could
measure in the days of Newton and Flamsteed - today, with atomic
clocks, we can see small changes as momentum is conserved between the
Earth and its atmosphere, and the trade winds change with the
seasons), while the apparent motion of the Sun is affected by the
Equation of Time.
So we take, to simplify our calculations, and aid our understanding,
the Earth's uniform motion compared to the stars as the Earth's
rotation, and the Sun's apparent daily motion around the Earth to be
the consequence of that rotation *plus* the Earth's orbit around the
Sun. This orbit is elliptical - and it is also foreshortened for the
purpose of affecting solar time by the fact that the Earth's
rotational axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic.
So we have a *cause* for the Equation of Time, and it all is simple
and straightforwards when we start with the Earth as a heavy sphere
which rotates uniformly because it is very difficult to speed up or
slow down the rotation of a thing so ponderous.
To him, though, all of this means nothing. We plan our meals by a 24
hour day, not a 23 hour and 56 minute day. Our time zones cut the
Earth into 24 bands. The Solar day is what people first observed;
later, when mechanical clocks became important, they averaged the
Solar day. Who needs to worry about the constellations in all this?
Surely dragging them in must be astrology!
He is not prepared to follow our explanations; he is unversed, at
least, in algebra and other mathematics, and he is unsympathetic to
the current view in science that accounting for things by physical
causes is fundamental and important.
So his reasons for rejecting sidereal time seem good enough to him; he
is unwilling to subject his notions to any scrutiny on his own part -
and yet he is convinced that they are the shining beacon of truth
which will put astronomy back on the right path of Copernicus,
Galileo, and Kepler, and away from the shoals of error into which it
has been led by Newton and Flamsteed. He even has the temerity to
wonder why he is the object of ridicule by those to whom Newton is as
clear as day instead of obscure and confusing.
His major omission - refusing to *take responsibility for his
assertions* and consistently accept their logical consequences, or go
back and change his claims - is sufficient to explain how he can
assert anything. One can believe anything at all if one simply refuses
to think.
John Savard
VicXnews
@news.eternal-september.org:
> astronomy group which I have been monitoring
nuff said...
yourmommycalled
See what nice about the tinfoil hat brigade is that once they hear/
read one or maybe two words that fall into their mindset then like
chicken little the sky is falling. What a bunch of clueless morons.
Why don't you read (Yes I know all the big words are hard for you to
read starburst, but give a shot maybe you will learn something) about
the event you read about in the cherry picked words you typed.
Chris de Freitas who funding comes from the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a industry front group, was one of seven editors Climate
Research. Soon and Baliunas submitted an error ridden paper (Soon and
Baliunas’s Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA,
NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum
Institute. Yet NOAA, NASA and the Air Force flatly deny having ever
funded the authors for work on the research cited. Thirteen of the
authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her
interpretation of their work.) The reviewers of the paper recommended
reject of the paper due to significant and obvious errors. The paper
was published over the objection of the reviewers and the other six
editors.
Now starburst answer the question, if a company misrepresents itself
and as a result of the misrepresentation your good name is abused
would you want to continue to do business with the company? I await
your dancing around the issue so you can continue to spout your
poultry excrement
oriel36
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
>
> >> These guys here cannot explain the annual cyclical temperature
> >> variations which requires the understanding of only two dynamics and
> >> the specifics of each motion - the constant rotation of Earth allied
> >> with the specific orbital way the planet orbits the Sun.The old
> >> explanation which dumps everything on to variable 'tilt' no longer
> >> serves the purpose in an era that needs a clear distinction between
> >> global climate background and the hemispherical weather patterns that
> >> occur against the background and the two major components are overall
> >> distance from the Sun and the changing relationship between daily
> >> rotational and orbital dynamics.
>
> >> If astronomers existed,none of this particularly awful conclusion
> >> which turns carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial to the
> >> exclusion of all else would have happened
>
> > The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
> > But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
> > sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
> > hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
> > months later.
>
> > Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
> > of which you appear to have so much trouble.
>
>
> > Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
> > for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
> > basic scientific fact?
>
It takes two dynamics to cause seasonal temperature highs and
lows,daily rotation which generates the daylight/darkness cycle and
the changing orbital orientation,due to the orbital cycle,which
changes the amount of time a given latitude spends in solar
radiation.The idea of variable inclination to the Sun and the
subsequently the inclination to solar radiation is many magnitudes
below the primary cause which relies on the length of time a location
spends in solar radiation but to comprehend this,it is required to
know exactly the components of daily and orbital motions.
Again,if astronomers existed there would be none of this mess would
have happened,nothing more or nothing less.
The Intelligenizer
consider something else other than man, for example, if there even is such a
thing as "global warming". The sun, for instance. We know of at least one
of its cycles, but how about a longer cycle, unknown because we haven't been
modern long enough to detect it, responsible for "global warming". Their
so-called studies are tied in with pollution/ greenhouse gases, but neither
may be the true cause. Gee, how could they be wrong? No, not them!
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hebhv4$pp3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sam Wormley
>
> It takes two dynamics to cause seasonal temperature highs and
> lows,daily rotation which generates the daylight/darkness cycle and
> the changing orbital orientation,due to the orbital cycle,which
> changes the amount of time a given latitude spends in solar
> radiation.The idea of variable inclination to the Sun and the
> subsequently the inclination to solar radiation is many magnitudes
> below the primary cause
Bzzzzt! Wrong again Gerald!
yourmommycalled
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:fe7hg5tu3ujdk21gh...@4ax.com...
Given the above about heart disease, we have documented proof from
your own posts that you are a complete loon.Although from your own
words "cognitave and memory adverse effects potentially from statin
use", it may be your idiotic postings may be due to your loss
cognative and memory skill. I'm sorry you were one of a very very few
people (<< 1%) who had a bad reaction to the statins, but don't try to
convince not to take a life drug because you had an adverse effect.
By the way it isn't just coincidence that you believe looney-tunes
scientist about global warming, people like Fred SInger and the
senator from Big Oil Inhofe, and nut jobs like Uffe Ravnskov and
Kilmer McCully
oriel36
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote:
> >No warming for the next 10 years:
>
> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
> pretty overwhelming.
>
> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
> support their ideology.
>
It is not just that you are wrong with basic planetary facts,it is the
way you are wrong by virtue of giving yourselves multiple choices.
The idea of a wandering 'analemma' Sun is repugnant and moreso that it
is explained by planetary dynamics thereby showing a complete
disregard for astronomical principles which differentiated between
celestial objects that basically defines what a planet is -
" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus
Simultaneously you give yourselves another choice of a 24 hour natural
noon observation and cycle which tries to explain planetary dynamics
through 'sidereal time' -
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro2201/sidereal.htm
Probably the most visible feature of these awful choices is the
enactment of an individual 'leap second' based on the daily apparent
of rotation of the constellations around Polaris which in turn is
explained through the planetary dynamic of daily rotation.I can't
imagine what it is that our astronomical ancestors have done to
deserve such an thing as that under the guise of authority but it
demonstrates how little is understood of planetary dynamics and even
as far as the shape and dimensions of the planet which rely on a
rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour.
Obviously the clear distinction between the reasoning which leads to
the 24 hour value for the rotation of the Earth and the 'sidereal
time' reasoning has escaped into the wider arena and that is a good
thing even though it still is not dealt with openly as a crisis that
it is.I have no objections to using the details for dealing with the
link between planetary dynamics,global climate which can be separated
from latitudinal weather patterns which emerge from global climate but
this assumes that people have the required courage and both the
intuitive and intellectual intelligence to balance speculation with
interpretation,in other words,dealing from interpretative facts rather
than speculating on a conclusion and throwing the kitchen sink at it.
So,balancing interpretation with speculation and allowing
astronomical facts to intervene should dissolve the hyperfuss created
around climate while opening it up for productive discussion and away
from the intellectual suicide of carbon dioxide as a global
temperature dial.
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > It takes two dynamics to cause seasonal temperature highs and
> > lows,daily rotation which generates the daylight/darkness cycle and
> > the changing orbital orientation,due to the orbital cycle,which
> > changes the amount of time a given latitude spends in solar
> > radiation.The idea of variable inclination to the Sun and the
> > subsequently the inclination to solar radiation is many magnitudes
> > below the primary cause
>
> Bzzzzt! Wrong again Gerald!
>
> which relies on the length of time a location
>
The degree of rotational inclination, or 'tilt' as you call
it,determines whether a planet has an equatorial or polar climate with
the Earth's climatology strongly towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum whereas the climate of Uranus is almost polar.The
Milankovitch conclusions are invalid given the ability to make
planetary comparisons using modern imaging and drawing conclusions as
to the actual role of 'tilt' and its parent cause of daily rotation in
tandem with orbital specifics.
The description of the Earth's climate as largely equatorial and to
get this conception up and running is in itself an enormous
undertaking and certainly would not appeal to those wrapped up in the
social driven agenda of carbon dioxide levels and this suits me
fine,people who are serious about the link between planetary dynamics
and climate will have a field day looking at the fairly clear concept
that all planets exist between equatorial and polar extremes depending
on rotational orientation hence the original ' no tilt/no seasons'
hypothesis of Copernicus is untenable -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
In the era of Copernicus it was not crucial to comprehend the
difference between climate and weather,something which astronomy alone
affords today however,the modification requires the restoration of the
original references for daily and orbital dynamics.The 'sidereal time'
reasoning is the closest humanity has come to negating the statement
of Lincoln that you can't fool people all of the time yet there is
always hope that people would just set aside the errors and
distortions and get on with the job through effort,talent or both.
Bob Lablaw
and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."
> what say you now?
>
Sam Wormley
>
> "..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
> variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
> affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
> days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
> Revolutionibus
>
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Season.html
"One of the four periods into which the year is divided based upon the position of the Sun
in the sky. The four seasons are spring, summer, autumn (also called fall), and winter.
Some elementary textbooks claim that seasons are caused by the Earth getting slightly
closer to the Sun at perihelion, resulting in higher temperatures. THIS IS COMPLETELY
WRONG. First of all, seasons are shifted by a half year in the northern and southern
hemispheres (so that it is summer in the southern hemisphere when it is winter in the
northern hemisphere, etc.), which contradicts the perihelion explanation. Second of all,
the Earth turns out to be closest to the Sun in January (January 4 at 21:00 UT in 1998),
which is winter in the northern hemisphere".
"The real cause of seasons is the 23.5° obliquity of the Earth's rotational axis to its
orbital plane. The hemisphere of the Earth which is tilted toward the Sun receives a
greater flux of solar energy ("flux" is just a fancy word for energy per unit area per
unit time) than the hemisphere tilted away, resulting in higher temperatures. The effect
of incidence angle on solar flux is well-known to everyone, since the day is warmest when
the Sun is overhead (at which point the Earth's surface is nearly perpendicular to it) and
then cools as the Sun nears the horizon (at which point the sunlight grazes the ground at
an angle, resulting in a smaller amount of heating per unit area of the ground). Here is a
QuickTime movie
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/movies/Seasons.mov
illustrating the tilt of the Earth's equatorial plane relative to the Sun which is
responsible for the seasons. The dates of maximum tilt of the Earth's equator correspond
to the summer solstice and winter solstice, and the dates of zero tilt to the vernal
equinox and autumnal equinox".
Rich
> David Staup wrote:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> > as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
> > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
> > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> > what say you now?
>
>
> --
Pfft. Peers whose careers and LIVES depend on the pursuit of global
warming gravy train.
Martin Brown
> You know, to be honest, I can't see how they can be so blind as to not
> consider something else other than man, for example, if there even is
> such a thing as "global warming". The sun, for instance. We know of at
> least one of its cycles, but how about a longer cycle, unknown because
> we haven't been modern long enough to detect it, responsible for "global
> warming". Their so-called studies are tied in with pollution/
> greenhouse gases, but neither may be the true cause. Gee, how could
> they be wrong? No, not them!
Satellite monitoring of total solar output over the past 4 decades rules
out magical changes in the sun as a hand waving way to explain away the
recent increases in global temperature. Not that it stops paranoid
delusional right whingers trotting out this old chestnut.
Regards,
Martin Brown
>
>
> "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:hebhv4$pp3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> how about
>>
>> "Too much modern education will be our undoing. "
>>
>>
>> "The Intelligenizer" <be...@lmarks.net> wrote in message
>> news:hebffv$6c4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hebe7c$sji$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> you should change "Along with intelligence comes stupidity and
>>>> blindness if one is not careful." to Along with education comes
>>>> stupidity and blindness if one is not careful.
>>>>
>>> How true! Maybe I have a better one.
>>>
>>> The Intelligenizer
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Too much education will be our undoing.
In this case too much wilful ignorance will be our undoing.
Tom McDonald
Pfft. IBD writer, whose career and LIFE depend on the pursuit of
the business-as-usual gravy train. In a publication that may
still think that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived in
Britain, to boot.
In science, I'll tend to side with the scientists.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
The Intelligenizer
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F4sOm.47434$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
> The Intelligenizer wrote:
>> You know, to be honest, I can't see how they can be so blind as to not
>> consider something else other than man, for example, if there even is
>> such a thing as "global warming". The sun, for instance. We know of at
>> least one of its cycles, but how about a longer cycle, unknown because we
>> haven't been modern long enough to detect it, responsible for "global
>> warming". Their so-called studies are tied in with pollution/ greenhouse
>> gases, but neither may be the true cause. Gee, how could they be wrong?
>> No, not them!
>
> Satellite monitoring of total solar output over the past 4 decades rules
> out magical changes in the sun as a hand waving way to explain away the
> recent increases in global temperature.
Four small decades over billions of years rules out the possibility of the
sun's interference? Sorry, I don't buy it. No sensible scientist should
and if they buy they shouldn't be a scientist in the first place.
Not that it stops paranoid
> delusional right whingers trotting out this old chestnut.
If the mainstream truly does believe this- that we understand the sun after
four decades of observation- then they are as you describe.
David Staup
airtime and exposure even on the state run media and is being discussed by
congress... my oh my
seems now that the info was sent by a whistle blower...shows that honest
scientists are comming out of the closet...will be interesting....
do you know what the word DUPE means?
chuckle
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Notice how quiet this thread has become since this info has been getting
>airtime and exposure even on the state run media and is being discussed by
>congress... my oh my
It's quite because there's really nothing you can say to the grossly
ignorant people whose ideologies prevent them from accepting scientific
evidence, even when it is so overwhelming (as in the case of AGW) to
reasonably be called "fact".
It's also quiet because while many of us can have fun for a while
arguing the obvious with idiots, it gets old pretty quickly.
You're talking about politics and public policy. Nothing has changed
with the science, of course, except it gets better and more certain
every day.
oriel36
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/movies/Seasons.mov
>
> illustrating the tilt of the Earth's equatorial plane relative to the Sun which is
> responsible for the seasons. The dates of maximum tilt of the Earth's equator correspond
> to the summer solstice and winter solstice, and the dates of zero tilt to the vernal
> equinox and autumnal equinox".
The technical details of the distortions Newton introduced in order to
link terrestrial ballistics directly with planetary orbital dynamics
represent the ground zero for the choices many scientists eagerly give
themselves in drawing reckless and worthless conclusions or
rather,speculation with facts hammered towards suiting the
conclusion,' climate change' being a barely disguised attempted to
make pollution concerns more appealing to the wider population.The
truth is that the reckless conclusion which attempts to turn carbon
dioxide into a global temperature dial is actually working against
reducing pollution and in ways that few anticipate.A society which
goes out of its way to ignore basic planetary facts and the reasoning
behind them is already in deep trouble,the normal innovations which
arise from the clarity of thinking are being dissolved in intellectual
holocaust conditions.That brief excerpt for the seasonal explanation
you posted invites derision and question begging,no sane person with
the least familiarity with astronomy would sanction it but it does
expose the endless choices which have brought astronomy and the
history of human achievements into disrepute.
Unlike many here,I have taken the balanced approach towards climate in
separating human pollution as a genuine concern that is now being
undermined by the people who thought they were being clever in turning
into a 'climate change' issue.I have done this by accentuating the
exciting possibilities which open up through modern imaging in
changing things which really matter to people of the planet,climate
and geology being among the major areas which benefit from a more
accurate understanding of planetary dynamics.
yourmommycalled
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:hebffv$6c4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hebe7c$sji$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>> you should change "Along with intelligence comes stupidity and
> >>>>> blindness if one is not careful." to Along with education comes
> >>>>> stupidity and blindness if one is not careful.
>
> >>>> How true! Maybe I have a better one.
>
> >>>> The Intelligenizer
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Too much education will be our undoing.
>
> > In this case too much wilful ignorance will be our undoing.
Do you have a clue or are you just repeating what you heard from other
willfully ignorant people like yourself?
The variations in total solar irradiance remained at or below the
threshold of detectability until the satellite era, although the small
fraction in ultra-violet wavelengths varies by a few percent. Total
solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year
sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-
trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation
received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere averages 1,366
watts per square meter (W/m²). There are no direct measurements of the
longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of
variations differ. On the low side North et al. (North, Gerald R.;
Biondi, Franco; Bloomfield, Peter et al., eds (2006). "Climate
Forcings and Climate Models". Surface Temperature Reconstructions for
the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10225-1)
report results suggesting ~ 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years.
Others suggest the change has been ~ 0.2% increase in solar irradiance
just since the 17th century. To put this in context CO2 forcing is
between 4.8 W/m² to 7.8 W/m² depending on the concentration. I
guess that you think that since the CO2 forcing 3.8 times larger than
the changes in TSI that the TSI is more important.
Sam Wormley
> Notice how quiet this thread has become since this info has been getting
> airtime and exposure even on the state run media and is being discussed by
> congress... my oh my
You are easily fooled, David.
yourmommycalled
> Sam:
>
> I have a great deal of respect for you and your method of discussion.
> I have read each of these when you posted them in an earlier
> discussion. I do not disregard the assurtions.
>
> I am not saying AGW is not true, but neither am I a BELIEVER. I
> viciously object to scientists prostituting themselves and there staff
> for muliti-million dollar grants and promise of hitchiking fame on the
> coattails on the likeness of the high priest AlGore.
>
> The money granted to gov't agencies, universities and think-tanks to
> apparently promote an AGW is billions. There is a vested interest in
> this agenda!
>
> Here's an example. Several years ago I read NASA press releases that
> indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto.
> Most long term readers of saa remember this. I simply cannot find
> them online anywhere, any-search anyway anymore. They have evaporated
> into the ether. Why is that?
>
> Additionally I have had many enviro' truly friends in my professional
> lifetime. I have had fine professional people to my home for dinner,
> wine and converstaion. Many have flatfooted, eye to eye lied to me
> about research, about models, about conclusions, about objecives.
>
> Enviromentalism is a multibillion dollar international industry. It
> is no different than Phillip Morris. Yes, I mean it. They will do
> what they have to to keep the money flowing and chicken little crisis
> is the easiest way to generate millions. It's all about the money.
>
> I remain skeptical, like my science profs taught me to be.
>
> Steve
> Oregon
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:33:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >spud wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:45:57 -0700, Chris L Peterson
> >> <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> No warming for the next 10 years:
> >>> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
> >>> pretty overwhelming.
>
> >>> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
> >>> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
> >>> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
> >>> support their ideology.
>
> >>> Chris L Peterson
> >>> Cloudbait Observatory
> >>>http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> >> So you willingly disregard the same gov't priests that are paid to
> >> promote global warming if they don't write what you believe. That's
> >> damn convenient. No requirement to be objective if you are a true
> >> believer, eh?
>
> >> But I'm not a CalTech alum and indoctrinated in uh, the believers
> >> group think scientific methods. You know, fitting data to comply with
> >> the agenda (er, uh theory?), and actually conspiring to stifle
> >> opposing models.
> >>http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-e...
>
> >> So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect
> >> can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
>
> >> You know, your usual cowardly retort.
>
> >> Steve
> >> Oregon
>
> > Hey Steve, You'll just love these!
> > See:http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>
> >Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
>
> >Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
> >Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
> >P. Wolfec
>
> >Abstract
>
> >The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
> >largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
> >present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
> >past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
> >recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
> >stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
> >Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
> >were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
> >exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
> >past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
> >lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
> >recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
> >and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
>
> >Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> >"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
> >climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
> >do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
> >has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
> >from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
>
> >APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916
>
> >The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group
> >of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who
> >include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect
> >their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the
> >request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist
> >Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
>
> >The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received
> >the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November
> >2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review
> >of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We
> >recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS]
> >council almost unanimously decided to go with that."
>
> >Different positions
>
> >The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from
> >human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and
> >adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS
> >also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating
> >actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and
> >ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."
>
> >More, see:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916
Why don't you try reading the whole NASA article rather than the Rush
Limbaugh summary. The "global warming" occurring on Neptune, Uranus
and Pluto is the same kind of "global warming" the earth's northern
hemisphere experiences every March. I really don't care whether you
are "uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect can't possibly compare
with your's and I spelled something wrong." What I do care about is
that you deliberately, with malice of forethought, LIED, to make
yourself feel important and that you are willing to libel a whole
group of people, just to make yourself feel better.
yourmommycalled
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:21:55 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >So how come the cabal publishes data that doesn't neatly fit the agenda? In
> >fact, the very data you cite here is produced by those you claim are
> >untrustworthy! I am not claiming that science as it is practiced is totally
> >pure, but dishonesty on the level you seem to accept as fact is, I think,
> >for most folks simply incredible. Your statement that "It's all about the
> >money." is not in the same ball park as your "I remain skeptical", and you
> >are kidding yourself if you think that your hypothesis isn't right up there
> >with the UFO stuff.
>
> >Dennis
>
> Well, read the articles yourself Dennis, find THIER own explanation to
> the inconsistencies. Are the explaiantions science based or need for
> funding?
>
> It's reminds me of the stories we know of Tycho Brahe. Damn the data!
>
> Steve
> Oregon
Steve from Oregon still hasn't learned the difference between a very
large group (several thousand) of scientists collectively getting a
few billion dollars per year and a single oil company exec who single
handedly gets a few billion dollars per year or the tobacco exec who
single handedly gets a few billion dollars per year in salary. Most
scientists would overjoyed to get a five year research contract for
what an oil company exec is paid in one hour. More bullshit from
somebody who jealous that someone else is getting paid to work while
they sit around a complain.
spud
<mommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why don't you try reading the whole NASA article rather than the Rush
>Limbaugh summary. The "global warming" occurring on Neptune, Uranus
>and Pluto is the same kind of "global warming" the earth's northern
>hemisphere experiences every March. I really don't care whether you
>are "uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect can't possibly compare
>with your's and I spelled something wrong." What I do care about is
>that you deliberately, with malice of forethought, LIED, to make
>yourself feel important and that you are willing to libel a whole
>group of people, just to make yourself feel better.
Your postings are just pointless nasty spew. Did you run out of
Lithium?
Steve
Oregon
Quadibloc
> Your postings are just pointless nasty spew. Did you run out of
> Lithium?
That would be lithium carbonate, but your comment is not accurate. The
postings he *replies* to are the ones that are pointless nonsense.
John Savard
yourmommycalled
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:08:32 -0800 (PST), yourmommycalled
>
Really? Let's try this again. YOU claimed on Nov 22 at 12:02 am that
"Here's an example. Several years ago I read NASA press releases that
indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto. "
Let's see if there is any truth to your statement
First Uranus isn't warming it is cooling: Read "Uranus after Solstice:
Results from the 1998 November 6 Occultation" Young et. al. doi:
10.1006/icar.2001.6698, There are no NASA references to Uranus
cooling.
Next all the references on NASA's website point out that the "global
warming" on the other planets in the solar system is due to well
understood season changes. Quoting
http://science.nasa.gov/current/event/mit.htm
"The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that
occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's
southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on
Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake
Superior during a northern summer. "
Changes in Plutos's temperature are again seasonal changes as can be
found in any astronomy textbook. You
So let's see so far we have NASA references to cooling on one of your
supposedly warming planets (Uranus). NASA references to normal
seasonal changes on another of your cases (Neptune). Astronomy
textbooks explaining changes in distances from the sun for a third
case (Pluto) and finally for Mars a 30 year old paper using a snapshot
of the Mars's surface from Voyager data, which has been shown to be
wrong via Mars Global Suryeor data.
These references are hidden a simple google search found them in a
fraction of a second.
Let's try something else let's try to find web references to all the
planets experiencing global warming. We quickly find places like
Investors Business Daily, WorldNetDaily, Heartland Institute the Cato
Instutute and the Marshall Institute. Then there is Benny Peiser who
seems to think NASA nuked Jupter
It seems that you prefer conspiracy theories to hard facts. I suggest
talking to your physician and have him adjust your meds to you aren't
so prone to thinking that the black helicopters are beaming mind
control rays to the population. You might be able to pick out that the
real mind control is coming from the likes of Rush, Glenn, Ann,
Jennifer, and Bill'O
David Staup
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk
> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and
> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
Some FACTS for global warming sheep to mull over:
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our
planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be
today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the
atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago
during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and
atmosphere like no other.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists
today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2
concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The
highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred
during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than
today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological
periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as
they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late
Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other
factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming.
full text here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The fact is that the greenhouse effect is but a small part of the global
climate story.
the fact is that Life has always played a part in the complex set of
functions that describe global climate mechanism.
The fact is that the belief that humans can do much to stop a mostly natural
process is hubris at its worst.
I for one am happy to see the earth return to its most common state (warmer
and wetter) as I hate cold weather...
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
<material irrelevant to current short term climate theory snipped>
Oops... nothing left to comment on.
Sam Wormley
> "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>>
>> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk
>> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and
>> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>>
>> what say you now?
>
>
> Some FACTS for global warming sheep to mull over:
>
> Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our
> planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be
> today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the
> atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago
> during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and
> atmosphere like no other.
>
> There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists
> today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2
> concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The
> highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred
> during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than
> today.
What's different this time, David, that oil, natural gas, coal, etc. have
systematically been extracted and burned, releasing copious amounts of
CO2 into the environment.
We humans didn't exist or evolve in conditions of the Jurassic (or Paleozoic
or Cambrian) Period(s), so that is not "normal" for our species.
Take a look at the CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years (our era).
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
Until now humans have not experienced CO2 levels this high.
Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth
as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online
edition of the journal Science.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were
sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher
than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today,
there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and
Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in
the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic
sciences.
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have
for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an
important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.
By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists
have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as
800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels
have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before
this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.
Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England's
University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in
the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to
calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this
method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20
million years ago.
"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last
800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in
gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.
"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years
ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling
between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a
large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic
Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20
million years.
"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million
years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387
parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the
last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of
carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern
levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon
dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very
little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon
dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the
trend, Tripati said.
"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago),
carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where
we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit
warmer, a huge amount."
Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.
"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied
throughout history," Tripati said.
In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden
appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of
approximately 75 to 120 feet.
"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in
carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This
record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes,
such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon
intensity."
Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been
there for about 14 million years.
"Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.
Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per
million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said.
Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati,
who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the
last 20 million years in detail.
More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded
deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.
Co-authors on the Science paper are Christopher Roberts, a Ph.D. student in the department
of Earth sciences at the University of Cambridge, and Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar
in the division of geological and planetary sciences at the California Institute of
Technology.
The research was funded by UCLA's Division of Physical Sciences and the United Kingdom's
National Environmental Research Council.
Tripati's research focuses on the development and application of chemical tools to study
climate change throughout history. She studies the evolution of climate and seawater
chemistry through time.
"I'm interested in understanding how the carbon cycle and climate have been coupled, and
why they have been coupled, over a range of time-scales, from hundreds of years to tens of
millions of years," Tripati said.
###
In addition to being published on the Science Express website, the paper will be published
in the print edition of Science at a later date.
UCLA is California's largest university, with an enrollment of nearly 38,000 undergraduate
and graduate students. The UCLA College of Letters and Science and the university's 11
professional schools feature renowned faculty and offer more than 323 degree programs and
majors. UCLA is a national and international leader in the breadth and quality of its
academic, research, health care, cultural, continuing education and athletic programs.
Four alumni and five faculty have been awarded the Nobel Prize.
Dennis Woos
>
> Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time.
I don't think that stuff that happened hundreds of millions of years ago,
i.e. "geologic time" would normally qualify as evidence for "history shows a
different story". I am no climate scientist, but I don't think that climate
models go back that far, do you? Ask yourself if you are being reasonable
when you reach back to when the oceans were populated with trilobites and
not tuna, and the continents that we have today didn't even exist.
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I don't think that stuff that happened hundreds of millions of years ago,
>i.e. "geologic time" would normally qualify as evidence for "history shows a
>different story". I am no climate scientist, but I don't think that climate
>models go back that far, do you? Ask yourself if you are being reasonable
>when you reach back to when the oceans were populated with trilobites and
>not tuna, and the continents that we have today didn't even exist.
There are climate models that go back that far, but they are not the
same models being used to study historical trends, i.e. the last one or
two thousand years. "Climate" really describes a range of time scales,
from geological, to centuries, to decades, to daily (usually called
weather). Different things exert influence on these different time
scales, so different models are used. For example, in looking at the
last century, there's no need to consider orbital anomalies or changes
in volcanism, so these aren't part of short term models.
It's a strawman that the anti-AGW folks are fond of, to argue that
climate changes naturally. That is, of course, irrelevant to the
discussion.
David Staup
"Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote in message
news:_76dndFafr8fkpHW...@posted.greenmountainaccess...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
this graph (below) shows how closely the global temp changes match the co2
level changes ...NOT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
I know you will say this means nothing ...chuckle
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>this graph (below) shows how closely the global temp changes match the co2
>level changes ...NOT
Again, you demonstrate your extreme ignorance on the subject. There is
NO long term correlation between CO2 and temperature alone, and no
climate scientist suggests otherwise. The temperature is determined by a
complex balance between incident radiation and many mechanisms that can
either retain energy or facilitate its release back to space.
In the past, it could be cool with high CO2 (or warm with low CO2)
because of many factors: differences in the Earth's albedo, differences
in the concentration of other greenhouse gases (water, methane),
differences stemming from different atmospheric and ocean currents. The
reason there is currently a correlation between CO2 and temperature is
because CO2 is the only parameter in the system that is changing
significantly, so it is the dominant contributor.
Thomas Womack
David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>this graph (below) shows how closely the global temp changes match the co2
>level changes ...NOT
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
I notice that there's no uncertainty plotted for the temperature
curve, which you'd expect to wiggling like nobody's business on
ten-kiloyear timeframes due to variations in Earth's orbit.
Try a period in which you can be reasonably sure that solar irradiance
hasn't changed much, and that the continents are in much the same places
as they are today:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Tom
oriel36
wrote:
> In article <heha01$ba...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> David Staup <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >this graph (below) shows how closely the global temp changes match the co2
> >level changes ...NOT
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
>
> I notice that there's no uncertainty plotted for the temperature
> curve, which you'd expect to wiggling like nobody's business on
> ten-kiloyear timeframes due to variations in Earth's orbit.
>
Does the Earth keep the same face to the Sun over the course of an
annual orbit or does it turn 360 degrees ?.
When you discover the latter signature of orbital motion as an
observational certainty,,you will be on your way to comprehending the
dynamic behind the seasons and the variations in the natural noon
cycle.
Empiricists have been cooking the books with observations since Isaac
attempted to explain orbital dynamics via Ra/Dec,climate change
through human pollution is just another symptom of the late 17th
century cult which has no regard for planetary dynamics or much else,I
know this,because of the astonishing ability to ignore the physical
and orbital characteristics of Uranus which shout out that it is not
'tilt' that causes the seasons but the specifics of orbital motion
allied with daily rotation.
Maybe a participant here will explain to you using the analogy of a
broom,wastebasket and walking round it in a specific way introduces
the magnificent and fascinating way a planet orbits the Sun -
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:p9bog59v4m79cmli4...@4ax.com...
Again you show you complete lack of reading comprehension and/or memory
I will remind you of the following from an earlier post of mine..
"the fact is that Life has always played a part in the complex set of
functions that describe global climate mechanism."
you just refuse to understand that we do not yet understand the full extent
of the interplay of direct and inverse factors that contribute to the final
result, let alone which are leading or lagging, which are initial causes or
results...the fact that data has been falsified and misrepresented, while
conflicting interpretations have been subject to censure just doesn't seem
to shake your belief. show me just how alive and well skepticism is in your
world.
Sam
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Take a look at the CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years (our era).
> > http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
>
> > Until now humans have not experienced CO2 levels this high.
>
> > Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago,
> > scientists report
>
> > You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide
> > levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues
> > report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
>
>
Some places are cooling. In Iowa for example, summer day highs are
declining,
summer night time temps are increasing, winter temps are
increasing. However,
globally, surface temperatures are increasing.
See: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
> Looking at the chart in the link you provided, one would assume the earth's
> temperature would be rising exponentially. (Remember Gore dramatically using
> a scissor lift so he could raise himself high enough to point to how high the
> world temperature was supposed to be on a wall sized chart similar to Mann's
> hockey stick model)?
>
> http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hockey_stick_g...
>
> The chart below was compiled by the Hadley climate research institute. They
> are major IPCC players. The chart shows the earth's temperature has peaked
> and is now in decline.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
>
> This is completely contrary to what has been predicted by the IPCC
> climate models.
>
> Now consider the recently leaked e-mails that give the appearance that some
> of the prominent IPCC scientists who have predicted ever climbing world
> temperatures are somewhat confused by this cooling.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-gl...
>
> In their once private conversations with each other, some state that they
> don't understand why the earth is cooling. Others state that they 'fudged'
> data to hide the fact the world is cooling.
>
> The faithful who have accepted AGW into their hearts will instinctively know
> that the cooling is a blip and the leaked comments are all taken 'out of
> context'. No actual scientific explanation will be required for them to
> conciliate these things. Faith is extremely powerful.
>
> Hopefully there are true scientists working towards explaining these
> anomalies.
>
> While the facts I have presented don't prove that the effect of CO2 on the
> atmosphere isn't as potent as once thought, they do raise a nagging question
> that should be answered.
>
> It appears that the science isn't quite settled.
OG
"spud" <midn...@theoasis.com> wrote in message
news:5lbhg51mfri9di8sl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:15:04 -0700, Chris L Peterson
> <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>...you don't believe in AGW...
>>_________________________________________________
>>
>>Chris L Peterson
>>Cloudbait Observatory
>>http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
>
>
> No warming for the last 11 years:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
>
>
Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm
hardly 'no warming for the last 11 years'!
spud
<mommy...@gmail.com> wrote: blah, blah, blah...
"Several years ago I read NASA press releases that
indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto."
You site a reprint of an MIT press release. Not NASA's analysis,
which I'm still looking for...
Why are believers so vile, crude, nasty? I thought believing was
suppose to give people peace...
yourmommycalled
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:40:08 -0800 (PST), yourmommycalled
>
>
> "Several years ago I read NASA press releases that
> indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto."
>
> You site a reprint of an MIT press release. Not NASA's analysis,
> which I'm still looking for...
>
> Why are believers so vile, crude, nasty? I thought believing was
> suppose to give people peace...
Oh Indeed since the "press release" says
"This work is supported in part by NASA, the National Science
Foundation and the National Geographic Society. "
I guess since the work was partly funded by NASA, NASA completely
disagrees with the results, particularly since it's on a NASA website.
A google-scholar search would turn up the journal articles, but I
doubt you would read them
Ah yes you spew garbage and from a post on Nov 24th at 12:06am "Your
postings are just pointless nasty spew. Did you run out of Lithium? "
and then claim those who provide the documentation to show that you
are spewing garbage are "Why are believers so vile, crude, nasty? "
Maybe because those of use who are doing science rather than trading
our integrity and honor for a few bucks are tired of being libeled by
those who are so proudly anti-science
Chris L Peterson
>You site a reprint of an MIT press release. Not NASA's analysis,
>which I'm still looking for...
NASA doesn't do a lot of analysis. Mostly, NASA provides funding and
support for contractors. Very few "NASA scientists" actually get
paychecks from NASA. I expect this particular press release, reporting
on work done at MIT, actually _is_ the NASA analysis, to the extent such
a thing exists at all.
Sam Wormley
David, you are wrong and outta control.
Global Climate Change Resources
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
Peter Webb
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:69e6c530-3d2f-4048...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 5:10 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:54%Nm.14994$tz6....@newsfe02.iadTom McDonald
> <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
> Without knowing exactly who those "peers" are, it's difficult to say.
> Still, IBD apparently provides value to its subscribers.
Yes, but that only indicates competency in its area of specialization.
They understand the stock market. Global climate is the field of
meteorologists. I would not rely on Investor's Business Daily to tell
me how to build a particle accelerator.
John Savard
_________________________
And I wouldn't trust a climatologist to build a particle accelerator either.
In fact, I put approximately equal value on the scientific output of
climatologists as I do for astrologers. Astrologers seem to make more
successful predictions than do climatologists, but climatologists have a
better line of patter.
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midn...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>
>>No warming for the next 10 years:
>
> pretty overwhelming.
>
> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
> support their ideology.
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over the
last 10 years?
And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming commenced
long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any quantity?
And what does "largely" mean anyway?
And what of the dozens, hundreds or thousands of previous times when the
earth has warmed prior to mankind evolving - all of those warming periods
obviously did not have anthropogenic causes?
Why do you constantly have to resort to ad-hominem attacks (and apparently
have nothing else to offer) when we are discussing a scientific question?
The above from you is typical. You say that AGW skeptics "selectively filter
the evidence" but provide no evidence of this statement, and nor do you even
attempt to provide any evidence that your beliefs are true.
Finally, after billions of dollars, tens of thousands of researchers, and
hundreds of models, perhaps you could point us to the single model which
most closely correlates with the climate data for the last 10 years? With a
hundreds of different models produced by climatologists, surely one of them
must have turned out at least approximately correct ... so which one was it?
At least astrologers get it right sometimes, and I would expect that
something described as a "science" would have better predictive capabilities
than astrology ... so how about instead of making ad hominem attacks on AGW
skeptics you show us that climatology predicts the future better than
astrology?
David Staup
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:he9re3$c7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk
> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and
> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>
> what say you now?
>
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
Dupes take note
MAT
http://www.cbc.ca/entertainment/
David Staup
"MAT" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:t0gPm.53501$Db2.17942@edtnps83...
OG
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b0cd577$0$1785$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:3cghg5hpjf83l8hv8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midn...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No warming for the next 10 years:
>>
>> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
>> pretty overwhelming.
>>
>> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
>> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
>> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
>> support their ideology.
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> Chris L Peterson
>> Cloudbait Observatory
>> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
> the last 10 years?
Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm
That looks like warming to me.
> And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
> commenced long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any
> quantity?
Really? When did it start?
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
>http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm
Nice try, but you're arguing with a robot. He's asked these same
questions many times before, and simply ignores the answers. In his
world, 1+1=3, and you'll not convince him otherwise.