OT: a rare outbreak of sanity wrt 'global warming'. Judge rules "Inconvenient Truth" is untruthful
Eeyore
A High Court judge has demanded that the guidelines which were produced to
accompany the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, to all 3,850 English
secondary schools be revised and distributed in hard copy rather than by the
internet. Civil servants were drafted in to carry out the work over the weekend
in time for the case reconvening today Monday at 14.00hrs. However, it is
unclear how tougher guidance can remedy at least 20 factual inaccuracies and
exaggerations and it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the film will ever
be shown as intended.
The application for a judicial review has been brought by a New Party member and
school governor, Stewart Dimmock. It commenced in the High Court on Thursday,
run through into Friday and it is expected that a judgement will be handed down
tomorrow, Tuesday. Mr Justice Burton has already overturned the guillotine
imposed by a previous judge who refused permission for a judicial review "on the
papers" and said that the oral application should be restricted to one day with
no more than two hours granted to Mr Dimmock's legal team.
Stewart Dimmock commented: "The judge has treated us very fairly, however, I
think my lawyer, Paul Downes, got it spot on when he said that the film was
irredeemable and should never have been sent to schools in the first place. It
is clearly ludicrous and unfair to expect hard working teachers to spend hours
going through detailed briefing notes ahead of each showing of this film."
During the hearing Mr Dimmock's lawyer claimed that the film was "50% political
30% science and 20% sentimental mush, the mush being designed along with the
alarmist exaggeration, to persuade the viewer into accepting Gore's political
viewpoint."
The New Party has received many emails in support of the legal challenge
including some from teachers and a number from overseas. A campaign website
www.straightteaching.com has also received pledges of cash support.
http://newparty.co.uk/news/october2007/government-works-overtime-on-gore-film.html
Monday, October 08, 2007 at 10:52am
A British judge rules that Al Gore told a string of untruths in An Inconvenient
Truth and children should be warned:
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their
Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that ... (e)leven inaccuracies have to
be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not
correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has
been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it
was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by
global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the
case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in
fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
storm.
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing
Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific
impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea
levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for
millennia.
9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence
was that it is in fact increasing.
10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement
of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to
rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat
of massive migration.
11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain
Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this
and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
The new Guidance Notes, very grudgingly amended, are here
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf
Would that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
This isn’t the first time, of course, that global warming scaremongerers have
been dismissed by a court in which evidence still counts.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Government forced to work overtime on Al Gore "health warning"
>
> A High Court judge has demanded that the guidelines which were produced to
> accompany the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, to all 3,850 English
> secondary schools be revised and distributed in hard copy rather than by the
> internet.
<snip>
The court doesn't seem to be all that good at interpreting scientific
evidence
> 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
> temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
> misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> rises by 800-2000 years.
The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
further cooling.
The large thermal mass and slow mixing in the oceans is what produces
the lag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The Milankovitch orbital effects aren't big enough in themselves to
explain the observed temperature changes without the positve feedback
from the greenhouse gases, which is why the ice core data happens to
have been crucial to the development of the case for global warming.
It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
judge agreed it did.
End of story.
Graham
Winfield
James Arthur
> On Oct 9, 1:36 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Government forced to work overtime on Al Gore "health warning"
>
> > A High Court judge has demanded that the guidelines which were produced to
> > accompany the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, to all 3,850 English
> > secondary schools be revised and distributed in hard copy rather than by the
> > internet.
>
> <snip>
>
> The court doesn't seem to be all that good at interpreting scientific
> evidence
>
> > 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
> > temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
> > misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> > rises by 800-2000 years.
>
> The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
> in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
> exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
> the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
> further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
> further cooling.
>
> The large thermal mass and slow mixing in the oceans is what produces
> the lag
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Bill,
By this reasoning, any current warming would be from historic, not
current CO2 (since the same lag mechanism would apply), right?
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Uh? Winfield, are you saying "An Inconvenient Truth" is truthful?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Eeyore
Winfield wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
> >
> > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > judge agreed it did.
> >
> > End of story.
>
>
> NOT.
Uh ? It's blatantly obvious the film contains *straight lies*.
Very correctly, the judge said that this mustn't be presented as 'education'. Here are
the revised guidance notes for teachers ....
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf
And here are some excerpts .............
" However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord
with mainstream
scientific opinion.
Note: There is insufficient evidence to establish clearly that particular one-off
weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina, are attributable to climate change.
Accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish a clear
attribution for the drying out of Lake Chad.
Note: It is not clear which study Gore is referring to when he talks about Polar
Bears drowning. However, a 2005 study by Monnet,Gleeson and Rotterman (see the
Further Resources section at the end of this document) suggests that 4 polar
bears had drowned because of a storm.
Note: The IPCC assess that it is very unlikely that the "ocean conveyor"
(also known as the "meridional overturning circulation" or "thermohaline
circulation") will undergo a large abrupt transition this century.
Note: It is not clear what "Pacific nations" Gore is referring to in the
section dealing with evacuations to New Zealand. It is not
clear that there is any evidence of evacuations in the Pacific due to human induced
climate change.
Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by
the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic
shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take
millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. "
So, how about a challenge to its use in education in the USA ?
Graham
nospam
>> 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
>> temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
>> misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
>in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
>exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
>the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
>further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
>further cooling.
Not fact, theory which ice core data might support. As an engineer I have
trouble understanding why the earth with this claimed large temperature
positive feedback mechanism isn't hard against a rail or bouncing between
them.
>It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
>this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
>education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
Well perhaps the judge felt Gore made no attempt to 'get this across' to
his audience, He presented the correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperatures as proof (presenting it as laughable that anyone would
question it) that CO2 was the cause of increased global temperatures.
The judge found the film to be misleading because it is.
--
bill....@ieee.org
Not exactly. The current warming is being driven by the increasing
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by all the carbon we
are burning. At the moment about 40% of the new CO2 we are emitting is
being dissolved by the oceans. As the warming continues, less of the
CO2 we are emitting will dissolve in the oceans, and enventually the
oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and start emitting it.
So we are seeing a lag - the global temperature is going up more
slowly than it would if the oceans weren't acting as a sink.
Current atmospheric CO2 levels are around 380ppm, up about 100ppm over
the last hundred years, so roughly three quarters of the CO2 in the
atmospheric is "historic" rather than human produced.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Scarcely. As Dickens famously observed, the law can be an ass. In this
particular case, the judge clearly failed to understand at least one
of the arguements involved. You want to dismiss the evidence for
global warming because you don't understand it. You may be comforted
to find that other - equally ill-educated - people share your opinion,
but this isn't persuasve evidence that you are right.
I could list a number of other popular fallacies, but since you seem
to share most of them, I doubt if this would help you.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Don Klipstein
>bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>> 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
>>> temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
>>> misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
>>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>
>>The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
>>in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
>>exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
>>the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
>>further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
>>further cooling.
>
>Not fact, theory which ice core data might support. As an engineer I have
>trouble understanding why the earth with this claimed large temperature
>positive feedback mechanism isn't hard against a rail or bouncing between
>them.
Ever hear of the Armstrong superregerative receiver? Ever see the Wiki
article on the Milankovich cycles - global temperature does a good job of
following slight changes in annual sunlight at 65 degrees north (where
a significant positive feedback mechanism is present much more than
elsewhere worldwide), and varying a lot more than the sunlight does,
especially along the 95,000 year cycle!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
> >
> > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > judge agreed it did.
> >
> > End of story.
>
> Scarcely.
This film is *** FULL *** of lies.
Look at all the caveats the government has been obliged to publish.
Thankfully, Gore may have done the 'sceptics' (read realists) a favour in the long term
by lying so much and so badly.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Winfield wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>
> > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > judge agreed it did.
>
> > > End of story.
>
> > NOT.
>
> Uh ? It's blatantly obvious the film contains *straight lies*.
You haven't made that case.
> Very correctly, the judge said that this mustn't be presented as 'education'. Here are
> the revised guidance notes for teachers ....http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20g...
>
> And here are some excerpts .............
>
> " However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord
> with mainstream scientific opinion.
"Mainstream scientific opinion" aka the IPCC reporting, is notoriously
conservative. The real worry with global warming is the risk that some
positive feebaback mechanism could take off - as it did for the end-
Permian mass extinction some 251 million years ago - and warm the
planet up enough to kill of most terrestial and shallow water life.
Things like methane release from melting permafrost are very difficult
to model, and conservative scientists are very reluctant to even try
to make any kind of prediction.
> Note: There is insufficient evidence to establish clearly that particular one-off
> weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina, are attributable to climate change.
True, but as global warming proceeds more of the ocean surface will be
warmer than roughly 28C for more of the year. Since the ocean surface
has to be warmer than about 28C to start and grow a hurricane, this
means more and bigger Hurricane Katrinas until we do something about
it.
> Accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish a clear
> attribution for the drying out of Lake Chad.
But it still seems very likely.
> Note: It is not clear which study Gore is referring to when he talks about Polar
> Bears drowning. However, a 2005 study by Monnet,Gleeson and Rotterman (see the
> Further Resources section at the end of this document) suggests that 4 polar
> bears had drowned because of a storm.
And global warming will provide the Polar Bears with more and fiercer
storms - not hurricanes, since they don't form that far north, but
conventional weaterh is heat-driven and more heat means more vigorous
weather.
> Note: The IPCC assess that it is very unlikely that the "ocean conveyor"
> (also known as the "meridional overturning circulation" or "thermohaline
> circulation") will undergo a large abrupt transition this century.
Unless one of those nasty hard-to-predict positve feedback mechanisms
takes off.
> Note: It is not clear what "Pacific nations" Gore is referring to in the
> section dealing with evacuations to New Zealand. It is not
> clear that there is any evidence of evacuations in the Pacific due to human induced
> climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati
The islands will probably not be evacuated bcause they get submerged
by high tides, but rather because they will be hit by a hurricane or a
typhoon with waves high enough to scour most of the top-soil off the
islands and contaminate what is left with salt, rendering them
uninhabitable for a number of years. These are rare events - like the
hurricane that flooded New Orleans - but catastrophic when they hit.
> Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by
> the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic
> shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take
> millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. "
Unless the ice caps slide off the underlying land, rather than melting
in situ - another hard-to-predict positive-feedback mechanism.
> So, how about a challenge to its use in education in the USA ?
More of any kind of education in USA about the world outside the USA
would be a fine thing. The word "parochial" comes to mind.
Since this suggests that the USA isn't yet entirely perfect, John
Larkin will find this upsetting, but that's hard to avoid.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
> >> temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
> >> misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
> >in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
> >exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
> >the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
> >further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
> >further cooling.
>
> Not fact, theory which ice core data might support. As an engineer I have
> trouble understanding why the earth with this claimed large temperature
> positive feedback mechanism isn't hard against a rail or bouncing between
> them.
The gain has been less than two, so it hasn't run away recently (over
the period covered by the ice core data - some half million years).
If you can get the methane hydrates hot enough to release their
methane into the atmosphere, life can get a lot more interesting (if
shorter). It doesn't happen often - the favourite example is the end-
Permian mass extinction, some 251 million years ago.
> >It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> >this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> >education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>
> Well perhaps the judge felt Gore made no attempt to 'get this across' to
> his audience, He presented the correlation between CO2 levels and global
> temperatures as proof (presenting it as laughable that anyone would
> question it) that CO2 was the cause of increased global temperatures.
It is.
> The judge found the film to be misleading because it is.
No, the judge found it misleading because he couldn't follow the
arguments, any more than you can. This doesn't necessarily make the
arguments wrong. Judges don't take kindly to the idea that there are
things that they don't understand, and the court system isn't really
set up to put non-scientifically trained legal oficers through a three
or four year tertiary science course.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>
> > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > judge agreed it did.
>
> > > End of story.
>
> > Scarcely.
>
> This film is *** FULL *** of lies.
Not exacly. It is full of statements that you don't agree with,
because you don't understand the reasoning and the data on which they
are based.
> Look at all the caveats the government has been obliged to publish.
By a judge who seems to suffer from the same problem.
> Thankfully, Gore may have done the 'sceptics' (read realists) a favour in the long term
> by lying so much and so badly.
The same sort of favour as the anti-smoking lobby does for smokers.
Unfortunately, people who continue smoking mostly damage themselves
and their secondary smoke slightly damages only their nearest and
dearest. The sceptics about global warming could put paid to the
entire planet if they stop us from doing anything useful before the
CO2 pollution gets bade enough to drive us into an end-Permian style
mass-extinction.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Winfield wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
> >
> > > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > > judge agreed it did.
> >
> > > > End of story.
> >
> > > NOT.
> >
> > Uh ? It's blatantly obvious the film contains *straight lies*.
>
> You haven't made that case.
* I* don't need to !
Have you even seen the film ? There are excerpts on youtube. It's a farce ! It's also the worst example I've ever seen of
'dumbing down'. Unable to produce any real dying polar bears, Gore made some cartoon ones instead !
Bwahahahahahahaaa !
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The judge found the film to be misleading because it is.
>
> No, the judge found it misleading because he couldn't follow the
> arguments, any more than you can.
What 'argument' is required when Gore implies that sea levels are about to rise by 7m
imminently and even the IPCC says that would take thousands of years ?
Whar 'argument' is required when Gore says the 1990s have had the hottest years on
record when it's found to be a NASA fuck-up and the hottest years on record are actually
in the 1930s ?
What about those 'displaced islanders' he talked of ? They are none.
Lies, all lies.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
> >
> > > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > > judge agreed it did.
> >
> > > > End of story.
> >
> > > Scarcely.
> >
> > This film is *** FULL *** of lies.
>
> Not exacly. It is full of statements that you don't agree with,
No, it's full of LIES. Things that are UNTRUE.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The
Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature
increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period
the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by
global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to
attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.
The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic
ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and
this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice
age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The
Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise
dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in
fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of
people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the
next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands
to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that
this appears to be a false claim.
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
Graham
James Arthur
<snip>
> > > > 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
> > > > temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
> > > > misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> > > > rises by 800-2000 years.
>
> > > The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
> > > in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
> > > exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
> > > the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
> > > further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
> > > further cooling.
>
> > > The large thermal mass and slow mixing in the oceans is what produces
> > > the lag
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>
> > Bill,
> > By this reasoning, any current warming would be from historic, not
> > current CO2 (since the same lag mechanism would apply), right?
>
> Not exactly. The current warming is being driven by the increasing
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by all the carbon we
> are burning. At the moment about 40% of the new CO2 we are emitting is
> being dissolved by the oceans. As the warming continues, less of the
> CO2 we are emitting will dissolve in the oceans, and enventually the
> oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and start emitting it.
Ah, so your interpretation (and hence your alarm) is that the other
shoe--positive feedback--has yet to fall. Gotcha.
Previously there have been many periods both warmer, and with much
higher CO2 levels. They've always ended, frequently in ice ages.
Question: How? How does the climate recover, under this theory, if
the net feedback is positive?
Cheers,
James Arthur
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Winfield wrote:
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>
> > > > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > > > judge agreed it did.
>
> > > > > End of story.
>
> > > > NOT.
>
> > > Uh ? It's blatantly obvious the film contains *straight lies*.
>
> > You haven't made that case.
>
> * I* don't need to !
Actually, you do. Since you have failed to make any kind of case, the
obvious implication is that you can't.
> Have you even seen the film ? There are excerpts on youtube. It's a farce ! It's also the worst example I've ever seen of
> 'dumbing down'. Unable to produce any real dying polar bears, Gore made some cartoon ones instead !
Obviously, the film was not dumbed down enough to make the arguments
accessible to you.
If you had the minimal intellectual equipment required to make useful
comments on the subject, you'd be able to realise that if Gore had
been able to produce images of real polar bears really dying, the
animal rights nuts would have been all over him because the camera-men
should have been rescueing the bears rather than filming them
drowning. In fact there aren't all that many polar bears, and they are
spread out all over the Arctic, so you'd need to keep an aweful lot of
cameramen busy for quite a long time to capture one real dying polar
bear.
--
Bil Sloman, Nijmegen
Nobody
> The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that
> the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind
> the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
As Bill has already pointed out (and you have chosen to overlook), the two
aren't incompatible. CO2 lagging temperature does not mean that CO2
doesn't cause temperature increases.
That's like observing an instance of thermal runaway where the initial
increase in gain was caused by something other than temperature and
concluding that a temperature increase doesn't cause gain to increase.
In the case of CO2, a temperature increase causes CO2 to be released, and
additional atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature increase. In effect, you
have an amplifier. The fact that we're here suggests that it's in
the linear region as opposed to saturation.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 from other sources will change the system's
operating point, possibly by a lot. It may even cause uncontrolled
feedback ending in saturation (runaway) beyond some point (we have no
idea exactly *what* point, and I'd rather not find out the hard way).
If you have even the slightest knowledge of positive feedback you will be
aware that such systems are almost impossible to model without accurate
knowledge of all of the parameters (which we don't have), and sometimes
even with them. Or do all of your circuits behave in reality exactly as
they do in SPICE?
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
> > > > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
> > > > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>
> > > > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
> > > > > judge agreed it did.
>
> > > > > End of story.
>
> > > > Scarcely.
>
> > > This film is *** FULL *** of lies.
>
> > Not exacly. It is full of statements that you don't agree with,
>
> No, it's full of LIES. Things that are UNTRUE.
>
> The inaccuracies are:
> The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The
> Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
Strictly speaking, this is only evidence of local waming - at Mount
Kilimanjaro. Sufficient numbers of examples of local warming do add up
to evidence of global warming, but you can always argue with any
single instance of local warming ...
> The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature
> increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period
> the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
As I've mentioned before - repeatedly - the ice core evidence is
consistent with the proposition that higher levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere do raise the global surface temperature. The argument
depends on showing that the small changes in incoming solar energy
that drive the Milankovitch cycles aren't big enough to produce the
observed changes in temperature without positive feedback from the CO2
coming out of solution in the oceans as the oceans warm up.
You can't understand this, and apparently the judge also lacked the
scientific knowledge required to follow the argument. This doesn't
mean that the argument is wrong.
> The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by
> global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to
> attribute one-off events to global warming.
There's always an alternative explanation for a single event ...
> The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.
> The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
There's always an alternative explanation for a single event ...
> The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic
> ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and
> this was because of a particularly violent storm.
Since nobody knows what study was being referred to, your claim that
Gore had misread a particular study is - in fact - a lie of the sort
that you are claiming can be found in the film.
> The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice
> age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
It isn't, though it doesn't now look as if the Gulf Stream is going to
shut down in the next hundred years or so
> The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The
> Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
They can't have looked very hard.
> The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise
> dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The evidence is that the ice cap probably won't slip off into the
ocean in the next hundred years or so, but we don't know all that much
about the state of the ice at the bottom of the ice cap, and some
investigators are more nervous than others.
> The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in
> fact increasing.
It may be getting thicker, but there is also evidence that it is
flowing down to the coast rther faster than it used to. The problem
isn't going to be the ice melting on the ice cap, but the ice sliding
off and drifting closer to the equator to melt. The film is unlikely
to have got this wrong, but you are less reliable.
> The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of
> people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the
> next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
No immediate threat. And more and bigger hurricanes could displace a
lot of people - in Bangla Desh for example - even if the sea level
doesn't rise all that much.
> The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands
> to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that
> this appears to be a false claim.
The government can't have looked very hard. Typhoons/hurricanes cause
the evacuation of low-lying atolls from time to time. Global warming
means more and fiercer hurricanes and typhoons, and eventually the
people evacuated aren't going to bother going back even after there's
been enough rain to wash the slat out of what's left of the top-soil.
> http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
I wonder how much they get from Exxon-Mobil?
I did find this paragraph about one of Stewart Dimmock's New Party
colleagues,
'Another member of the Policy Committee is Robert Durward, who serves
as the New Party's chairman. In 2001, Durward set up a group called
the Scientific Alliance, which "brings together both scientists and
non-scientists committed to rational discussion and debate on the
challenges facing the environment today." As with Exxon-funded front
groups like the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the word
"rational" or "sound" is purely rhetorical, and is designed to
immediately portray the targets of the group as irrational or unsound.
Unsurprisingly, the Alliance states on its own site that it seeks to
"Promote sound science in the environmental debate." '
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Olivine - magnesium iron silicate - weathers to magnesium iron
carbonates, losing the silicate as slica. This doesn't happen quickly,
but the process eventually soaks up the excess carbon dioxide. Methane
runaway from methane hydrates is much more drastic when it happens,
but the methane oxidises to carbon dioxide (a much less potent
greenhouse gas) in a few hundred years.
There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
wave action to keep it stirred up).
There's a huge amount of olivine available - it forms about 50% of the
earth's upper mantle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine
--
Bill Sloman,Nijmegen
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
>
> http://newparty.co.uk/news/october2007/government-works-overtime-on-g...
>
> Would that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
>
> This isn't the first time, of course, that global warming scaremongerers have
> been dismissed by a court in which evidence still counts.
>
LOL, usually judges are X-lawyers, and know as
much about science as a pig does about calculus.
Flip a coin, and get a 50-50 chance of a better
decison.
Ken
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > The judge found the film to be misleading because it is.
>
> > No, the judge found it misleading because he couldn't follow the
> > arguments, any more than you can.
>
> What 'argument' is required when Gore implies that sea levels are about to rise by 7m
> imminently and even the IPCC says that would take thousands of years ?
In geological time, something that will happen in a few thousand years
is imminent.
In fact the IPCC regularly downplays risks that arise from runaway
positive feedbacks.
The risk that the ice-caps will slide off Antartica and Greenland is
definitely in that catagory. As the the ice slides faster, the
friction between the moving ice and the fixed rock underneath
generates enough heat to melt more ice to let the ice cap slide even
faster and generate even more heat - try sticking that into your
computer and getting the same answer twice running.
> Whar 'argument' is required when Gore says the 1990s have had the hottest years on
> record when it's found to be a NASA fuck-up and the hottest years on record are actually
> in the 1930s ?
You are quoting Exon-Mobil-inspired half-truths again ...
> What about those 'displaced islanders' he talked of ? They are none.
Typhoons do force the evacuations of atolls from time to time -
sometimes the inhabitants go back after enough rain has fallen to wash
the salt out of what remains of the topsoil, but sometimes the
inhabitants decide that the game isn't worth the candle. It won't take
much of rise in sea or level or much of an increase in the frequency
and intensity of hurricanes and typhoons to bias them firmly against
going back. Search on Kiribati and Tuvalu.
I'm not surprised that you couldn't find data about this - you aren't
exactly good at finding any kind of evidence - but the government
expert should have done better.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
James Beck
dyna...@vianet.on.ca says...
Since the film IS bullshit, I doubt you could get a better decision.
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
<bill....@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
That the very same bunch of politicians and tame "experts" who cannot even
balance a budget or run the health service f.ex. should show "decisiveness"
and meddle with both climate and ecosystems!
*That* might lead to an extinction event - and with much greater certainty -
than the pissant +/- 8 degrees over a few decades that is the NORMAL
behavior for the earths climate.
PeteS
>
> http://newparty.co.uk/news/october2007/government-works-overtime-on-gore-film.html
>
> Would that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
>
> This isn’t the first time, of course, that global warming scaremongerers have
> been dismissed by a court in which evidence still counts.
>
>
Interesting, and astounding that someone (supposedly uneducated
according to certain [il]literati around here) found factual errors (you
know; lies) in a politically motivated movie. It's junk science at it's
worst.
I've challenged a number of the global warming crowd to provide real
scientific evidence and it's always lacking.
I do not rule out that we are adding to global warming; I challenge how
much.
Cheers
PeteS
Tim Williams
news:rlvlg3p5dgap8sjqn...@4ax.com...
> Not fact, theory which ice core data might support. As an engineer I have
> trouble understanding why the earth with this claimed large temperature
> positive feedback mechanism isn't hard against a rail or bouncing between
> them.
If you look at the temperature plot for the last 750 kiloyears, you'll see
evidence of a rather nice relaxation oscillator.
The scary thing is we're on the edge of another steep fall, regardless of
human activity.
Start buying stock in winter coats.
Tim
--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
bill....@ieee.org
<frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
> > current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
> > its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
> > wave action to keep it stirred up).
>
> And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
>
> That the very same bunch of politicians and tame "experts" who cannot even
> balance a budget or run the health service f.ex. should show "decisiveness"
> and meddle with both climate and ecosystems!
As opposed to the free market capitalism that is decisively meddling
with the climate and ecosystem by burning enormous amounts of carbon
and venting the carbon dioxide produced into the atmosphere. At the
moment some 40% of the new carbon dioxide is being dissolved by the
oceans, but as as the warming proceeds the oceans will stop absorbing
carbon dioxide and the dissolved carbon dioxode will start coming out
of solution
> *That* might lead to an extinction event - and with much greater certainty -
> than the pissant +/- 8 degrees over a few decades that is the NORMAL
> behavior for the earths climate.
If we don't do something about carbon dioxide emissions pretty
quickly, we'll have rather more than a pissant 0.8 degree temperature
rise to contend with. The ice core data does show that the earth's
surface temperature can and has moved significantly more within a few
years - the Younger Dryas event comes to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
but while this might be considered to be NORMAL behaviour, it would
not have been fun to live through.
We run the risk of triggering something equally "normal" - a
destabalisation of the earth's methane hydrate reservoirs - which does
seem to have lead to at least one extinction event in the remote past
(some 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian geological era).
Your proposition that human counter-measures may have a better chance
of leading to an extinction event is impressively pessimistic, but I
suppose that if you believe that the iterventionists would be as ill-
informed as you are it could look almost plausible.
The prospect of an intervention force lead by you, Eeyore and Jim
Thompson would certainly be rather terrifying - Jim Thomson is
sufficiently out-of-date to believe that we are at risk of a new ice
age (and if we hadn't burnt so much carbon recently we'd have reason
to expect one soon) .
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
>
> >http://newparty.co.uk/news/october2007/government-works-overtime-on-g...
>
> > Would that even this small gesture was matched by Australian schools.
>
> > This isn't the first time, of course, that global warming scaremongerers have
> > been dismissed by a court in which evidence still counts.
>
>
> Interesting, and astounding that someone (supposedly uneducated
> according to certain [il]literati around here) found factual errors (you
> know; lies) in a politically motivated movie. It's junk science at it's
> worst.
Thought they found factual errors ....
> I've challenged a number of the global warming crowd to provide real
> scientific evidence and it's always lacking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Chase down the papers cited in the reports - the IPCC always cites its
sources. The fact that you are making this comical claim suggests that
you wouldn't recognise the scientific evidence if someone printed it
all out and buried you in it, but it is all out there, waiting to be
read.
> I do not rule out that we are adding to global warming; I challenge how
> much.
Go and argue with the climatologists - though they will probably want
you to get a Ph.D. in climatology before they will treat you
differently fom the Exxon-Mobil funded shills.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> In article <1191939792.588929.157...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> dynam...@vianet.on.ca says...
Squeezing the results of years of hgh level scientific debate into a
90-minute film aimed at the non-specialist audience does require
vigorous over-simplification. Attacking the over-simplifications is a
lot easier than attacking the science behind the message.
Your scepticism is ill-informed, and your doubt reflects your
ignorance.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
James Beck
bill....@ieee.org says...
>
> > Well the choices were : The film is bullshit or it isn't.
> > Since the film IS bullshit, I doubt you could get a better decision.
>
> Squeezing the results of years of hgh level scientific debate into a
> 90-minute film aimed at the non-specialist audience does require
> vigorous over-simplification. Attacking the over-simplifications is a
> lot easier than attacking the science behind the message.
>
> Your scepticism is ill-informed, and your doubt reflects your
> ignorance.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
Well, time will tell.
I'm sure I'm a lot more informed than the average Joe/Jane and you and I
have gone over this road before.
Jim
James Arthur
Okay, so your answer is roughly "something soaks the CO2 up." I.e.,
the net feedback isn't positive, there's a large negative feedback
term that's delayed, but which eventually makes things right.
That understanding is belied by the graphs of ancient climate(*),
which do not show a large temperature overshoot followed by a lengthy
decay. Rather, they show limited (i.e., flat-topped) excursions in
both directions. Clearly, there is another factor, a non-linear term
operating which is not included in your understanding.
(*) e.g. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
In your conception though, once enough CO2 has been absorbed by
olivine--and after suitable delay for deep-ocean mixing--the
temperatures will begin to fall. As the temperatures fall, sun-
reflecting snow (albedo) begins to cover the land, the oceans dissolve
CO2 more readily, warming forces wane, and the process feeds on
itself.
Question: what prevents the planet from freezing solid, and how then,
with albedo maximized and oceans soaking up CO2 (i.e. minimum warming-
forcing), does the earth nonetheless recover--warm again--as it always
does?
Cheers,
James Arthur
James Arthur
<frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
> > current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
> > its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
> > wave action to keep it stirred up).
>
> And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
>
> That the very same bunch of politicians and tame "experts" who cannot even
> balance a budget or run the health service f.ex. should show "decisiveness"
> and meddle with both climate and ecosystems!
>
> *That* might lead to an extinction event - and with much greater certainty -
> than the pissant +/- 8 degrees over a few decades that is the NORMAL
> behavior for the earths climate.
Right Frithiof, that would be a great way to ensure CO2 levels would
precipitously fall, then continue to fall for millennia. It would
turn Earth into an icebox. Plus we've got the horrific environmental
impact of mining, crushing, and transporting all that rock.
And, last but not least, spreading crushed rock on the world's beaches
would ruin bikini seasons the world over. Not a pretty sight.
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
John
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> If we don't do something about carbon dioxide emissions pretty quickly,
> we'll have rather more than a pissant 0.8 degree temperature rise to
> contend with. The ice core data does show that the earth's surface
> temperature can and has moved significantly more within a few years -
> the Younger Dryas event comes to mind
Hey, Bill! I've got an idea! Prove that your crystal ball is accurate
by revealing this week's lotto numbers.
Then you'd have some credibility.
Cheers!
Rich
James Arthur
>
> >In your conception though, once enough CO2 has been absorbed by
> >olivine--and after suitable delay for deep-ocean mixing--the
> >temperatures will begin to fall. As the temperatures fall, sun-
> >reflecting snow (albedo) begins to cover the land, the oceans dissolve
> >CO2 more readily, warming forces wane, and the process feeds on
> >itself.
>
> >Question: what prevents the planet from freezing solid, and how then,
> >with albedo maximized and oceans soaking up CO2 (i.e. minimum warming-
> >forcing), does the earth nonetheless recover--warm again--as it always
> >does?
>
> Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
>
> John
Very nice John, you get a gold star, but let's not just shout out our
answers without giving the other kids a chance. Raise your hand and
the teacher will call on you when it's your turn. ;)
James
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
I "said" 8.0, eight-dot-zero!
> The ice core data does show that the earth's
> surface temperature can and has moved significantly more within a few
> years - the Younger Dryas event comes to mind
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
>
> but while this might be considered to be NORMAL behaviour, it would
> not have been fun to live through.
You either adapt to prevailing conditions or you die.
> We run the risk of triggering something equally "normal" - a
> destabalisation of the earth's methane hydrate reservoirs - which does
> seem to have lead to at least one extinction event in the remote past
> (some 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian geological era).
> Your proposition that human counter-measures may have a better chance
> of leading to an extinction event is impressively pessimistic,
Past performance. Cane Toad - 'nuff said!
> but I
> suppose that if you believe that the iterventionists would be as ill-
> informed as you are it could look almost plausible.
I take them to be amongst the most ill informed, because they actually think
they understand enough to tinker rather than leaving well alone. Giving
powerful tools to people that do not have the knowledge to use them and you
get bitten on the arse as just punishment for your stupidity in the first
place: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/en/
>
> The prospect of an intervention force lead by you, Eeyore and Jim
> Thompson would certainly be rather terrifying - Jim Thomson is
> sufficiently out-of-date to believe that we are at risk of a new ice
> age (and if we hadn't burnt so much carbon recently we'd have reason
> to expect one soon) .
Well, that's progress. However, you should be more afraid of the lower end
of the bell curve. The ones that do not know when they don't know!!
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
Spehro Pefhany
<dagmarg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 7:33 am, John Larkin
>>
>> Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
>>
>> John
>
>Very nice John, you get a gold star, but let's not just shout out our
>answers without giving the other kids a chance. Raise your hand and
>the teacher will call on you when it's your turn. ;)
>
>James
Let's hope the earth is better designed than an LM324. ;-)
It would be shame if it seemed to be working, then suddenly latched up
at the positive rail.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
James Arthur
<frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191968383.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > The prospect of an intervention force lead by you, Eeyore and Jim
> > Thompson would certainly be rather terrifying - Jim Thomson is
> > sufficiently out-of-date to believe that we are at risk of a new ice
> > age (and if we hadn't burnt so much carbon recently we'd have reason
> > to expect one soon) .
>
> Well, that's progress. However, you should be more afraid of the lower end
> of the bell curve. The ones that do not know when they don't know!!
That group is NOT necessarily restricted to the low end of the bell
curve.
James Arthur
James Arthur
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:26:35 -0700, James Arthur wrote:
> >On Oct 10, 7:33 am, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
>
> >> John
>
> >Very nice John, you get a gold star
<snip>
> Let's hope the earth is better designed than an LM324. ;-)
>
> It would be shame if it seemed to be working, then suddenly latched up
> at the positive rail.
It certainly would be a shame. Even though dinosaurs and plants seem
to have loved it, I find hot and humid stifling.
Of course it'll be great for Canadians. You'll get crops and a huge
northern migration of scantily-clad women, explaining the evil
corporate conspiracy behind those carbon-boosting oil sales to the
USA.
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
San Francisco, too. Around here, you hear stuff like "wow, who is that
babe in the green parka?"
It's warm today, now 61F, with a predicted high of 66. But it won't
get that hot at the beach.
John
John Larkin
Yeah, let's just round up the predicted sea-level rise to the nearest
20 feet, so the rubes can understand it.
John
James Beck
jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...
destiny.
From
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
A 20-foot sea level rise is what we expect if all of Greenland or all of
the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt. Such a 20-foot rise is not
expected by 2100, and it would have been appropriate for Gore to
acknowledge that the consensus of climate scientists--as published in
the most recent report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)--is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 and
35 inches, with a central value of 19 inches, by 2100. He should have
also mentioned that temperatures in Greenland in the 1930s were about as
warm as today's temperatures, so the current melting of Greenland's
glaciers does have historical precedent. Nevertheless, the risk of a
catastrophic melting and break-up of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice
sheets is very real, when we consider that sea level before the most
recent ice age was 15 feet higher than it is now. Gore is right to draw
attention to what might happen if sea level rose 20 feet.
Hurricanes and severe weather
The biggest failure in the movie's presentation of science comes in the
discussion hurricanes and severe weather events. The devastation wrought
by Katrina is used to very dramatic effect to warn of the dangers
climate change presents. We are told that Katrina grew "stronger and
stronger and stronger" as it passed over the warm waters of the Gulf of
Mexico that were heated up by global warming. We are told that global
warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, but not provided
information on the great amount of uncertainty and vigorous scientific
debate on this issue. Graphs showing recent record insurance losses from
natural disasters are presented, but no mention is made of how
increasing population and insistence on building in vulnerable areas are
the predominant factors causing recent high insurance claims from
disasters such as Katrina. Gore points to some unprecedented events in
2004 as evidence of increasing severe weather events worldwide--the
record 10 typhoons in Japan, the most tornadoes ever in the U.S., and
the appearance of Brazil's first hurricane ever. However, examples of
this kind are meaningless. No single weather event, or unconnected
series of severe weather events such as Gore presents, are indicative of
climate change. In particular, the IPCC has not found any evidence that
climate change has increased tornado frequency, or is likely to. Gore
doesn't mention the unusually quiet tornado season of 2005, when for the
first time ever, no tornadoes were reported in Oklahoma in the month of
May.
I guess I am just ignorant, like Bill says.
John Larkin
oh. sorrrreee.
john
John Larkin
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:26:35 -0700, James Arthur
><dagmarg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 10, 7:33 am, John Larkin
>
>>>
>>> Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>Very nice John, you get a gold star, but let's not just shout out our
>>answers without giving the other kids a chance. Raise your hand and
>>the teacher will call on you when it's your turn. ;)
>>
>>James
>
>Let's hope the earth is better designed than an LM324. ;-)
>
>It would be shame if it seemed to be working, then suddenly latched up
>at the positive rail.
>
Or an LM709! It would latch up as a follower, nowhere near the rails.
The input NPN diff pair would zener.
We're having an interesting problem with a THS3062, on a little test
board. It's a simple inverter, gain about -3, with +-12 rails. It
swings nicely +-10 volts at low frequencies, pretty good THD and such,
but somewhere around 15 MHz the supply currents jump up to 300 mA or
so, it gets really hot (blister on me finger still!) and the output
amplitude snaps down to a few volts p-p... and the output phase
reverses!
So far, TI is silent on the issue.
It may not happen in non-inverting mode... we'll try that soon.
Anybody see anything like this? It's a current-mode opamp.
John
James Arthur
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:26:35 -0700, James Arthur wrote:
> >On Oct 10, 7:33 am, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:08:23 -0700, James Arthur wrote:
> >> >Question: what prevents the planet from freezing solid, and how then,
> >> >with albedo maximized and oceans soaking up CO2 (i.e. minimum warming-
> >> >forcing), does the earth nonetheless recover--warm again--as it always
> >> >does?
>
> >> Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
>
> >> John
>
> >Very nice John, you get a gold star, but let's not just shout out our
> >answers without giving the other kids a chance. Raise your hand and
> >the teacher will call on you when it's your turn. ;)
>
> >James
>
> oh. sorrrreee.
>
> john
I nearly choked on my sandwich with your earlier "babe in the green
parka" crack, and I might've just now bruised a rib. Stop this
madness now, before someone (else) gets hurt. Please.
(ROTFLMAO!)
James Arthur
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Only with the gullible - conjurors do this kind of trick every day,
but never seem to go home with the jackpot.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
<frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191968383.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
And if you manage to set up the wrong conditions, you've got a mass
extinction event, and almost everything dies.
> > We run the risk of triggering something equally "normal" - a
> > destabalisation of the earth's methane hydrate reservoirs - which does
> > seem to have lead to at least one extinction event in the remote past
> > (some 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian geological era).
> > Your proposition that human counter-measures may have a better chance
> > of leading to an extinction event is impressively pessimistic,
>
> Past performance. Cane Toad - 'nuff said!
The cane toad was one guy's not-all-that-bright idea. The massed
climatologists of the world do seem to have a better grasp of their
subject.
> > but I suppose that if you believe that the interventionists would be as ill-informed as you are it could look almost plausible.
>
> I take them to be amongst the most ill-informed, because they actually think
> they understand enough to tinker rather than leaving well alone.
There are times when leaving well alone isn't at all clever. The
potential down-side of runaway global warming is a mass extinction
event, which does have the advantage of resetting the biosphere. One
wonders if the next tool-using species to evolve - it would take at
least ten million years - would find any evidence that we'd been
responsible for the mass extinction that gave them their chance.
If a tool-using dinosaur had gotten as far as mining the asteroids,
could we expect to find any evidence of it after 65 millions years?
>Giving
> powerful tools to people that do not have the knowledge to use them and you
> get bitten on the arse as just punishment for your stupidity in the first
> place:http://www.who.int/drugresistance/en/
Exxon-Mobil's shareholders should probably be thinking exactly that
right now.
> > The prospect of an intervention force lead by you, Eeyore and Jim
> > Thompson would certainly be rather terrifying - Jim Thomson is
> > sufficiently out-of-date to believe that we are at risk of a new ice
> > age (and if we hadn't burnt so much carbon recently we'd have reason
> > to expect one soon) .
>
> Well, that's progress. However, you should be more afraid of the lower end
> of the bell curve. The ones that do not know when they don't know!!
Jim does claim to have qualified to join Mensa, which puts him at the
top end of the bell curve for basic intelligence.
He doesn't look that good outside his specialist area, and does tend
to produce comical opinions which are perfectly logical consequences
of the (incomplete) information that he has been exposed to. Your
scepticism about global warming fits the same pattern.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Oct 9, 8:25 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
>
>
>
>
>
> <frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
> > > current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
> > > its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
> > > wave action to keep it stirred up).
>
> > And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
>
> > That the very same bunch of politicians and tame "experts" who cannot even
> > balance a budget or run the health service f.ex. should show "decisiveness"
> > and meddle with both climate and ecosystems!
>
> > *That* might lead to an extinction event - and with much greater certainty -
> > than the pissant +/- 8 degrees over a few decades that is the NORMAL
> > behavior for the earths climate.
>
> Right Frithiof, that would be a great way to ensure CO2 levels would
> precipitously fall, then continue to fall for millennia.
Precipitous? Continue to fall for millenia? You'd want to crush the
rock down to sand size or finer, to maximise the surface area for of
every ton you dug, shipped,crushed and spread so that the CO2 would
get right through each grain in a couple of years. That way, you stop
crushing as soon as you've got the CO2 level you wanted, and wouldn't
have any hangover to worry about.
>It would turn Earth into an icebox.
Only if the job was done by idiots ...
> Plus we've got the horrific environmental
> impact of mining, crushing, and transporting all that rock.
>
> And, last but not least, spreading crushed rock on the world's beaches
> would ruin bikini seasons the world over. Not a pretty sight.
You'd want to crush down to sand-grain size, or smaller. You'd get
greenish sand, but some resorts seem to have that naturally, and
nobody seems to complain.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
>
> In your conception though, once enough CO2 has been absorbed by
> olivine--and after suitable delay for deep-ocean mixing--the
> temperatures will begin to fall. As the temperatures fall, sun-
> reflecting snow (albedo) begins to cover the land, the oceans dissolve
> CO2 more readily, warming forces wane, and the process feeds on
> itself.
It isn't my conception - if you do enough googling you will get a much
more complete story. Note that high surface temperatures go with high
rainfail and relatively rapid weathering of the exposed olivine, so
that the CO2 absorption slows down as the surface temperature
decreases, long before you start getting ice caps.
> Question: what prevents the planet from freezing solid, and how then,
> with albedo maximized and oceans soaking up CO2 (i.e. minimum warming-
> forcing), does the earth nonetheless recover--warm again--as it always
> does?
There is a theory that says the earth did freeze solid sometime back
in the Pre-Cambrian (ice-ball earth).
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s98442.htm
The recovery mechanism was claimed to be plate tectonics - once the
olivine had ben converted to carbonates at the surface, these
eventually got sucked down into the mantle where they get hot enough
to decompose, so the carbon dioxide eventually came back to the
surface in volcanic eruptions (as it is still doing at the moment,
albeit on a much smaller scale).
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> In article <s88qg353sh72al63r1lpsrh96i53sqv...@4ax.com>,
> jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...> > >In article <1191969574.313925.92...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >bill.slo...@ieee.org says...
>
> > >> > Well the choices were : The film is bullshit or it isn't.
> > >> > Since the film IS bullshit, I doubt you could get a better decision.
>
> > >> Squeezing the results of years of hgh level scientific debate into a
> > >> 90-minute film aimed at the non-specialist audience does require
> > >> vigorous over-simplification. Attacking the over-simplifications is a
> > >> lot easier than attacking the science behind the message.
>
> > >> Your scepticism is ill-informed, and your doubt reflects your
> > >> ignorance.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> > >Well, time will tell.
>
> > >I'm sure I'm a lot more informed than the average Joe/Jane and you and I
> > >have gone over this road before.
>
> > Yeah, let's just round up the predicted sea-level rise to the nearest
> > 20 feet, so the rubes can understand it.
>
> > John
>
> Yep, scare the folks so they can put others in charge of their money and
> destiny.
>
If you can't tell the ifference between hurricanes, which build up
over warm water, and die away as soon as they cross the coast, and
tornados, which are much smaller and shorter-lived vortices that grow
out of thunderstorms over both land and sea, you've got to be pretty
ignorant.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Well, if you spend your life designing electronics, it makes you
goofy. I wonder if that qualifies me for disability.
John
Rich Grise
> We're having an interesting problem with a THS3062, on a little test
> board. It's a simple inverter, gain about -3, with +-12 rails. It swings
> nicely +-10 volts at low frequencies, pretty good THD and such, but
> somewhere around 15 MHz the supply currents jump up to 300 mA or so, it
> gets really hot (blister on me finger still!) and the output amplitude
> snaps down to a few volts p-p... and the output phase reverses!
>
> So far, TI is silent on the issue.
>
> It may not happen in non-inverting mode... we'll try that soon.
>
> Anybody see anything like this? It's a current-mode opamp.
I haven't seen anything like that, but I am a tech, after all - when
you crank the freq. back down below 15 MHz, do the symptoms go away?
I'm taking a WAG here, but could your input be outrunning the slew
rate, setting up some strange internal feedback loop?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:02:44 -0700, James Arthur
>>I nearly choked on my sandwich with your earlier "babe in the green
>>parka" crack, and I might've just now bruised a rib. Stop this madness
>>now, before someone (else) gets hurt. Please.
>>
>>(ROTFLMAO!)
>>
>>James Arthur
>
> Well, if you spend your life designing electronics, it makes you goofy. I
> wonder if that qualifies me for disability.
>
Since you own the company, isn't that your call? ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
Well, they _are_ both vortices caused by updrafts.
Cheers!
Rich
James Beck
ri...@example.net says...
that was the best response that he could come up with about the
information.
Jim
James Arthur
> On Oct 11, 1:17 am, James Arthur wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 8:25 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" wrote:
> > > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
> > > > current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
> > > > its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
> > > > wave action to keep it stirred up).
>
> > > And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
>
> > > That the very same bunch of politicians and tame "experts" who cannot even
> > > balance a budget or run the health service f.ex. should show "decisiveness"
> > > and meddle with both climate and ecosystems!
>
> > > *That* might lead to an extinction event - and with much greater certainty -
> > > than the pissant +/- 8 degrees over a few decades that is the NORMAL
> > > behavior for the earths climate.
>
> > Right Frithiof, that would be a great way to ensure CO2 levels would
> > precipitously fall, then continue to fall for millennia.
>
> Precipitous? Continue to fall for millenia? You'd want to crush the
> rock down to sand size or finer, to maximise the surface area for of
> every ton you dug, shipped,crushed and spread so that the CO2 would
> get right through each grain in a couple of years. That way, you stop
> crushing as soon as you've got the CO2 level you wanted, and wouldn't
> have any hangover to worry about.
Yeah yeah, of course you could crush a smaller amount to powder, yada
yada yada. I didn't think it worth correcting when it came to me the
moment I clicked "send."
Of course your *goal* is a precipitous decline in CO2. As you've
solemnly lectured several times, a millenium is an instant in geologic
time, yet you'd adjust CO2 in a decade or so.
>
> >It would turn Earth into an icebox.
>
> Only if the job was done by idiots ...
And who else is going to do it?
> > Plus we've got the horrific environmental
> > impact of mining, crushing, and transporting all that rock.
>
> > And, last but not least, spreading crushed rock on the world's beaches
> > would ruin bikini seasons the world over. Not a pretty sight.
>
> You'd want to crush down to sand-grain size, or smaller. You'd get
> greenish sand, but some resorts seem to have that naturally, and
> nobody seems to complain.
You're callously contemplating completely remodelling entire
ecosystems. That's really a bad idea, but of course the same could be
accomplished in numerous other, more benign ways (if we ever wanted
to). That's yet another reason not to panic.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
>> > but while this might be considered to be NORMAL behaviour, it would
>> > not have been fun to live through.
>>
>> You either adapt to prevailing conditions or you die.
>
> And if you manage to set up the wrong conditions, you've got a mass
> extinction event, and almost everything dies.
Precisely! As in: Some wiseass goes out getting rich by binding CO2 in the
ocean, an algae perpetually tweaking it's genome to compete with all the
other guys eventually (that is a couple of years) discovers how to crack all
this carbon floating around, turns the ocean into green muck, dies, sink to
the bottom and rot emitting hydrogen sulfide which poisons more critters
creating more hydrogen sulfide e.t.c.
>> > We run the risk of triggering something equally "normal" - a
>> > destabalisation of the earth's methane hydrate reservoirs - which does
>> > seem to have lead to at least one extinction event in the remote past
>> > (some 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian geological era).
>> > Your proposition that human counter-measures may have a better chance
>> > of leading to an extinction event is impressively pessimistic,
>>
>> Past performance. Cane Toad - 'nuff said!
>
> The cane toad was one guy's not-all-that-bright idea. The massed
> climatologists of the world do seem to have a better grasp of their
> subject.
"Seem", yes. Pah! Nobody properly understands networked systems with
emergent properties. The modellers manage to blow up time and time again in
other areas such as "Structured Finance". But that is just money. Nothing of
consequence. Exactly the same crowd behaviour can readily be observed in the
"Crusade to End CO2".
CO2 is not "The problem" - Consumption is.
>> I take them to be amongst the most ill-informed, because they actually
>> think
>> they understand enough to tinker rather than leaving well alone.
>
> There are times when leaving well alone isn't at all clever. The
> potential down-side of runaway global warming is a mass extinction
> event, which does have the advantage of resetting the biosphere.
"Runaway" would be at least a LARGER temperature excursion than has
regularily occured before - we are nowhere near that.
> One
> wonders if the next tool-using species to evolve - it would take at
> least ten million years - would find any evidence that we'd been
> responsible for the mass extinction that gave them their chance.
>
> If a tool-using dinosaur had gotten as far as mining the asteroids,
> could we expect to find any evidence of it after 65 millions years?
Yes. Space research is probably being drained for funds to support the "War
on Climate Change" - complete with Action Geek (made in China) and some
cartoon to peddle it ;-).
>>Giving
>> powerful tools to people that do not have the knowledge to use them and
>> you
>> get bitten on the arse as just punishment for your stupidity in the first
>> place:http://www.who.int/drugresistance/en/
>
> Exxon-Mobil's shareholders should probably be thinking exactly that
> right now.
>
>> > The prospect of an intervention force lead by you, Eeyore and Jim
>> > Thompson would certainly be rather terrifying - Jim Thomson is
>> > sufficiently out-of-date to believe that we are at risk of a new ice
>> > age (and if we hadn't burnt so much carbon recently we'd have reason
>> > to expect one soon) .
>>
>> Well, that's progress. However, you should be more afraid of the lower
>> end
>> of the bell curve. The ones that do not know when they don't know!!
>
> Jim does claim to have qualified to join Mensa, which puts him at the
> top end of the bell curve for basic intelligence.
>
> He doesn't look that good outside his specialist area, and does tend
> to produce comical opinions which are perfectly logical consequences
> of the (incomplete) information that he has been exposed to. Your
> scepticism about global warming fits the same pattern.
Your trust in human ingeniutiy and honesty is touching.
It is clear to me that the whole CO2 charade is just yet another consumer
product being mass marketed for the sheep. Something you must work harder
for The Man to buy, but in reality it have no value (or it would not be
offered to the likes of you & me).
CO2 is *not* really The Problem. Depletion of -ressources, -raw
materials, -environmental value and -biodiversity IS.
But if you want to combat all of that, we all need to lower consumption in
general. But if we lower consumption then we will devastate the middle
classes in the US: The sink rate of the USD indicate that asset prices must
inflate by at least 25% or the US ecomony goes "PoP". So "we" cannot do
that because once the middle class goes bust violence and revolution comes.
So, the best scenario effect of the CO2 "reduction" is that basically
everything and everone will carry on as before but with a cleaner conscience
because they pay to reduce CO2 - at the cost of some rain forest and some
urangutang monkeys - like the old Shell commercial: Put a Tiger in your
tank - now with Monkeys*! And eventually oil runs out anyway in 2030 or so -
together with food (more calories are spent making the food than gained by
eating it).
The worst case is that someone decides "to do something" - like these
people: Anything to make a buck
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070814-23455700-bc-indonesia-orangutans.xml
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
"James Beck" <j...@reallykillersystems.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> I guess I am just ignorant, like Bill says.
>
Yes - at least within Marketing:
Al Gore & Co knows that the novelty value - and therefore public interest -
will peak after about 6 years so he has to beat the drum so much harder to
get the message through to maximise both the political effect and the
returns from his "CO2 neutral" private equity fund.
If the political system can be moved to set up some "regulatory system" he
is set for life-long wellfare checks.
Eeyore
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
> "James Beck" <j...@reallykillersystems.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>
> > I guess I am just ignorant, like Bill says.
>
> Yes - at least within Marketing:
>
> Al Gore & Co knows that the novelty value - and therefore public interest -
> will peak after about 6 years so he has to beat the drum so much harder to
> get the message through to maximise both the political effect and the
> returns from his "CO2 neutral" private equity fund.
Yes, the public will eventually get 'clued up' and realise he's talking rubbish.
I do hope this happens sooner rather than later. THERE IS HOPE !
" A controversial documentary on climate change which has been sent to thousands
of schools has been criticised by a High Court judge for being 'alarmist' and
'exaggerated'.
Mr Justice Burton said former US vice-president Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient
Truth, was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a
warning.
Despite winning lavish praise from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the
film industry, Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific
errors' by the judge. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486969&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
Graham
Malcolm Moore
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, the public will eventually get 'clued up' and realise he's talking rubbish.
The judge doesn't quite agree with you there. From your link below;
"Agreeing that Mr Gore's film was 'broadly accurate' on the subject of
climate change, he found that errors had arisen in 'the context of
alarmism and exaggeration'."
snip
--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
John Larkin
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:25:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> We're having an interesting problem with a THS3062, on a little test
>> board. It's a simple inverter, gain about -3, with +-12 rails. It swings
>> nicely +-10 volts at low frequencies, pretty good THD and such, but
>> somewhere around 15 MHz the supply currents jump up to 300 mA or so, it
>> gets really hot (blister on me finger still!) and the output amplitude
>> snaps down to a few volts p-p... and the output phase reverses!
>>
>> So far, TI is silent on the issue.
>>
>> It may not happen in non-inverting mode... we'll try that soon.
>>
>> Anybody see anything like this? It's a current-mode opamp.
>
>I haven't seen anything like that, but I am a tech, after all - when
>you crank the freq. back down below 15 MHz, do the symptoms go away?
Yes, either cutting the frequency or amplitude *way* back fixes it.
The opamp, not the blister.
John
Eeyore
Malcolm Moore wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >Yes, the public will eventually get 'clued up' and realise he's talking rubbish.
>
> The judge doesn't quite agree with you there. From your link below;
>
> "Agreeing that Mr Gore's film was 'broadly accurate' on the subject of
> climate change, he found that errors had arisen in 'the context of
> alarmism and exaggeration'."
I don't have a problem with accepting that the climate IS changing at this time. I do have a problem with accepting
absurd and unscientific 'green' ideas about the cause.
I'm perplexed that the judge could find the film 'broadly accurate' when so many of its supporting tenets were found
to be flawed however.
I only wish another case could be brought to utterly refute the now entirely discredited 'hockey stick'used in
Gore's stupid film AND the temperature claims which NASA has now been forced to withdraw.
The hottest year in the USA was not 1998 but 1934 ! Indeed the 1930s were very warm overall and no-one suggested
that CO2 had anything to do with it.
Climate is a naturally variable thing. For humans to attempt to affect it in the belief that we can have a
significant impact has to be the most absurd conceit.
Graham
Malcolm Moore
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Malcolm Moore wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, the public will eventually get 'clued up' and realise he's talking rubbish.
>>
>> The judge doesn't quite agree with you there. From your link below;
>>
>> "Agreeing that Mr Gore's film was 'broadly accurate' on the subject of
>> climate change, he found that errors had arisen in 'the context of
>> alarmism and exaggeration'."
>
>I don't have a problem with accepting that the climate IS changing at this time. I do have a problem with accepting
>absurd and unscientific 'green' ideas about the cause.
>
>I'm perplexed that the judge could find the film 'broadly accurate' when so many of its supporting tenets were found
>to be flawed however.
So you're unsure whether he's a bright guy because he came to some
conclusions you agree with, or whether he's an idiot because you find
some of his judgement perplexing.
>I only wish another case could be brought to utterly refute the now entirely discredited 'hockey stick'used in
>Gore's stupid film AND the temperature claims which NASA has now been forced to withdraw.
>
>The hottest year in the USA was not 1998 but 1934 !
Hotter by .02degC! That's well down in the noise.
>Indeed the 1930s were very warm overall and no-one suggested
>that CO2 had anything to do with it.
You mentioned "the 1930s were very warm overall", but the five year
mean for 1998-2002 is actually 0.16deg warmer than 1930-1934.
>Climate is a naturally variable thing. For humans to attempt to affect it in the belief that we can have a
>significant impact has to be the most absurd conceit.
Do you also think it is an absurd conceit to believe that humans can
have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels?
Eeyore
Malcolm Moore wrote:
Not the same thing.
Do you normally compare apples with oranges ?
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
> On Oct 11, 6:48 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 1:17 am, James Arthur wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 8:25 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" wrote:
> > > > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191938875.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > There's a Dutch professor who suggests that we should try to stop the
> > > > > current global warming by grinding up a lot of olivine - to increase
> > > > > its surface area - and spread it on beaches around the world (to allow
> > > > > wave action to keep it stirred up).
>
> > > > And that is REALLY scary: the technical fix!!
> You're callously contemplating completely remodelling entire
> ecosystems. That's really a bad idea, but of course the same could be
> accomplished in numerous other, more benign ways (if we ever wanted
> to). That's yet another reason not to panic.
Well, if we don't do anything to hold down the currently rapidly
rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we are going to be callously
rmodelling our entire ecosystem anyway. The remodelling involved in
that strikes me as rather more drastic than spreading layers of green
sand on what used to be white beaches and brown mudflats.
We'd have to spread a great deal of green sand just to stabilise the
atmospheric CO2 levels, and I doubt that the effort would be
maintained for any longer than was required to do that.
Why don't you try and find an ecologist somewhere who can compare the
effect of adding more sand to a coastal environment with the effect of
heating it up by a few degress centigrade?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Unfortunately, the comparison is oranges and oranges. You obviously
don't understand that the rising atmospheric CO2 levels are affecting
the climate - not by all that much at the moment, though the warming
is statistically significant and has been for a few years now - but
unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it isn't happening, nor that we
shouldn't be working to prevent it getting worse, because there are
mechanisms that could cause the temperature rise to run away.
In a sense, it's evolution in action. Are we - collectively - too
stupid to survive?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Malcolm Moore
It's not apples and oranges. It's asking you whether you think humans
can have an effect on the environment on a global scale. Do you think
CO2 levels have been affected by human activity?
John Devereux
Please take this electronics stuff elsewhere - it is off-topic for
this newsgroup.
--
John Devereux
bill....@ieee.org
<frithiof.jen...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1192113501.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > but while this might be considered to be NORMAL behaviour, it would
> >> > not have been fun to live through.
>
> >> You either adapt to prevailing conditions or you die.
>
> > And if you manage to set up the wrong conditions, you've got a mass
> > extinction event, and almost everything dies.
>
> Precisely! As in: Some wiseass goes out getting rich by binding CO2 in the
> ocean, an algae perpetually tweaking it's genome to compete with all the
> other guys eventually (that is a couple of years) discovers how to crack all
> this carbon floating around, turns the ocean into green muck, dies, sink to
> the bottom and rot emitting hydrogen sulfide which poisons more critters
> creating more hydrogen sulfide e.t.c.
So you too can write bad science fiction. Don't bother trying to sell
it. Even science fiction editors can spot a logical flaw, and the
proposition that some wiseass is going to invent a organism that is
better at binding CO2 in the ocean than the bugs that have been
competing with one another to do that job for the last 500 million
years represents a rather obvious flaw. And you may have some fun
working out where your hydrogen sulphide comes from - the hydrogen
isn't a problem, but there isn't all that much sulphur around.
> >> > We run the risk of triggering something equally "normal" - a
> >> > destabalisation of the earth's methane hydrate reservoirs - which does
> >> > seem to have lead to at least one extinction event in the remote past
> >> > (some 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian geological era).
> >> > Your proposition that human counter-measures may have a better chance
> >> > of leading to an extinction event is impressively pessimistic,
>
> >> Past performance. Cane Toad - 'nuff said!
>
> > The cane toad was one guy's not-all-that-bright idea. The massed
> > climatologists of the world do seem to have a better grasp of their
> > subject.
>
> "Seem", yes. Pah! Nobody properly understands networked systems with
> emergent properties. The modellers manage to blow up time and time again in
> other areas such as "Structured Finance". But that is just money. Nothing of
> consequence. Exactly the same crowd behaviour can readily be observed in the
> "Crusade to End CO2".
>
> CO2 is not "The problem" - Consumption is.
>
> >> I take them to be amongst the most ill-informed, because they actually
> >> think
> >> they understand enough to tinker rather than leaving well alone.
>
> > There are times when leaving well alone isn't at all clever. The
> > potential down-side of runaway global warming is a mass extinction
> > event, which does have the advantage of resetting the biosphere.
>
> "Runaway" would be at least a LARGER temperature excursion than has
> regularily occured before - we are nowhere near that.
Yet.
Not another conspiracy theory ....
> CO2 is *not* really The Problem. Depletion of -ressources, -raw
> materials, -environmental value and -biodiversity IS.
Pity about that. CO2 is obviously not the only problem, but if we
don't get it under control, we won't have to worry about biodiversity
because mass extinction events do tend to simplify the biota.
> But if you want to combat all of that, we all need to lower consumption in
> general.
As far as I can see, we don't have to lower consumption in general, we
just have reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we release to the
atmosphere while we consume. Some comsumables wil probably have to
take a temporary hit - liquid hydrogen fueled aircraft are probably
going to take a couple of decades of development, and may lose out to
even weirder alternatives -like magnetically levitated trains running
through evacuated tunnels or pipes - but we should be able to rganise
a fairly smooth transition if we start early enough.
> But if we lower consumption then we will devastate the middle
> classes in the US: The sink rate of the USD indicate that asset prices must
> inflate by at least 25% or the US ecomony goes "PoP". So "we" cannot do
> that because once the middle class goes bust violence and revolution comes.
The US middle class has not been doing all that well in recent years -
the upper class has been creaming off progressively more of the
goodies since Reagan was elected, and there's no suggestion that the
trend is going to reverse any time soon. Violence and revolution would
probably substantially reduce US carbon emissions - they import some
55% of the oil they burn, and they'd have trouble moving the rest fom
where they pump it up to where they burn it.
> So, the best scenario effect of the CO2 "reduction" is that basically
> everything and everone will carry on as before but with a cleaner conscience
> because they pay to reduce CO2 - at the cost of some rain forest and some
> urangutang monkeys - like the old Shell commercial: Put a Tiger in your
> tank - now with Monkeys*! And eventually oil runs out anyway in 2030 or so -
> together with food (more calories are spent making the food than gained by
> eating it).
Oil doesn't run out all at once - the price is already high enough to
make it worth extracting oil from the Athabasca oil sands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands
and there are other reservoirs that will become economically
attractive as the price goes up.
And if you feed less cereals to pigs and cattle, you've got a lot more
cereals available to feed humans.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Do you want to hear more about my blister? I could post pics to
a.b.s.e.
John
Spehro Pefhany
Any pus?
Seriously, that's an "interesting" defect. OTOH, I just threw together
(dead bug on ground plane method) a PD amplfier for some testing with
a 1.6GHz voltage mode op-amp and it just worked. Nice when that
happens.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
John Larkin
What photodiode are you using?
John
Spehro Pefhany
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Panasonic PNZ300x with 10V bias.
John Larkin
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
You might try a little more voltage and see what happens. Although
capacitance won't change much more, I think they keep getting faster
as the higher field sweeps carriers out if the I region faster.
John
Spehro Pefhany
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Good idea, thanks. I don't really need the speed right now, but if I
get a chance I'll check it out. Might be an excuse to check optical
rise/fall times on visible LEDs, if I ever get some free time. What
circuit would you use to drive the LED current fast? Do those nifty
little MOSFET drivers go a lot faster if they don't have much
capacitove load?
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
> And if you feed less cereals to pigs and cattle, you've got a lot more
> cereals available to feed humans.
And when you instead feed it to "bio"-ethanol factories (built with lavish
tax-payer subsidies) you have much less foodstuff available for humans - as
the surge in prices for basic food and depleting grain reserves is clearly
demostrating AND you are down on fossil energy to process the "bio"-ethanol
.... exactly the mindless grabbing of goberment money and waste of energy
ressources that the present infatuation with CO2 "management" will bring!
Rich Grise
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:48:16 +0100, John Devereux
That sort of thing might be why some peopld recommend checking temp.
with the back of the finger - that way, the blister doesn't render the
finger completely useless.
Good Luck!
Rich
Rich Grise
> I only wish another case could be brought to utterly refute the now
> entirely discredited 'hockey stick'used in Gore's stupid film AND the
> temperature claims which NASA has now been forced to withdraw.
You're not allowed to do this, because it's heresy.
We need more heretics, is all.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> Do you also think it is an absurd conceit to believe that humans can
> have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels?
Yes, absolutely. Absurd conceit and supreme arrogance.
Throw in a bunch of angst, and people swallow it hook, line, and
sinker.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Oct 12, 5:02 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Malcolm Moore wrote:
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> > >Climate is a naturally variable thing. For humans to attempt to
>> > >affect it in the belief that we can have a significant impact has to
>> > >be the most absurd conceit.
>>
>> > Do you also think it is an absurd conceit to believe that humans can
>> > have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels?
>>
>> Not the same thing.
>>
>> Do you normally compare apples with oranges ?
>
> Unfortunately, the comparison is oranges and oranges. You obviously don't
> understand that the rising atmospheric CO2 levels are affecting the
> climate -
No, but I do acknowledge that CO2 levels actually _follow_ temperature
changes.
But you have blind faith; it's useless to try to confuse you with facts.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:02:33 +0100, Eeyore
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> >Climate is a naturally variable thing. For humans to attempt to affect
>>> >it in the belief that we can have a significant impact has to be the
>>> >most absurd conceit.
>>>
>>> Do you also think it is an absurd conceit to believe that humans can
>>> have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels?
>>
>>Not the same thing.
>>
>>Do you normally compare apples with oranges ?
>
> It's not apples and oranges. It's asking you whether you think humans can
> have an effect on the environment on a global scale. Do you think CO2
> levels have been affected by human activity?
Even if we were, why is there a problem with healthier plants all
around the world?
Thanks,
Rich
John Larkin
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
I don't have much experience with LED speeds. I do have some nice 850
nm laser diodes that have roughly 100 ps optical risetimes with drive
from a fast cmos gate. I can send you a couple if you'd like to play
with them.
A Fairchild NC7NZ34, all three sections in parallel, is a vicious
driver, 4 volts into 50 ohms in 650 ps. Or a 10EL89.
John
Spehro Pefhany
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
NC7NZ34.. not bad for 15 cents in 1K. I can't see anything that needs
to be measured in ps here anyway. ;-) More curious about the phosphor
rise/fall times.
Don Klipstein
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>On Oct 9, 11:58 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Winfield wrote:
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>> > > > It isn't all that surprising that the lawyers involved coldn't get
>> > > > this across to judge - neither party would have had the scientific
>> > > > education required to follow what is going on, any more than Eeyore.
>>
>> > > The case was about whether the film contained lies or misrepresented the truth. The
>> > > judge agreed it did.
>>
>> > > End of story.
>>
>> > NOT.
>>
>> Uh ? It's blatantly obvious the film contains *straight lies*.
>
>You haven't made that case.
>
>> Very correctly, the judge said that this mustn't be presented as 'education'. Here are
>> the revised guidance notes for teachers ....http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20g...
>>
>> And here are some excerpts .............
>>
>> " However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord
>> with mainstream scientific opinion.
>
>"Mainstream scientific opinion" aka the IPCC reporting, is notoriously
>conservative. The real worry with global warming is the risk that some
>positive feebaback mechanism could take off - as it did for the end-
>Permian mass extinction some 251 million years ago - and warm the
>planet up enough to kill of most terrestial and shallow water life.
>Things like methane release from melting permafrost are very difficult
>to model, and conservative scientists are very reluctant to even try
>to make any kind of prediction.
>
>> Note: There is insufficient evidence to establish clearly that particular one-off
>> weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina, are attributable to climate change.
>
>True, but as global warming proceeds more of the ocean surface will be
>warmer than roughly 28C for more of the year. Since the ocean surface
>has to be warmer than about 28C to start and grow a hurricane, this
>means more and bigger Hurricane Katrinas until we do something about
>it.
>
>> Accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish a clear
>> attribution for the drying out of Lake Chad.
>
>But it still seems very likely.
>
>> Note: It is not clear which study Gore is referring to when he talks about Polar
>> Bears drowning. However, a 2005 study by Monnet,Gleeson and Rotterman (see the
>> Further Resources section at the end of this document) suggests that 4 polar
>> bears had drowned because of a storm.
>
>And global warming will provide the Polar Bears with more and fiercer
>storms - not hurricanes, since they don't form that far north, but
>conventional weaterh is heat-driven and more heat means more vigorous
>weather.
Actually, extratropical storms are driven by temperature contrasts.
They are stronger in cooler times of the year, when temperature difference
between the polar region and the tropics is strongest.
Since global warming is expected to warm the polar regions more than the
tropics, I would expect, by-and-large, extratropical storms along the
lines of "Nor'Easters" to become less fierce.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>Whar 'argument' is required when Gore says the 1990s have had the
>hottest years on record when it's found to be a NASA fuck-up and the
>hottest years on record are actually in the 1930s ?
Hottest years where?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Arthur wrote:
>On Oct 8, 8:37 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>> Not exactly. The current warming is being driven by the increasing
>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by all the carbon we
>> are burning. At the moment about 40% of the new CO2 we are emitting is
>> being dissolved by the oceans. As the warming continues, less of the
>> CO2 we are emitting will dissolve in the oceans, and enventually the
>> oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and start emitting it.
>
>Ah, so your interpretation (and hence your alarm) is that the other
>shoe--positive feedback--has yet to fall. Gotcha.
>
>Previously there have been many periods both warmer, and with much
>higher CO2 levels. They've always ended, frequently in ice ages.
>Question: How? How does the climate recover, under this theory, if
>the net feedback is positive?
How does an Armstrong superregenerative receiver not latch into either
oscillation or inability to pass a signal?
Over the past 650,000 years, the earth has managed to greatly amplify
the effects of the Milankovich cycles without getting stuck "high" or
"low".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:08:23 -0700, James Arthur
><dagmarg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 9, 6:07 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Oct 8, 8:37 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > > > On Oct 8, 3:01 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > > On Oct 9, 1:36 am, Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> > <snip>
>>>
>>> > > > > > 2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes
>>> > > > > > temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was
>>> > > > > > misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
>>> > > > > > rises by 800-2000 years.
>>>
>>> > > > > The ice core data in fact shows that the fairly small intial changes
>>> > > > > in global temperature produced by the Milankovitch mechanism are
>>> > > > > exaggerated by the consequent changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as
>>> > > > > the oceans either warm up - emitting more cabon dioxide and causing
>>> > > > > further warming, or cool down and absorb more carbon dioxide, creating
>>> > > > > further cooling.
>>>
>>> > > > > The large thermal mass and slow mixing in the oceans is what produces
>>> > > > > the lag
>>>
>>> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>>>
>>> > > > Bill,
>>> > > > By this reasoning, any current warming would be from historic, not
>>> > > > current CO2 (since the same lag mechanism would apply), right?
>>>
>>> > > Not exactly. The current warming is being driven by the increasing
>>> > > concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by all the carbon we
>>> > > are burning. At the moment about 40% of the new CO2 we are emitting is
>>> > > being dissolved by the oceans. As the warming continues, less of the
>>> > > CO2 we are emitting will dissolve in the oceans, and enventually the
>>> > > oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and start emitting it.
>>>
>>> > Ah, so your interpretation (and hence your alarm) is that the other
>>> > shoe--positive feedback--has yet to fall. Gotcha.
>>>
>>> > Previously there have been many periods both warmer, and with much
>>> > higher CO2 levels. They've always ended, frequently in ice ages.
>>> > Question: How? How does the climate recover, under this theory, if
>>> > the net feedback is positive?
>>>
>>> carbonates, losing the silicate as slica. This doesn't happen quickly,
>>> but the process eventually soaks up the excess carbon dioxide. Methane
>>> runaway from methane hydrates is much more drastic when it happens,
>>> but the methane oxidises to carbon dioxide (a much less potent
>>> greenhouse gas) in a few hundred years.
>>
>>Okay, so your answer is roughly "something soaks the CO2 up." I.e.,
>>the net feedback isn't positive, there's a large negative feedback
>>term that's delayed, but which eventually makes things right.
>>
>>That understanding is belied by the graphs of ancient climate(*),
>>which do not show a large temperature overshoot followed by a lengthy
>>decay. Rather, they show limited (i.e., flat-topped) excursions in
>>both directions. Clearly, there is another factor, a non-linear term
>>operating which is not included in your understanding.
>>
>>(*) e.g. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
>>
>>In your conception though, once enough CO2 has been absorbed by
>>olivine--and after suitable delay for deep-ocean mixing--the
>>temperatures will begin to fall. As the temperatures fall, sun-
>>reflecting snow (albedo) begins to cover the land, the oceans dissolve
>>CO2 more readily, warming forces wane, and the process feeds on
>>itself.
>>
>>Question: what prevents the planet from freezing solid, and how then,
>>with albedo maximized and oceans soaking up CO2 (i.e. minimum warming-
>>forcing), does the earth nonetheless recover--warm again--as it always
>>does?
>>
>
>Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! Negative feedback!
Positive feedback is short of causing latchup or self-oscillation, as in
the Armstrong superregenerative receiver. The Milankovich cycles get
amplified, especially the 95,000 year one.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>The hottest year in the USA was not 1998 but 1934 ! Indeed the 1930s
>were very warm overall and no-one suggested that CO2 had anything to do
>with it.
A source that mentions this is:
http://forums.heraldtribune.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4161001365/m/8721088746
It links to the NASA data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
One interesting tidbit: That data also has a column for 5-year mean.
The warmest years for that are (latest calendar year in center of a 5-year
period is 2004):
1: 2000
2: 1999
3: 2004
4: 2001
5: 1932
6: 2003
7: 1933
8: 2002
9-10: tie 1998-1999
11-12: tie 1940-1997
The 5-year means start with 1882, and the first one "above normal" was
1920. The last one "below normal" was 1983.
The 5-year means have fair correlation with worldwide temperature
trends.
The greatest departures of USA 5-year temperature from global
temperature that I noticed were:
* the 1932-1936 period, when the eastern 2/3 of the USA was having a very
notable hot spell known to be a regional phenomenon,
* a warm spell in the mid 1950's, and
* a coolish period in the mid 1990's.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Since human activity started significantly transfering carbon from the
lithosphere to the atmosphere/hydrosphere/biosphere, it looks to me that
things have been the other way around. Do consider that about half of
post-Industrial-Revolution global warming occurred after 1980.
Although from about half a million years ago to a couple hundred years
ago when the amount of carbon in the combination of
atmosphere/hydrosphere/biosphere was constant, it did shift to the
atmosphere from the hydrosphere as a result of temperature rise, and the
other way as a result of temperature drop, causing positive feedback that
amplified the effects of the Milankovich cycles, especially the 95,000
year one.
In the past several decades, concentration of CO2 in both the atmosphere
and the oceans has increased. In the roughly half million years before
the Industrial Revolution, warming cycles decreased CO2 content in the
oceans by shifting CO2 from ocean to atmosphere.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
It surely looks like humans have been having quite an impact on
atmospheric CO2 levels. Atmospheric CO2 has risen a lot in recent
decades, and burning of fossil fuels would account for more CO2 than the
atmosphere gained - the oceans soaked up some of this anthropomorphic CO2.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
This is the data with the correction! That is the data that has 1934
hotter than 1998!
Now, put this in a graph, or better still put the 5-year-means into a
graph!
That still looks like a "hockey stick blade" with a
stick-parallel-portion between 1940 and 1980 (same as the rest of the
world). Along with a few USA-specific kinks, namely the 1932-1936 hot
spell, another little USA-specific warm spell in the mid 1950's, and a
USA-specific cool spell in the mid-1990's (though I baked in the
Mid-Atlantic USA in the summers of 1991-1995).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Do you want to hear more about my blister? I could post pics to
> a.b.s.e.
Was it caused by 'Gore's Global Warming'® ? ;-)
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Rich Grise
> In the past several decades, concentration of CO2 in both the
> atmosphere
> and the oceans has increased. In the roughly half million years before
> the Industrial Revolution, warming cycles decreased CO2 content in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> oceans by shifting CO2 from ocean to atmosphere.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely. The warming causes an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Cheers!
Rich
JosephKK
But there is a problem with that association, the records do not
match.
James Arthur
> In article <1191911836.669733.50...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, James
>
>
>
> Arthur wrote:
> >On Oct 8, 8:37 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> Not exactly. The current warming is being driven by the increasing
> >> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by all the carbon we
> >> are burning. At the moment about 40% of the new CO2 we are emitting is
> >> being dissolved by the oceans. As the warming continues, less of the
> >> CO2 we are emitting will dissolve in the oceans, and enventually the
> >> oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and start emitting it.
>
> >Ah, so your interpretation (and hence your alarm) is that the other
> >shoe--positive feedback--has yet to fall. Gotcha.
>
> >Previously there have been many periods both warmer, and with much
> >higher CO2 levels. They've always ended, frequently in ice ages.
> >Question: How? How does the climate recover, under this theory, if
> >the net feedback is positive?
>
> How does an Armstrong superregenerative receiver not latch into either
> oscillation or inability to pass a signal?
That's a really good analogy. I look forward to exploring it, but
just now I'm homebrewing a PCB (a silly galvanic isolator for a CNC
interface).
Cheers,
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
Unlike before the Industrial Revolution, the oceans are
currently removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding CO2 to the
atmosphere.
Past interglacial temperature peaks did not get CO2 to 380 ppmv which we
now have.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rich Grise
and cosmic rays?
Thanks,
Rich