Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Half life of global warming

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Dean Myerson

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <820611...@daflight.demon.co.uk> hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>I am in no way trying to defend the nuclear industry, whose waste product
>remains highly dangerous and is rightly treated with extreme caution.
>However, our children are hardly going to thank us if we spare them
>the hazards of nuclear waste only to leave them facing mass starvation
>as climate change hits agricultural production, or a catastrophic sea
>level rise that forces the evacuation of every coastal city in the
>world. Like nuclear waste, greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to
>the wellbeing of future generations. Therefore it is only reasonable
>that the same stringent standards which are applied to the disposal
>of radioactive materials should also apply to greenhouse gases. It
>would be unthinkable for the nuclear industry to dispose of its waste
>products by pumping them directly into the atmosphere; the fossil fuel
>and chemical industries should not be allowed to dispose of their
>hazardous waste in that way either.
>
>Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>

Tell it to Saudi Arabia and those who define their personal freedom by
their driving habits.

CO2 is one of those materials that is relatively harmless in small and
distributed amounts. This permitted it to be used without restriction
early on so that economic interests were able to develop based on the
status quo and also so that consumers got used to a lifestyle that
ignored CO2 emissions. This is powerful inertia to controlling CO2
emissions. Conversely, the wastes from nuclear energy are toxic in
the concetrated forms they take _during_ their creation or usage hence
early controls were easily justified. CFC's are an analog of sorts to
CO2 but they were much more easy to substitute for and their supporters,
powerful as some environmentalists would like to protray, aren't anything
compared to the oil companies and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
--
-- Dean Myerson
(de...@vexcel.com) (http://www.vexcel.com)

Hugh Easton

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to

A great deal of concern has been expressed in these newsgroups about
the hazards of nuclear power. The main objection to it is that some
of the components of nuclear waste remain hazardous for a long period
of time, and could pose a threat to future generations. Because of
these concerns, every aspect of nuclear power is strictly regulated
and most "western" countries have not constructed any new nuclear
power plants for years.

Of course it is right that we should not contaminate our environment
with waste that could potentially threaten the wellbeing of future
generations. That is why I think it is time to look at a particular
class of pollutants that will very probably cause serious problems for
future generations: greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases all share a common property - they tend to trap heat,
producing a "greenhouse effect". The greenhouse effect is essential
for life on Earth - without it, surface temperatures would be over 30
deg. C colder and our planet would be frozen solid. The problem is
that the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
strength of the overall greenhouse effect are increasing. A wide
variety of industrial processes produce greenhouse gases as a by
product, and at present there are no restrictions whatsoever on the
emissions of these gases. Continued emissions are expected to lead to
an increase in average surface temperatures (global warming) and
changes in weather patterns (climate change), along with a possibly
catastrophic rise in sea level.

From recent discussions in these newsgroups it appears that there are
effectively two components to the climate response to greenhouse gas
emissions: a short-term response, related to the warming of land
surfaces and the surface layers of the oceans; and a long-term
response, which is related to the warming of deeper ocean waters and
melting of the polar icecaps. The time delay between when emissions
occur and when the short-term response becomes apparent is thought to
be on the order of a couple of decades; the delay before the full
effects of the long-term response become apparent is much longer,
potentially many centuries. Many of the most serious anticipated
effects of greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the long-
term response, including

* a possible shutdown of oceanic circulation that would interrupt
the transport of nutrients to the surface layers of the oceans
and the transport of heat from tropical oceans to temperate and
polar regions. Fish catches would plummet, and winters in
Europe (and possibly parts of North America) would become much
colder.

* Sea level rise, both from thermal expansion as the oceans become
warmer, and from melting of polar ice. It is also possible that
a relatively sudden breakup of the Antarctic icecap could occur,
which would lead to a catastrophic rise in sea level of more than
a hundred feet. Many of the world's largest and most prosperous
cities are coastal and would be completely submerged if such an
event occurred.

You might think that we can just wait until the first symptoms of
these changes start to appear, and then cut back on emissions of
greenhouse gases as necessary. Unfortunately matters are not that
simple. Just like nuclear waste, greenhouse gases do not become
harmless immediately after they are produced. Instead they can persist
for considerable periods of time, ranging from a few years to
centuries or even thousands of years. Even if further emissions were
drastically curtailed or halted altogether, effects from some of the
more persistent greenhouse gases would continue long after.

Every radioactive element has a characteristic halflife associated
with it, the time it takes for half of the element to decay. The
concept of a half life can also be applied quite successfully to
greenhouse gases, since (I think) all are present in concentrations
too low to greatly affect the rate of removal. Like radioactive
elements, both the half life and potency of greenhouse gases varies
a great deal. Some of the more important greenhouse gases are:

* Carbon dioxide, chemical symbol CO2.
CO2 is produced whenever fossil fuels are burned, when land is
deforested, and also by some industrial processes such as cement
manufacture. Per molecule it is the weakest of all greenhouse
gases, but there is so much of it being produced and in the
atmosphere already that it is the most significant of all the
manmade greenhouse gases. It is thought to be responsible for
about half of the manmade intensification of the greenhouse
effect. There was already some CO2 in the atmosphere before
manmade emissions began to have an effect, but now there is about
30 percent more. At the current rate of growth, the excess of CO2
above the natural level is doubling approximately every 30 years
(30 years ago it was about 15 percent above the natural level,
and in 30 years time it will be 60 percent above the natural
level, if current trends continue). The CO2 excess corresponds
to 55.9 percent of industrial emissions, meaning that 44.1
percent of emissions are being reabsorbed (through absorbtion
into the oceans and regrowth of temperate forests). From this
information I calculate the half life of the CO2 excess as
(44.1/55.9)*30 years, or about 40 years, though of course this
may be based on incorrect assumptions and I would welcome any
more authoritative estimates.

* Methane, chemical symbol CH4.
Methane leaks into the atmosphere from gas pipelines and
sometimes during oil drilling operations. It also seeps from coal
mines and from landfill sites. In addition, agriculture produces
considerable quantities of methane, from rice paddies and from
ruminant digestive systems ("cow farts"). Like CO2, there was
already some methane in the atmosphere even before human
activities began to release significant amounts of the gas, but
the level has more than doubled since preindustrial times. The
warming effect of this increase is about a third as great as that
of the CO2 increase. Molecule for molecule methane is a much more
powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (unfortunately I don't have the
exact figure), but it is present in much smaller quantities and
the half life is comparatively short - about 5 years I think.
Other hydrocarbons also function as greenhouse gases, but are
broken down so quickly (ie a matter of days) that they do not
contribute significantly to the overall greenhouse effect.

* Nitrous oxide, chemical symbol N2O
N2O is produced when nitrate fertiliser is degraded in the soil
("denitrification") and by some industrial processes such as
nylon manufacture. It is used medically as an anaesthetic, and
is also the propellant in whipped cream dispensers. The N2O level
has only increased by about 20 percent above the natural level,
producing about 1/15 as much warming as the CO2 increase. The
half life is a little over a century.

* CFCs and other ozone-destroying halocarbons.
Better known for their ozone-destroying potential, the CFCs and
related compounds such as methyl chloride and carbon
tetrachloride are also powerful greenhouse gases responsible for
about 20 percent as much global warming as CO2 emissions. There
are dozens of different CFCs, the two most significant of which
are CFC-11 and CFC-12. The CFCs are completely artificial and
were developed as manmade "inert gases" for use as refrigerants,
aerosol propellants and cleaning agents. Their extreme chemical
stability makes them very non-toxic, but it also gives them a
long half life - about 110 years for CFC-11 and 70 years for CFC-
12 (these figures may be out of date). The CFCs are now being
phased out, not because of their global warming potential but
because of their effects on the ozone layer.

* Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs
These gases are at present being marketed as a benign replacement
for CFCs, but unfortunately they are still powerful greenhouse
gases (the most widely used one, HFC-134a, is about 2500 times
more potent than CO2). They are also less efficient as
refrigerants, more toxic and much more expensive than CFCs or the
alternative CFC replacements, hydrocarbon gases such as propane
and butane. I am not sure of their atmospheric half life,
something like 20 or 30 years I think.

* Sulphur hexafluoride, chemical symbol SF6.
This gas has the dubious distinction of being the most potent
greenhouse gas the IPCC has so far evaluated, although I am not
sure of the global warming potential (over a million times higher
than that of CO2 I think). It is extremely inert and stable, and
has a high molecular weight. These properties make it ideal for
use in electrical circuit breakers but also mean that it breaks
down only very slowly - the atmospheric half life is several
centuries.

* Perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane (chemical symbols CF4 and
C2F6).
These insidious gases are produced as a byproduct of aluminium
smelting, at the rate of about 1 kilogram for every ton of
aluminium produced. The semiconductor industry also uses
significant amounts of these gases. The current annual rate of
emission of these gases from those sources apparently contributes
as much to global warming as the CO2 output of 40 1000-megawatt
coal-fired power stations would, with one crucial difference. Of
all the greenhouse gases, these two are the most stable - they
are virtually indestructible. Their atmospheric half life is
estimated to be 10,000 years or more, comparable to the half life
of plutonium. Provided the climate system is not pushed beyond
its breaking point the CO2 excess will have gone within a few
centuries of the phaseout of fossil fuel use, but traces of these
gases will still be keeping the world warmer than it should be
50,000 or more years from now.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and corrections or additions
to it are welcome.

I am in no way trying to defend the nuclear industry, whose waste product
remains highly dangerous and is rightly treated with extreme caution.
However, our children are hardly going to thank us if we spare them
the hazards of nuclear waste only to leave them facing mass starvation
as climate change hits agricultural production, or a catastrophic sea
level rise that forces the evacuation of every coastal city in the
world. Like nuclear waste, greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to
the wellbeing of future generations. Therefore it is only reasonable
that the same stringent standards which are applied to the disposal
of radioactive materials should also apply to greenhouse gases. It
would be unthinkable for the nuclear industry to dispose of its waste
products by pumping them directly into the atmosphere; the fossil fuel
and chemical industries should not be allowed to dispose of their
hazardous waste in that way either.

--
Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>

Bob Daigle

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
Hugh Easton wrote:
>
>Like nuclear waste, greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to
> the wellbeing of future generations. Therefore it is only reasonable
> that the same stringent standards which are applied to the disposal
> of radioactive materials should also apply to greenhouse gases. It
> would be unthinkable for the nuclear industry to dispose of its waste
> products by pumping them directly into the atmosphere; the fossil fuel
> and chemical industries should not be allowed to dispose of their
> hazardous waste in that way either.
>
> --
> Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>


Is it always the "industries" that have to change? Isn't it you and I?

I have a hard time with this because the I've never heard a good response to
the following criticism of the global warming theory:

1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local development -
only orbiting measurements can be believed and our data history is too short
to suggest a long term trend, and

2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can substantiate would
have caused a far greater temperature rise than even earth based readings can
verify. There must be a natural "buffering" phenomina which is greatly
tempering the effect.

I don't argue that the modern development of our civilization has bought
along some environmental problems, but I would hardly want to trade this life
for one of 100 years ago when I would be lucky to live past my forties!

Magnus Sterky

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to

> * a possible shutdown of oceanic circulation that would interrupt
> the transport of nutrients to the surface layers of the oceans
> and the transport of heat from tropical oceans to temperate and
> polar regions. Fish catches would plummet, and winters in
> Europe (and possibly parts of North America) would become much
> colder.

> * Sea level rise, both from thermal expansion as the oceans become
> warmer, and from melting of polar ice. It is also possible that
> a relatively sudden breakup of the Antarctic icecap could occur,
> which would lead to a catastrophic rise in sea level of more than
> a hundred feet. Many of the world's largest and most prosperous
> cities are coastal and would be completely submerged if such an
> event occurred.

If ocean circulation changes, and it does and have done repeatedly for
millions of years, Ice will cover northern Europe. During the last
five or so ice-periods in Europe, the last ended some 10000 years ago,
the sea level actually LOWERED. The Ice-periods have lasted for about
50000 years each.

These phenomina have existed without the present green-house effect,
and will certainly continue to do so.

The error in most of the speculations about a greenhouse effect seems
to be that they do not look at the dynamics of the longer times, they
look at the quasi-stationary phenomina. The same primitive view is
normally used for most other process designs and studies, causing more
or less of problems for us trying to perform the process control
functions.

Conclusion:
Why would sea level rise if a new glaciar time occurs in Europe, when
the sea level has lowered during these times before? And why would the
green-house effect make this large scale oscillation to change
significantly? (try to stop any major process oscillation by minor
actions, and you know what it is all about...)


Mark W. Goodman

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <820611...@daflight.demon.co.uk>, hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk wrote:

<a long posting comparing the hazards of nuclear waste with the climate
effects of fossil energy>

I have often made this same argument, comparing nuclear and fossil energy
sources. Both have significant immediate environmental effects -- for
nuclear power the greatest of these is the threat of a reactor accident,
while for fossil energy it includes a whole host of effects from the
mining, transportation, and combustion-related air pollution -- and highly
uncertain long-term risks -- for nuclear power the risks of exposure to
nuclear waste, and for fossil energy the risk of climate change.

I have not seen any quantitative comparison of these risks, but my gut
reaction is that both the acute and the long-term risks of fossil energy
greatly exceed those of nuclear energy.

> --
> Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>

--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgo...@igc.apc.prg

Martin J. Bernard III

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
Dear Editor:

Your article “The Electric Car Unplugged” (January 1996,
Technology Review) is not the type of scientific reporting I have
learned to expect from TR. This article suffers from a type of bias
that scientist ought not to have--stating only a partial truth in order to
make a point appear valid. I am concerned that six MIT scientists
could write something this flawed and that it passed the peer review
process. Permit me four examples, though more exist, of the authors’
consistent omissions.

They wrote (p. 33): “But using fossil fuels to power electric vehicles
is doubly pernicious. The fuel loses up to 65 percent of its energy
when it is burned to produce electricity; 5 to 10 percent of what is
left is lost in transmitting and distributing the electricity before it
even gets to the electric cars.” While this is true, your authors
conveniently forget to remind the reader that the internal combustion
engine of his or her car is 20 to 25 percent efficient (and less than
that on a cold winter morning in Boston) and do not account all the
energy spent in transporting crude (remember, about 60% of it comes
from outside the U.S.), in refining it, and in distributing the gasoline
to gas stations. Many net energy comparisons of electric vs.
conventional cars have been done. On average, both come out about
with about the same net efficiency. Thus electric vehicles (EVs) are
less pernicious because most power plant fuel is domestic and some
power plants are nearly non-polluting. If your authors were
journalists, we would call this sloppy journalism. But since they are
MIT scientists, this is not so easily dismissed.

The second example (p. 34) is: “The implied commuting distance of
30 to 50 miles is high but appropriate for Los Angeles, New York,
and Boston, the prime target areas today.” Actually the average
commute in each of these cities is about 20 minutes. At least one of
your authors must know that. It is a widely published number for all
major U.S. cities, but it does not fit their argument. They don’t
mention that an EV can be charged in the morning after getting to
work to increase its daily range. They ignore the fact that many of
the longer commutes in Boston and New York (and some in L.A.)
are done by commuter rail and that an EV will make an excellent
home to station vehicle. They also do not inform your readers that in
all three cities, commuters are using EVs in station car
demonstrations between transit and home or transit and work.

Next they said (p. 34): “Driving to work must also be done in cold
weather when batteries tend to perform poorly.” While the
performance of Pb/Acid batteries is temperature dependent, your
authors must know that the performance of some other types is not.
The Norwegians had a dozen EVs running around the Lillehammer
Olympics when it was often below zero Fahrenheit. How did they do
it? They used NiCad batteries.

For my last example, consider this quote (p. 35): “The batteries for
electric vehicles will also raise the lifetime costs of owning the car.
Batteries wear out after roughly 1.5 to 2 years, or some 500 cycles of
daily charge and discharge.” This was true for Pb/Acid batteries. It is
not true for the advanced Pb/Acid batteries coming into the market
now and is not true for other battery types. Your authors also
conveniently forgot to mention that the 500 cycles had to do with
deep discharges, which is not how the battery is treated in an EV.
Many days the depth of discharge is much less and many more than
500 rechargings are possible with the old type of Pb/Acid batteries.

I hope you will consider publishing this letter.

Sincerely,
Martin J. Bernard III, Ph.D.


Bruce Hoglund

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
Hi Bob,

Although the evidence of Global Warming is admittedly weak, it continues
to grow. I am worried that waiting for absolute evidence of Global
Warming is analogous to driving a car using your review mirror. Like that
old saying in business, 'Never risk a lot for a small gain'.


Spreading, if reluctant belief in Global Warming; a recent editorial in
the Washington Post, 12/26/95, "Global Warming: No Longer In Doubt", by
Jessica Mathews:

" In a major event completely missed by the news media, global warming was
officially declared underway last week. At a meeting of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Rome, 120 governments agreed that while
many uncertainties remain, "the balance of evidence . . . suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." "

In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>, Bob Daigle
<rda...@biddeford.com> wrote:


> 2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can substantiate would
> have caused a far greater temperature rise than even earth based readings can
> verify. There must be a natural "buffering" phenomina which is greatly
> tempering the effect.

The natural "buffering" phenomena is actually believed to be human-created
aerosols produced primarily by coal burning (sulfate aerosols reflect
sunlight). This theory was advanced when it was noted that areas covered
by sulfate plumes from coal burning plants did not show the daily trend
temperature increases that areas not covered by these plumes did.


> I don't argue that the modern development of our civilization has bought
> along some environmental problems, but I would hardly want to trade this life
> for one of 100 years ago when I would be lucky to live past my forties!


No one (at least rational people) is saying we need to go back 100 years
if, and it appears more & more likely as the data is collected & analysed,
humans are causing global warming. In fact, such an era (100 years &
more) actually had higher energy consumption levels in rural areas,
compared to modern urban areas, due to the low efficiency of the wood
fireplaces & steam engine transport.

Higher energy efficiencies in production & utilization (conservation),
renewable energy development in areas where it makes sense, & nuclear will
allow "progress" to continue, but it does require planning & investments
today if it is to go smoothly.


Bruce Hoglund

Bruce Hoglund

____________________________________________________________

NOTE: The thoughts & comments above are the result of
pre-programmed genetic software, environmental influences, &
the chemical state of my bio-computer {brain} caused by a
pursuit of 'moderation in all things' type lifestyle.
Responsibility, in spite of the aforementioned, is still
mine alone!

Bruce Hoglund, 1995

____________________________________________________________

Dean Myerson

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4cgugg$r...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:>[...]

>
>>early controls were easily justified. CFC's are an analog of sorts to
>>CO2 but they were much more easy to substitute for and their supporters,
>>powerful as some environmentalists would like to protray, aren't anything
>>compared to the oil companies and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
>
>There are no supporters for CFCs! Chemical companies and refrigeration
>manufacturers stand to make billions off this. A ban on CFCs may be prudent,
>but you and me are the folks who will pay.
>
There were supporters for CFC's. Yes, the substitutes will be lucrative
for them, maybe more so than is necessary (meaning that there may be
cheaper acceptable substitutes).

Jan Schloerer

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>
Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> wrote:


> I have a hard time with this because the I've never heard a good
> response to the following criticism of the global warming theory:
>
> 1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local
> development - only orbiting measurements can be believed and our
> data history is too short to suggest a long term trend, and


For the ground based temperature record, possible errors due to
local development (urban heat islands),
relocation of stations,
varying coverage of the globe (the older the gappier),
and more, have been taken into account for several years now.

Result: Best estimate of nearly 0.5 o C surface warming over
the past century, the true value probably sitting somewhere
between 0.3 and 0.6 o C. Since 1990, continuing re-analysis
of the data did not change this estimate appreciably. Easy
starter, if slightly dated (aerosols are missing):

Philip D. Jones and Tom M.L. Wigley, Global warming trends.
Scientific American 263, 2 (August 1990), 66-73

As you said, the satellite record is short yet. Also, hard luck,
it started in 1979, just a few years too late to capture the
warming of the late 1970s.

John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider, Satellite greenhouse signal.
Nature 367 (27 Jan 1994), 325
Richard A. Kerr, Is the world warming or not ?
Science 267 (3 Feb 1995), 612


> 2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can
> substantiate would have caused a far greater temperature rise than
> even earth based readings can verify. There must be a natural
> "buffering" phenomina which is greatly tempering the effect.

Let's hope some such buffer will turn up. Alas, the temperature
record of the past 100 years is no proof for it and doesn't reveal
what to expect. These days, variation of global surface temperature
is controlled by at least three factors that climatologists cannot
yet disentangle reliably:

Effect

Human-made greenhouse gases warming
Lag time, amount and rapidity of the response
are uncertain

Human-made aerosols cooling
Mostly from burning of fossil fuel (sulfate
aerosols) and biomass. Present aerosol effect
may be anywhere between 10 and 100 % of current
greenhouse gas effect, most plausibly 30-50 %

Natural climatic variability unknown
Some players currently pondered: Atmospheric
variability, variations in ocean circulation,
solar variability, volcanism

Recently, with modelers trying to account for sulfate aerosols,
agreement between model results and observations has started
to improve, see Mitchell and colleagues. For the response
to greenhouse gas forcing, Morgan & Keith makes nice reading.
For aerosols, chapters 3 and 4 of Climate Change 1994 are
thorough, moderately hard reading :) For natural variability,
including climate history of the past millenium, does anyone
know a readable very recent overview ?

Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and
An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios.
J.T. Houghton et al., eds, Cambridge University Press 1995
J.F.B. Mitchell, T.C. Johns, J.M. Gregory & S.F.B. Tett,
Climate response to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols, Nature 376 (10 August 1995), 501-504.
Tom M.L. Wigley, A successful prediction ? ibid. 463-464
M. Granger Morgan, David W. Keith,
Climate change: Subjective judgments by climate experts.
Environmental Science & Technology 29, 10 (1995), 468A-476A


Jan Schloerer schl...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm Klinische Dokumentation D-89070 Ulm Germany

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to

[...]

>early controls were easily justified. CFC's are an analog of sorts to
>CO2 but they were much more easy to substitute for and their supporters,
>powerful as some environmentalists would like to protray, aren't anything
>compared to the oil companies and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

There are no supporters for CFCs! Chemical companies and refrigeration
manufacturers stand to make billions off this. A ban on CFCs may be prudent,
but you and me are the folks who will pay.

> -- Dean Myerson

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer

Dean Myerson

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <mwgoodman-040...@ppp4-43.igc.org> mwgo...@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman) writes:
>
>I have not seen any quantitative comparison of these risks, but my gut
>reaction is that both the acute and the long-term risks of fossil energy
>greatly exceed those of nuclear energy.
>
The long-term risks from nuclear power are hard to quantify so it's more
of a risk perception. Nuclear powers' short term impacts I think are
mostly from mining and could be avoided if the workers were treated
properly (i.e., not an inherent risk with the technology). Nevertheless,
I definitely agree that many people minimize fossil fuel risks, particularly
when comparing with nuclear.

Kevin Matthews

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
While you say you are not attempting to support nuclear energy (which I
do support), you hit on many of the points that nuclear proponents
mention. One of the key virtues of nuclear waste is that it is a very
small amount in both mass and volume, especialy when on comperes the
amount of waste created per kW-hr generated. While the hazerdous
materials are very concentrated and very dangerous on an ounce per ounce
basis, the total is very small and far easier to isolate from the
environment than the waste of any other method of power generation,
including solar.


Richard Ottolini

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
>Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> wrote in reply to some Hugh Easton
>posting:

>>1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local development -
>>only orbiting measurements can be believed and our data history is too short
>>to suggest a long term trend, and

There are some "temperature integrators" around that give clues
for decades to centuries.
One is the ocean that smooths out measuremnents over area and time.
The proposed sound tomography measurements (velocity changes with temp)
will help.
The ground takes decades to cool or warm. People have measured depth-temperature
profiles in boreholes for warming/cooling trends. This could reflect local,
rather than global climate changes, but enough of these measurements could
give insight.

Paul Farrar

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>,

Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> wrote in reply to some Hugh Easton
posting:
...

>Is it always the "industries" that have to change? Isn't it you and I?
>
>I have a hard time with this because the I've never heard a good response to
>the following criticism of the global warming theory:
>
>1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local development -
>only orbiting measurements can be believed and our data history is too short
>to suggest a long term trend, and
>

There is one minor problem, though: We can't measure surface air temperature,
the variable in question, from satellites. If it's not very cloudy, we
can get a pretty good estimate from IR sounder data. Microwave sounders
don't have the same degree of cloud problem, but they cover a very large
chunk of the troposphere (for example, the 53.74GHz channel 2 brightness
temperature, Ch2TB). As a result, the Ch2TB gives a TB of around 250K,
which is a lot colder than surface air temperature (~285K average), and
it shows a lot less variability than the surface air temperature.
A guy named Balling, who writes a lot of letters to the Wall Street
Journal, has been presenting the Ch2TB in a way that has led some
laymen to think it is surface air temperature, and has been comparing
it to estimates of possible surface air temperature change (apples &
oranges!) Even a good science journalist, Kerr of _Science_ seems to
have made this mistake about a year ago (3 Feb 95 issue). If you
want to see how we get this satellite data, there is a really good new
book, _Satellite Meteorology_, by Kidder and Vonder Haar, from Academic
press. See Chap.6 on temperature and trace gases. For Ch2TB there is
also Spencer, Christy and Grody (1990), J. of Climate, vol 3, p1111,
which is where Balling said he got one of his figures from (but it's
not in there).

We can also adjust the actual surface air temperatures for local
changes, which is less processing than the satellite data goes through,
but that doesn't completely solve distribution problems.

>2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can substantiate would
>have caused a far greater temperature rise than even earth based readings can
>verify. There must be a natural "buffering" phenomina which is greatly
>tempering the effect.
>

Well, without going into it right now, that's pretty debatable.
It is quite possible (see Hansen in _Atmospheric Research_ a few months
ago) that pollution may be counteracting some of the greenhouse gas
processes. Other than that, we seem to be having trouble finding
countervailing processes of sufficient strength. The major one for
CO2 is ocean absorption, which could clear out the CO2 a few hundred
years after we cut back the release of fossil C.

>I don't argue that the modern development of our civilization has bought
>along some environmental problems, but I would hardly want to trade this life
>for one of 100 years ago when I would be lucky to live past my forties!

Lucky me. I am in my 40s.

--
Paul Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/
far...@datasync.com
70053,3464

Dean Myerson

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com> Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> writes:
>
>Is it always the "industries" that have to change? Isn't it you and I?
>
>I have a hard time with this because the I've never heard a good response to
>the following criticism of the global warming theory:
>
>1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local development -
>only orbiting measurements can be believed and our data history is too short
>to suggest a long term trend, and

The development effects are recognized and corrected for.


>
>2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can substantiate would
>have caused a far greater temperature rise than even earth based readings can
>verify. There must be a natural "buffering" phenomina which is greatly
>tempering the effect.

A lot of the greenhouses gases we emit are absorbed into the oceans and
forests. I assume this is the buffering you are referring to. It
certainly lessens the impact but doesn't stop it. Note that most of the
hottest years on record (not just one or two but most) have been in the
last 15 years. Furthermore, there is a reasonable possibility that this
buffering will saturate.


>
>I don't argue that the modern development of our civilization has bought
>along some environmental problems, but I would hardly want to trade this life
>for one of 100 years ago when I would be lucky to live past my forties!

Who suggested this? Most attempts to stop warming are based on using
higher and more efficient technology.

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
Martin J. Bernard III (stn...@ix.netcom.com˙ū) wrote:
: Dear Editor:

: They wrote (p. 33): “But using fossil fuels to power electric vehicles

: is doubly pernicious. The fuel loses up to 65 percent of its energy
: when it is burned to produce electricity; 5 to 10 percent of what is
: left is lost in transmitting and distributing the electricity before it

An understatement, I have recorded data from Oregon and California,
showing thatū distribution losses are closer to 25% due to ūlong
transmission lines, wheeling and peaking. Then battery charging and
discharging losses run between 25 to 50%, depending on rate of discharge.

: all three cities, commuters are using EVs in station car

: demonstrations between transit and home or transit and work.

A major problem with EVs is, that they hold only two persons. It is a
waste of road space. Imagine mother taking three kids to school. She
would have to make three trips. Who will sit by the road and wait?

: Batteries wear out after roughly 1.5 to 2 years, or some 500 cycles of

Have you read the warnings on you car battery lately? Battery may
explode, protect eyes, acid burns, keep away from gas heaters, use
adequate ventilation. That is just with one battery. So, now imagine 20
batteries being charged in the garage below your bedroom. How well are
you going to sleep? Garage door open, of course, every bum in the
neighborhood can walk in and out, or do you have a better idea for
ventilation? Ha, what do you think, will happen in an accident? Sparks
and acid will fly all around you. It would mean a quick end.

: I hope you will consider publishing this letter.

...and my comments as well,

Ernst

tomgray

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to

So far, I have only seen it suggested as a straw man, by those who
oppose taking any action to reduce CO2 emissions.

Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>


tomgray

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
de...@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) wrote:
>
> There were supporters for CFC's. Yes, the substitutes will be lucrative
> for them, maybe more so than is necessary (meaning that there may be
> cheaper acceptable substitutes).

Of course there were supporters for CFCs. The companies that were
making them preferred to continue doing business as usual. There
still are supporters for CFCs, I believe--seems to me I have read
somewhere that Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, who is seeking to lift the
ban, has some in his district.

Tom

jw

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In <bhoglund-040...@max1-169.hiwaay.net> bhog...@hiwaay.net

(Bruce Hoglund) writes:
>
>Although the evidence of Global Warming is admittedly weak, it
continues
>to grow. I am worried that waiting for absolute evidence of Global
>Warming is analogous to driving a car using your review mirror. Like
that
>old saying in business, 'Never risk a lot for a small gain'.

In this case, it would be "give up a lot to avert a small
risk of a small loss".

Will Stewart

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In <4ci6fo$6...@crl.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>Martin J. Bernard III (stn...@ix.netcom.comÿû) wrote:
>: Dear Editor:
>
>: They wrote (p. 33): “But using fossil fuels to power electric
vehicles
>: is doubly pernicious. The fuel loses up to 65 percent of its energy
>: when it is burned to produce electricity; 5 to 10 percent of what is
>: left is lost in transmitting and distributing the electricity before
it
>
>An understatement, I have recorded data from Oregon and California,
>showing thatû distribution losses are closer to 25% due to ûlong
>transmission lines, wheeling and peaking.

Please present this data and show how it is appropriate for the
majority of potential EV users. Don't just come up with long distance
power transfers between utilities, either.

>: all three cities, commuters are using EVs in station car
>: demonstrations between transit and home or transit and work.

>A major problem with EVs is, that they hold only two persons. It is a
>waste of road space. Imagine mother taking three kids to school. She
>would have to make three trips. Who will sit by the road and wait?

Two points;

1) The Solectria holds four people.

2) EVs are not projected to be suited for every single niche. Your
scenario for a mother taking 3 children to 3 different schools is
a fringe niche. Commuting to work is a very large niche.

>: Batteries wear out after roughly 1.5 to 2 years, or some 500 cycles
of
>
>Have you read the warnings on you car battery lately? Battery may
>explode, protect eyes, acid burns, keep away from gas heaters, use
>adequate ventilation.

Umm, gasoline has a few hazards itself. Do you store gasoline in your
home? Oh, and why does the fire marshall outlaw it?

>That is just with one battery. So, now imagine 20
>batteries being charged in the garage below your bedroom. How well are
>you going to sleep?

Like a baby.

>Garage door open, of course, every bum in the
>neighborhood can walk in and out, or do you have a better idea for
>ventilation?

You are so screwy, Ernste 8-)

Ridge vents are the easiest and cheapest (common in houses built
today).

>Ha, what do you think, will happen in an accident?

What can happen in an accident when gasoline spills?

Cheers,

Will Stewart


Martin J. Bernard III

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In <4ci6fo$6...@crl.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>

>A major problem with EVs is, that they hold only two persons. It is a
>waste of road space. Imagine mother taking three kids to school. She
>would have to make three trips. Who will sit by the road and wait?

Wrong on two accounts. The Solectria Force holds four, the
U.S.Electricar converted Prism holds five, the Chrysler van with all
the seats in it probably holds 9. Anyhow the average number of people
in a car is, depending on the city and time of day, 1.3. So two-seaters
will serve much of the market.


>Have you read the warnings on you car battery lately? Battery may
>explode, protect eyes, acid burns, keep away from gas heaters, use

>adequate ventilation. That is just with one battery. So, now imagine


20
>batteries being charged in the garage below your bedroom. How well are

>you going to sleep? Garage door open, of course, every bum in the

>neighborhood can walk in and out, or do you have a better idea for

>ventilation? Ha, what do you think, will happen in an accident? Sparks

>and acid will fly all around you. It would mean a quick end.
>

Why do you keep bringing up things we have gone through before. All of
what you say has been shown to be wrong. You start with the wrong
analogy, the starting battery in a car with people hooking starter
cables to it and causing sparks. Start from a set of sealed advanced
batteries in a metal case welded to the frame of the vehicle that has
been crash tested and cannot be opened by but a technician. In other
words stop making up stories.

Marty Bernard

Hugh Easton

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <4cek1i$4...@prometheus.algonet.se>
ste...@algonet.se "Magnus Sterky" writes:

>
> > * a possible shutdown of oceanic circulation that would interrupt
> > the transport of nutrients to the surface layers of the oceans
> > and the transport of heat from tropical oceans to temperate and
> > polar regions. Fish catches would plummet, and winters in
> > Europe (and possibly parts of North America) would become much
> > colder.
>
> > * Sea level rise, both from thermal expansion as the oceans become
> > warmer, and from melting of polar ice. It is also possible that
> > a relatively sudden breakup of the Antarctic icecap could occur,
> > which would lead to a catastrophic rise in sea level of more than
> > a hundred feet. Many of the world's largest and most prosperous
> > cities are coastal and would be completely submerged if such an
> > event occurred.
>

> If ocean circulation changes, and it does and have done repeatedly for
> millions of years, Ice will cover northern Europe. During the last
> five or so ice-periods in Europe, the last ended some 10000 years ago,
> the sea level actually LOWERED. The Ice-periods have lasted for about
> 50000 years each.
>

[...]


>
> Conclusion:
> Why would sea level rise if a new glaciar time occurs in Europe, when
> the sea level has lowered during these times before?

There has been some discussion of this in recent issues of Nature and
New Scientist. Apparently higher summer temperatures produced by global
warming could lead to the shutdown of thermohaline circulation by
making polar and glacial ice melt, resulting in the discharge of large
amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic. Once thermohaline
circulation weakens significantly or ceases, winter temperatures will
fall sharply. The reason is that oceanic circulation, and the Gulf Stream
in particular, transports over 10e15 watts of heat northward from the
tropics. This heat forms a substantial fraction of the wintertime heat
budgets of Europe and North America (there is not much warmth from the
sun in winter). The net result: lots of ice melting, rising sea levels,
and colder winters in Europe and North America.

Note that this has nothing to do with the ice ages, except that a similar
phenomenon may explain some very rapid climate fluctuations that occurred
in Greenland when the last ice age ended.


--
Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>

Hugh Easton

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>
rda...@biddeford.com "Bob Daigle" writes:

>
> 2) if the math is right, the CO2 increase we already can substantiate would
> have caused a far greater temperature rise than even earth based readings can
> verify. There must be a natural "buffering" phenomina which is greatly
> tempering the effect.
>

As others have suggested already, sulphate aerosol, smog and the like may be
absorbing enough heat from the sun to conceal a large portion of the global
warming so far.

Existing climate models have some difficulty in explaining why polar
temperatures were so much colder during the ice ages and so much warmer
during Cretaceous times (apparently there were forests growing at the poles
in the age of the dinosaurs). The large differences in polar temperatures
cannot be explained by CO2 forcing alone. It could be that the modellers
have underestimated the strength of the water vapour feedback.

Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Higher temperatures lead to
increased evaporation, more water vapour in the air, and a more powerful
greenhouse effect. Conversely, lower temperatures lower the rate of
evaporation and decrease the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere,
reducing the strength of the greenhouse effect. Thus water vapour tends
to amplify temperature changes, such as those produced by changes in
CO2 level.

Since the oceans make up almost the entire surface area of water available
for evaporation, the time it takes for the water vapour feedback to kick
in depends on how long it takes to warm up the oceans - ie several
centuries or more. Since nearly all the excess CO2 and other greenhouse
gases have only been emitted within the last 50 years, there has not been
enough time for the oceans to warm up very much yet, and so we are not
yet experiencing the full water vapour feedback associated with current
greenhouse gas levels. The final, equilibrium temperature rise could be
much greater than what we are experiencing at the moment. Climate tends
not to change very quickly - it could be several centuries before the
full extent of the damage caused by the emissions which have already
taken place becomes apparent.


--
Hugh Easton <hu...@daflight.demon.co.uk>

Jan Schloerer

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In <4cgvur$f...@osh1.datasync.com>
Paul Farrar (far...@datasync.com) included:

> In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>,
> Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> wrote [...]


>>
>> 1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local
>> development - only orbiting measurements can be believed and our
>> data history is too short to suggest a long term trend, and
>

> There is one minor problem, though: We can't measure surface air
> temperature, the variable in question, from satellites.

[ Microwave sounders measure tropospheric, not surface temperatures.
Worth re-reading, nonetheless deleted wrt bandwidth :) ]


... and both temperature records are needed. Surface and
troposphere might, in the long run, behave differently.
Failure to distinguish between the two records may, sometimes,
indicate the assumption that the surface and troposphere will
necessarily warm by the same amount. They may or may not.

If the middle and upper troposphere should warm more than
the surface, this would tend to enhance the amount of infrared
going to space, so it might help to curb the greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, less warming up there tends to curb outgoing
longwave radiation and to enhance the greenhouse effect.

Ashok Sinha, Relative influence of lapse rate and
water vapor on the greenhouse effect.
J. Geophysical Res. 100, D3 (20 March 1995), 5095-5103


Standard disclaimer & cheers,

Robin van Spaandonk

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
In article <820879...@daflight.demon.co.uk>, Hugh Easton wrote :
[snip]
While it is true that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, you
seem to have neglected the fact that increased evaporation also leads
to increased cloud cover, which in turn means more reflection of
incoming energy. In short, this tends to be self-mitigating, and may
in fact well be an important reason why temperatures don't rise as
high as we might otherwise predict.
BTW more water in the water cycle has another effect as well. More
rain in the tropics, and more snow at the poles. The extra snow at the
poles (and temperate regions), also gives the surface a higher
reflectivity, which also tends to lower temperatures again (if it
isn't melted by the warmer seas :)
In short the picture is somewhat more complicated than your model has
led us to believe.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvan...@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Competitive Enterprise Institute

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to

On 4 Jan 1996, Jan Schloerer wrote:

> For the ground based temperature record, possible errors due to
> local development (urban heat islands),
> relocation of stations,
> varying coverage of the globe (the older the gappier),
> and more, have been taken into account for several years now.

There have been attempts to account for these errors have only been
partially successful. Only for well documented changes has it been
possible to statistically remove the errors from the record. There is
still a considerable amount of contamination.

T.R. Karl et al. "The Recent Climate Record: What it Can and Cannot Tell
Us," Reviews in Geophysics 27(1989): 405-430.

T.R. Karl, H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, "Urbanization: Its Detection and
Effect in the United States Climactic Record," Journal of Climate
1(1988): 1099-1123.

P.D. Jones et al., "Assessment of Urbanization Effects in Time Series of
Surface Air Temperature over Land," Nature 347 (1990): 169-172.

R.C. Balling, Jr., "Impact of Desertification on Regional and Global
Warming," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72(1991): 232-234.


>
> Result: Best estimate of nearly 0.5 o C surface warming over
> the past century, the true value probably sitting somewhere
> between 0.3 and 0.6 o C. Since 1990, continuing re-analysis
> of the data did not change this estimate appreciably. Easy
> starter, if slightly dated (aerosols are missing):
>
> Philip D. Jones and Tom M.L. Wigley, Global warming trends.
> Scientific American 263, 2 (August 1990), 66-73

True enough. However, nearly 70 percent of the warming (.37
degrees C) occurred in the first half of the record -- before the
greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.

R.C. Balling, Jr., "Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, and
Pointless Policy," in The True State of the Planet, (New York: The Free
Press), 1995. p. 83-107.


> As you said, the satellite record is short yet. Also, hard luck,
> it started in 1979, just a few years too late to capture the
> warming of the late 1970s.
>
> John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider, Satellite greenhouse signal.
> Nature 367 (27 Jan 1994), 325
> Richard A. Kerr, Is the world warming or not ?
> Science 267 (3 Feb 1995), 612

According to the satellite record the earth has cooled by 0.13 degrees
Celsius. Computer climate models have predicted a warming of 0.4 degrees
Celsius. Something is wrong and I am betting its the models.

>
>
> Jan Schloerer schl...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
> Uni Ulm Klinische Dokumentation D-89070 Ulm Germany
>
>

I think there is a long way to go before we reach anything even
approaching a scientific consensus on global warming.

Paul Georgia
The views expressed are nobodies but my own.

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
rvan...@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

[in response to Hugh Easton]

>While it is true that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, you
>seem to have neglected the fact that increased evaporation also leads
>to increased cloud cover, which in turn means more reflection of
>incoming energy.

Perhaps he "neglected" it because it _isn't_ a "fact"?

Increased evaporation _may_ lead to more cloud, but it could also lead
to the same amount of cloud at a lower altitude, different types of
cloud, etc.

If the evaporation increases because of warmer _temperatures_ (the
usual global warming scenario), then the atmosphere can hold _more_ water
vapour that it did before, and the likelihood of forming clouds may
actually _decrease_. Clouds may form at higher altitudes (since they need
to rise more to cool enough for condensation), or different clouds may
form in different places, etc.

Your claim of "more clouds" is overly simplistic. Presenting it as a
"fact" is misleading.


>In short, this tends to be self-mitigating, and may
>in fact well be an important reason why temperatures don't rise as
>high as we might otherwise predict.
>BTW more water in the water cycle has another effect as well. More
>rain in the tropics, and more snow at the poles.

...unless more of the precipitation falls as rain, in which case
snowfall can decrease... which is the likely case if evaporation
increased because of warmer temperatures.

>The extra snow at the
>poles (and temperate regions), also gives the surface a higher
>reflectivity, which also tends to lower temperatures again (if it
>isn't melted by the warmer seas :)

...but you imply that the "increased snow" was the reult of warming, in
which case snow cover (and ice cover) will _decrease_, leading to a
_positive_ feedback, and _further_ warming. Your suggestion that there
will be a negative feedback flies in the face of what you would hear from
just about any climatologist.

>In short the picture is somewhat more complicated than your model has
>led us to believe.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

--

Dave Halliwell I don't speak for my employers, and you
Edmonton, Alberta shouldn't expect them to speak for me.

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>In article <4d167g$4...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca> dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca (Dave Halliwell) writes:

>> Increased evaporation _may_ lead to more cloud, but it could also lead
>>to the same amount of cloud at a lower altitude, different types of
>>cloud, etc.

>> If the evaporation increases because of warmer _temperatures_ (the
>>usual global warming scenario), then the atmosphere can hold _more_ water
>>vapour that it did before, and the likelihood of forming clouds may
>>actually _decrease_. Clouds may form at higher altitudes (since they need
>>to rise more to cool enough for condensation), or different clouds may
>>form in different places, etc.

>In addition to the atmosphere being able to accomodate more clouds,

"accomodate more clouds"? On what basis do you come up with such a
claim? What process in physics leads to the atmosphere's ability to
"accomodate clouds"?

Clouds form when the air is cooled to the point where it can no
longer hold water _vapour_ in the amounts present. Condensation leads to
the formation of water droplets - i.e. clouds. Warming means that higher
levels of water _vapour_ can be "accomodated".

>one would expect more evaporation, since the ocean temperature should
>increase as well.

...and with warmer air temperatures, what is the effect of the greater
water _vapour_ holding capacity of the atmosphere?

>> Your claim of "more clouds" is overly simplistic. Presenting it as a
>>"fact" is misleading.

>Perhaps climate models are over simplistic?

Perhaps climate models include the physics that controls cloud
formation and evaporation? Perhaps you don't know what the cliamte models
do?

>>>In short, this tends to be self-mitigating, and may
>>>in fact well be an important reason why temperatures don't rise as
>>>high as we might otherwise predict.
>>>BTW more water in the water cycle has another effect as well. More
>>>rain in the tropics, and more snow at the poles.

>> ...unless more of the precipitation falls as rain, in which case
>>snowfall can decrease... which is the likely case if evaporation
>>increased because of warmer temperatures.

>Why?

Ever seen snow on the ground in the summer? Pretty rare, isn't it? As
things get warmer, some snow events will become rain events.

>Wouldn't more rainfall be a good thing, particularly in North Africa?

Not if greater evaporation leads to reduced soil moisture. Plants take
in water and nutrients through their roots, not from the atmosphere
(except CO2, and N2 in nitrogen-fixing species). Also, not if that rain
comes in infrequent, violent thunderstorms instead of nice gentle soaking
rains.

>However, you seem to violently argue the same thing below.

...but _I_ know that soil moisture is a balance between precipitation
and evaporation...

>>>The extra snow at the
>>>poles (and temperate regions), also gives the surface a higher
>>>reflectivity, which also tends to lower temperatures again (if it
>>>isn't melted by the warmer seas :)

>> ...but you imply that the "increased snow" was the reult of warming, in
>>which case snow cover (and ice cover) will _decrease_, leading to a
>>_positive_ feedback, and _further_ warming. Your suggestion that there
>>will be a negative feedback flies in the face of what you would hear from
>>just about any climatologist.

>In other words, the feedbacks are negative and self dampening. You seem
>to be saying what he said above.

Absolutely not. I am refuting his claim that warming will lead to
increased snow. Although that may happen in some colder localities, in
the global mean warming will lead to _reduced_ snow and ice. His
"increased snowfall" is absent, and there will _not_ be a negative
feedback.

>>>In short the picture is somewhat more complicated than your model has
>>>led us to believe.

>> In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

>You have made it even more complicated, so you have proven his point.

"Making something more complicated by introducing things that are not
true" was his point, and I have _not_ "proven" that. His "fact" was not a
"fact" at all.

>Very good. Maybe he did know what he was talking about.

No, he did not, just as you do not.

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
rvan...@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

>In article <4d167g$4...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca>, Dave Halliwell
>wrote :

>> Increased evaporation _may_ lead to more cloud, but it could also lead
>>to the same amount of cloud at a lower altitude, different types of
>>cloud, etc.

>> If the evaporation increases because of warmer _temperatures_ (the
>>usual global warming scenario), then the atmosphere can hold _more_ water
>>vapour that it did before, and the likelihood of forming clouds may
>>actually _decrease_.

>If higher temperatures lead to higher evaporation, then higher
>condensation in the long run is inevitable (after saturating the
>atmosphere the water has to go somewhere). I have yet to see
>condensation without clouds.

Yes. And greater condensation is followed by greater precipitation.
Clouds don't just hang around up there forever, you know. I have yet to
see precipitation that doesn't remove water from clouds.

Now, the particular balance point - at which rates of evaporation,
rates of condensation, and rates of precipitation balance - is a quite
delicate little problem. It is _not_ a "fact" that increased evaporation
will automagically lead to increased cloud.

Raymond Pierrehumbert has just reposted a discussion about clouds and
global warming. I strongly suggest that you read it.

>>Clouds may form at higher altitudes (since they need
>>to rise more to cool enough for condensation), or different clouds may
>>form in different places, etc.

>In fact both very likely, however those clouds will be thicker, and
>will occur more frequently, while producing more condensation.

Assertion without evidence.

>> Your claim of "more clouds" is overly simplistic. Presenting it as a
>>"fact" is misleading.

>It was a statement of what I believe would happen on average. (In
>fact, I think it is already happening).

Just because it is your "belief" does not mean that it is a "fact".

>> ...unless more of the precipitation falls as rain, in which case
>>snowfall can decrease... which is the likely case if evaporation
>>increased because of warmer temperatures.

>This depends on the local temperature where the precipitation occurs.
>In and near the tropics this will be rain. Near the poles it will be
>snow or sleet (usually). I have made the general assumption that
>higher condensation means that on average condensation will increase
>everywhere, however the increase will be greater in some areas than in
>others.

In other words, you agree that your assumption of "increases
everywhere" is incorrect.

> I speak of course of averages in all parameters.

When it comes to the hydrological cycle, this is a distinctly _bad_
thing to do. Look at a global map of precipitation. Compare its [lack of]
uniformity to a global temperature map.

>I take your
>statement above to mean that you believe there is a possibility that
>due to higher temperatures, areas near the poles may experience rain
>where they previously had snow.

This is most _decidedly_ the case. The greatest snowfalls tend to
occur in air masses near freezing, since those air masses hold much more
water vapour than cold air masses. At least some of these near-freezing
snowfalls will become rainfalls in a warmer climate.

>This is possible, but I believe that
>it is also possible that it could equally well go the other way.

In very cold air masses, which hold little water vapour, warming will
increase the vapour content and allow for more snow.

>I.e.
>increased snowfall in the early stages (near the poles)

I presume "early" is not a temporal variable, than you just mean the
spatial connotation (near the poles)?

> leads to
>higher reflection,

...but what is the difference between a foot of snow and two feet of
snow, when it comes to reflectivity? Not much. Increased snowfall in
areas already covered by snow isn't much of a big deal. It might delay
spring melt (depends on what time of the winter the snow falls), but it
doesn't affect reflectivity much.

Besides: at the poles, there isn't a lot of winter sunshine.

> and lower polar temps (but warmer near the
>equator). This in turn results in snowfall near the poles staying on
>the ground longer, lowering temperatures even further. (A "snowball"
>effect as it were :)

...but _global_ albedo is largely dependent on the _area_ covered in
snow. In temperature latitudes, changing "snow near freezing" to "rain
slightly above freezing" means that many areas previously covered by snow
will not be. (The same applies to sea ice extent.) The _reduced_ albedo
in these areas is a strong positive feedback. These areas also have much
higher winter insolation levels, so reflectivity is much more important
here.

This is _not_ conjectural. It is _observational_, based on weather
patterns and seasonal snow covers.

>>>The extra snow at the
>>>poles (and temperate regions), also gives the surface a higher
>>>reflectivity, which also tends to lower temperatures again (if it
>>>isn't melted by the warmer seas :)

>> ...but you imply that the "increased snow" was the reult of warming, in
>>which case snow cover (and ice cover) will _decrease_, leading to a
>>_positive_ feedback, and _further_ warming. Your suggestion that there

>I agree that the feedback will be positive, however at the outset,
>warming at the poles wouldn't be sufficient to raise the average
>temperature above freezing. Therefore most precipitation would still
>fall as white shiny stuff. This means that the feedback may well be in
>the direction of decreasing polar temps, rather than increasing.

The poles are already _covered_ by "white shiny stuff". The difference
will be in the areas between the equator and the poles: the
mid-latitudes. In these areas, winter arrives a bit later, and spring
arrives a bit earlier, leading to a shorter period of winter snow cover.
THAT'S where the reflectivity changes show up - not at the poles.

>>will be a negative feedback flies in the face of what you would hear from

>(This is actually also positive feedback. I.e. self re-enforcing)

You can't have a process that will be a negative feedback in response
to warming, yet be a positive feedback in response to cooling.

>>just about any climatologist.
>Yes it does doesn't it?

Say what?

>>>In short the picture is somewhat more complicated than your model has
>>>led us to believe.

>> In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

>Maybe not, but I don't think you are all that far ahead of me.

I disagree.

Robin van Spaandonk

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
In article <4d167g$4...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca>, Dave Halliwell
wrote :

>rvan...@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>

>[in response to Hugh Easton]
>
>>While it is true that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, you
>>seem to have neglected the fact that increased evaporation also leads
>>to increased cloud cover, which in turn means more reflection of
>>incoming energy.
>
> Perhaps he "neglected" it because it _isn't_ a "fact"?
>

> Increased evaporation _may_ lead to more cloud, but it could also lead
>to the same amount of cloud at a lower altitude, different types of
>cloud, etc.
>
> If the evaporation increases because of warmer _temperatures_ (the
>usual global warming scenario), then the atmosphere can hold _more_ water
>vapour that it did before, and the likelihood of forming clouds may
>actually _decrease_.
If higher temperatures lead to higher evaporation, then higher
condensation in the long run is inevitable (after saturating the
atmosphere the water has to go somewhere). I have yet to see
condensation without clouds.

>Clouds may form at higher altitudes (since they need

>to rise more to cool enough for condensation), or different clouds may
>form in different places, etc.
In fact both very likely, however those clouds will be thicker, and
will occur more frequently, while producing more condensation.
>

> Your claim of "more clouds" is overly simplistic. Presenting it as a
>"fact" is misleading.

It was a statement of what I believe would happen on average. (In
fact, I think it is already happening).

>
>


>>In short, this tends to be self-mitigating, and may
>>in fact well be an important reason why temperatures don't rise as
>>high as we might otherwise predict.
>>BTW more water in the water cycle has another effect as well. More
>>rain in the tropics, and more snow at the poles.
>

> ...unless more of the precipitation falls as rain, in which case
>snowfall can decrease... which is the likely case if evaporation
>increased because of warmer temperatures.

This depends on the local temperature where the precipitation occurs.
In and near the tropics this will be rain. Near the poles it will be
snow or sleet (usually). I have made the general assumption that
higher condensation means that on average condensation will increase
everywhere, however the increase will be greater in some areas than in

others. I speak of course of averages in all parameters. I take your


statement above to mean that you believe there is a possibility that
due to higher temperatures, areas near the poles may experience rain

where they previously had snow. This is possible, but I believe that
it is also possible that it could equally well go the other way. I.e.
increased snowfall in the early stages (near the poles) leads to
higher reflection, and lower polar temps (but warmer near the


equator). This in turn results in snowfall near the poles staying on
the ground longer, lowering temperatures even further. (A "snowball"
effect as it were :)
>

>>The extra snow at the
>>poles (and temperate regions), also gives the surface a higher
>>reflectivity, which also tends to lower temperatures again (if it
>>isn't melted by the warmer seas :)
>
> ...but you imply that the "increased snow" was the reult of warming, in
>which case snow cover (and ice cover) will _decrease_, leading to a
>_positive_ feedback, and _further_ warming. Your suggestion that there

I agree that the feedback will be positive, however at the outset,
warming at the poles wouldn't be sufficient to raise the average
temperature above freezing. Therefore most precipitation would still
fall as white shiny stuff. This means that the feedback may well be in
the direction of decreasing polar temps, rather than increasing.

>will be a negative feedback flies in the face of what you would hear from

(This is actually also positive feedback. I.e. self re-enforcing)

>just about any climatologist.
Yes it does doesn't it?
>

>>In short the picture is somewhat more complicated than your model has
>>led us to believe.
>
> In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe not, but I don't think you are all that far ahead of me.
>

>--
>
>Dave Halliwell I don't speak for my employers, and you
>Edmonton, Alberta shouldn't expect them to speak for me.

One last comment. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a global
system that retained more energy, also demonstrated greater
polarisation.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
: I think there is a long way to go before we reach anything even
: approaching a scientific consensus on global warming.

You do? How interesting.

What feedback mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community
that are larger than the heating caused by increased CO2? If there are
none, then increasing CO2 can not decrease the temperature. What feedback
mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community that are
exactly equal to the heating caused by increased CO2? if there are none,
then increasing CO2 can not leave the temperature unchanged.

If you can prove that a substantial number of scientists have developed
and or adopted theories of the type mentioned above, then your claim of
no consensus is valid. If you are incapable of proving that substandial
numbers of scientists hold such opinions then the only conclusion is that
they do not hold such opinions. In other words, there is scientific
conensus for global warming.

I would go so far as to say that virtually every one of the worlds
scientists will admit to the validity of global warming. The extent of
the warming is however a matter for debate. The reality of warming is not.

In fact, denial of global warming is in direct violation with the basic
rules of science.

--

Jan Schloerer

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960110...@access2.digex.net>
Paul Georgia from Competitive Enterprise Institute
<c...@access2.digex.net> ...

... argued some evergreens. Perhaps he might be able to argue
more convincingly, if he went to the trouble of reading some
of the work he criticizes.


> On 4 Jan 1996, Jan Schloerer wrote:
>
>> For the ground based temperature record, possible errors due to
>> local development (urban heat islands),
>> relocation of stations,
>> varying coverage of the globe (the older the gappier),
>> and more, have been taken into account for several years now.
>
> There have been attempts to account for these errors have only been
> partially successful. Only for well documented changes has it been
> possible to statistically remove the errors from the record. There
> is still a considerable amount of contamination.
>
> T.R. Karl et al. "The Recent Climate Record: What it Can and Cannot
> Tell Us," Reviews in Geophysics 27(1989): 405-430.
>
> T.R. Karl, H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, "Urbanization: Its Detection and
> Effect in the United States Climactic Record," Journal of Climate

> 1 (1988): 1099-1123.


>
> P.D. Jones et al., "Assessment of Urbanization Effects in Time Series
> of Surface Air Temperature over Land," Nature 347 (1990): 169-172.


Some niceties seem to have escaped your attention. Firstly, these
papers address exactly some of the error sources taken into account
by the IPCC. Along with dozens of other papers, the first two of
"your" articles went into the 1990 IPCC Report [1], the third one
went into the 1992 Supplement [2].

Secondly, skeptics who don't love the modern surface temperature
record might sound more credible if they eventually stopped to quote
Thomas R. Karl as allegedly supporting their claims. Karl is the
lead author of two of "your" papers, and, according to [2, p 167],
he coauthored the third one.

At the same time, T.R. Karl is a lead author of the relevant sections
of the 1990 and 1992 IPCC Reports [1,2], which estimated about
0.5 o C warming over the last century, true value probably sitting
between 0.3 and 0.6 o C. To my knowledge, Karl is again a lead
author of the relevant section of the 1995 IPCC Report (in print),
which, according to the summary, will say that continuing re-
analyses of the data didn't change this estimate appreciably.


> R.C. Balling, Jr., "Impact of Desertification on Regional and
> Global Warming," Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> Society 72(1991): 232-234.

Discussed in [2, p 164]. While an interesting observation, the
overall effect of changing land surface characteristics is more
tricky to determine than Balling suggests. You get the opposite
effect from areas where irrigation and crops were introduced, also
from new lakes behind dams. The balance of all these changes is
unknown (or was, in 1992).

[1] C.K. Folland, T.R. Karl, K. Ya Vinnikow (39 contributors),
Observed Climate Variations and Change.
Section 7, pages 195-238 in:
Climate Change - The IPCC Scientific Assessment
Cambridge University Press 1990
[2] C.K. Folland, T.R. Karl, N. Nicholls, B.S. Nyenzi,
D.E. Parker, K. Ya Vinnikow (35 contributors),
Observed Climate Variability and Change.
Section C, pages 135-170 in:
Climate Change 1992 - The Supplementary Report to the IPCC
Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press 1992

[...]

> [...] However, nearly 70 percent of the warming (.37 degrees C)


> occurred in the first half of the record -- before the greatest
> buildup of greenhouse gases.
>
> R.C. Balling, Jr., "Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data,
> and Pointless Policy," in The True State of the Planet,
> (New York: The Free Press), 1995. p. 83-107.

Again, some niceties have escaped your (or Balling's ?) attention.
I have yet to learn of a climatologist who claims that the surface
temperature record over the past century is entirely human-made.

Surface temperature is currently controlled by at least three
factors: human-made greenhouse gases, human-made aerosols,
and natural climatic variability. Aersosol cooling is hard to
quantify, the effects of natural variability are even less well
understood. Moreover, the lag time and the rapidity of the
response of the climate system are uncertain. Many people tend
to forget that the deep ocean may (*may*) take up lots of heat,
before the climate machine gets seriously going.

Currently, it's simply not feasible to deduce much about the amount
of future climate change from the observed surface temperature
record. Doing so is, at best, rash.


>> As you said, the satellite record is short yet. Also, hard luck,
>> it started in 1979, just a few years too late to capture the
>> warming of the late 1970s.
>>
>> John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider, Satellite greenhouse signal.
>> Nature 367 (27 Jan 1994), 325
>> Richard A. Kerr, Is the world warming or not ?
>> Science 267 (3 Feb 1995), 612
>
> According to the satellite record the earth has cooled by 0.13
> degrees Celsius. Computer climate models have predicted a warming
> of 0.4 degrees Celsius. Something is wrong and I am betting its
> the models.

I am betting that it is, in part at least, that models didn't take
into account aerosol cooling. Meanwhile they are starting to do so.
Agreement between observations and models is improving.

For the satellite record, I recommend you look at the above articles
instead of relying on Balling's second-hand description.

The *raw* data show a cooling trend of -0.04 o C per decade from
1979 through November 1993 [Christy, figure 1a]. From 1979 through
1994, the raw data show practically no trend, since 1994 was warmer
than 1993 [Kerr]. (From hearsay, 1995 was warmer again, so from 1979
through 1995 the raw data should show a warming trend.)

When you take away the effects of volcanoes and El Nino-Southern
Oscillation, the data show a warming trend of 0.09 o C per decade
between 1979 and 1993 [Christy, figure 1e].

Next, the satellite record starts in 1979, just a few years too
late to capture the marked warming during the late 1970s [Kerr].

Finally, the satellites (microwave sounding units) do not measure
surface but tropospheric temperatures. These two temperatures
need not necessarily behave the same way.

If you are out for a climate change skeptic with truly challenging
notions, I recommend you try Lindzen instead of this boring stuff.
Lindzen may be wrong, but his ideas are, at least, interesting.

This is my last post for a while, sorry/congratulations :)

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
Jan Schloerer (SCHL...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de) wrote:

: In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960110...@access2.digex.net>


: Paul Georgia from Competitive Enterprise Institute
: <c...@access2.digex.net> ...

: > On 4 Jan 1996, Jan Schloerer wrote:
: >
: >> For the ground based temperature record, possible errors due to
: >> local development (urban heat islands),
: >> relocation of stations,
: >> varying coverage of the globe (the older the gappier),
: >> and more, have been taken into account for several years now.
: >
: > There have been attempts to account for these errors have only been
: > partially successful. Only for well documented changes has it been
: > possible to statistically remove the errors from the record. There
: > is still a considerable amount of contamination.

: >

After working for 30 years with US weather data, I would say that it is
highly unreliable. Here are some of my observations:

1. From one of his neighbors who kept his own records, I learned that an
official recording officer had made false entires because of drunkenness
and frequent absence to go fishing.

2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the old
Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story building on
Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average recorded
temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely due to the
closeness of this equipment.

3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the
recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation and
sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology started to
move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned buildings. In a
span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the recorded average temp.
shot up close to 10 degrees.

If there was an effort to correct for these "errors", I would like to see
how they did the correction. Until then, "Global Warming" is to me just one
great big farce.

Ernst

R. T. Pierrehumbert

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
Mr. Holland writes
>Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already >enjoyed
>the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.

There have been maybe 100 internationally recognized scientists
involved in writing the IPCC reports. They have drawn on the
results of a few hundred more climate theorists, modelers and
observationalists, carried out over at least thirty years,
at an expense of many billions of dollars (especially when you
figure in the costs of NASA satellites).

So I don't see where you have gotten the impression that the
decision is being made "lightly."

By the way, I have been dipping into you thread from time to time,
and while I don't have the time to waste responding to you,
most of what you write about models is nonsense.

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:

: After working for 30 years with US weather data, I would say that it is
: highly unreliable. Here are some of my observations:

: 1. From one of his neighbors who kept his own records, I learned that an
: official recording officer had made false entires because of drunkenness
: and frequent absence to go fishing.

: 2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the old
: Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story building on
: Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
: air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average recorded
: temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely due to the
: closeness of this equipment.

: 3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the
: recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation and
: sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology started to
: move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned buildings. In a
: span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the recorded average temp.
: shot up close to 10 degrees.

: If there was an effort to correct for these "errors", I would like to see
: how they did the correction. Until then, "Global Warming" is to me just one
: great big farce.

: Ernst

Ha, and I remember another thing. The temperature reported in the daily
records is the highest level the thermometer reached during the day.
There may have been 60 degrees all day long, but if the sun came through
for ten minutes and bumped it up to 80, the records would state 80 degrees.
Then, these high points would be averaged and called "average
temperature" at the end of months or years, which is, of course, totally
false.

So, you "Global Warming" experts, show us also how you tackled this.

Ernst (again)


Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
In article <4d64i0$8...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca> dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca (Dave Halliwell) writes:
>zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>

[...]

>>> Your claim of "more clouds" is overly simplistic. Presenting it as a
>>>"fact" is misleading.
>
>>Perhaps climate models are over simplistic?
>
> Perhaps climate models include the physics that controls cloud
>formation and evaporation? Perhaps you don't know what the cliamte models
>do?

[...]

Lets cut the bull. This is my principle objection to Climate models,
as one who has modeled various physical systems, and been bitten by
various bugs.

You have a chaotic statistical system. It has various inputs and
physical relationships. You adjust inputs and models until you
get a statistical result. In a sense, you match the fractal dimension
of the system your modeling.

Now, can your models project a green Greenland (there once was),
or a mini-ice, as there was in 1600 (when there was a sunspot minimum)?

Of course not! If it did, you'd adjust the model to make sure it
would project that sort of thing. At that point, your part of the
model itself.

My point is, the "proof" that those models can *project* anything, beyond
what has been observed, is pretty difficult. When I read of statements by
IPCC folks that models have corrections which keeps them from going
nuts, I become a tad bit skeptical. Especially when "special" statistical
techniques are required to validate those models.

I believe that it is rather easy to statistically fool oneself into
beleiving the output of their chaotic models, and never really understand
that those models may _lag_ observation.

If the suite of inputs, boundary conditions, and model approximations
matches a short term set of observations, it does not validate the
ability of that model to extrapolate conditions.

Cutting coal emmissions in places like the US, where we have nuclear
technology, and we don't have children sleeping in the streets, might
prove a useful thing. We know that coal emissions are not generally
healthy, and it won't cost much for US to do this.

However, there are places in the world where children do sleep on the
streets, and even dirty old coal plants would at least help provide
a subsistance standard of living.

Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already enjoyed
the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.

Give me a good reason why I should believe otherwise.

>Dave Halliwell I don't speak for my employers, and you
>Edmonton, Alberta shouldn't expect them to speak for me.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Robin van Spaandonk

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In article <4d7hep$d...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, "R. T. Pierrehumbert" wrote
:

>>If higher temperatures lead to higher evaporation, then higher
>>condensation in the long run is inevitable (after saturating the
>>atmosphere the water has to go somewhere). I have yet to see
>>condensation without clouds.
>

>By area, only a small fraction of clouds are precipitating. There's
>no difficulty increasing precipitation without increasing the area
>or density of cloud cover.

By this I presume you mean that percentage wise, only a small increase
in precipitation from clouds that already precipitate would take care
of any excess condensation. The question is, if there is more water
vapour in the air, why should it all concentrate in those clouds that
are precipitating, without also adding to those which do not?

>
>And by the way, why don't you explain to us in equations why you
>think warmer temperatures will lead to more evaporation, if it's
>so simple. Tell us all about your theory of the boundary layer
>relative humidity.
Sorry no formulae. Just a simple observation that warm water
evaporates faster than cold water. I.e. as the temperature rises so
does the percentage of molecules that have sufficient energy to escape
the liquid. This coupled with on average higher wind speeds should
lead to increased evaporation.
There is another effect involved, that I have not yet mentioned. That
is the fact that the hydrological cycle acts as a gigantic evaporative
cooler for the planet, carrying heat from the surface higher up in the
atmosphere from whence it is more readily radiated out into space when
water vapour condenses. Increasing activity in the cycle is likely to
increase this cooling effect.
In my opinion the bottom line is that temperatures will not rise as
much as would be expected from a pure greenhouse effect alone. However
storm activity should increase with increased energy levels. This in
itself is a major problem, and reason enough to seek alternatives to
fossil fuels.

Will Stewart

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In <4d9u4b$d...@crl8.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
>
>> After working for 30 years with US weather data, I would say that it
>>is highly unreliable. Here are some of my observations:

Ok, so you are banking your judgement on thousands and thousands of
recording sites from your experience.

>: 1. From one of his neighbors who kept his own records, I learned
>>that an official recording officer had made false entires because of
>>drunkenness and frequent absence to go fishing.

So this one person occasionally recorded temperatures that he allegedly
did not witness; what frequency did he do this at? Did the times he
fudged cause a significant variation in temperature readings (if you
say 'yes', support your opinion).

>: 2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the
>>old Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story
>building on Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
>air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average
>recorded temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely

>due to thecloseness of this equipment.

What was the environment of the old Federal Building? Did it also have
heating and A/C equipment?

How many other temperature recording sites are within 100 miles?
Dozens, most likely.

>: 3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the
>>recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation
>>and sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology
>>started to move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned
>>buildings. In a span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the
>>recorded average temp. shot up close to 10 degrees.

I would like to know if someone can independently verify Ernste's
figure, as he has made significant miscalculations and quotes in the
past.

Again, if you base your opinion on a couple of sites out of over 6500,
then you should look into the methods of statistics and probabilities
for adjustments to sample set sizes. You will find that you fall *far*
short of being able to assess the true nature of

>If there was an effort to correct for these "errors", I would like to
>see how they did the correction. Until then, "Global Warming" is to me
>just one great big farce.

Because you want it to be.

>Ha, and I remember another thing. The temperature reported in the
>daily records is the highest level the thermometer reached during the
>day. There may have been 60 degrees all day long, but if the sun came
>through for ten minutes and bumped it up to 80, the records would
>state 80 degrees.

You seem to think that this is a relatively recent occurrence in
weather patterns; I take it this has never happened in the past?

>Then, these high points would be averaged and called "average
>temperature" at the end of months or years, which is, of course,
>totally false.

No, they would be called 'average highs'; the average temperature
during the day would be input into the average monthly temperature.

Either you are unaware of how climate data is collected and analyzed,
or you are intentionally deceptive; which is it?

Cheers,

Will Stewart

jw

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In <4d5gqs$1...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>

af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> What feedback mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific
community
>that are larger than the heating caused by increased CO2? If there
are
>none, then increasing CO2 can not decrease the temperature. What
feedback
>mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community that are
>exactly equal to the heating caused by increased CO2? if there are
none,
>then increasing CO2 can not leave the temperature unchanged.

There are two logical flaws here.

One, a specific feedback mechanism
need not be proposed to consider some such mechanism possible.
The question ought to be not, whether such a mechanism has been
identified, but whether what is already known precludes its
existence. If not, then one cannot be sure that warming,
and not cooling or zero change, will occur.

Two: suppose that increased CO2, with all side effects
and feedbacks, does tend to increase the temperature.
It does not follow that the temperature will in fact
increase - because there may be cooling processes at
work quite unconnected with CO2.
To predict *any* warming - let alone its value -
a quantitative understanding of
*all* relevant climatic processes is necessary:
a comprehensive, and correct, model of Earth's climate.
It does not exist, and therefore no one can be sure
of whether there will be continued warming,
or cooling, or null change.

> I would go so far as to say that virtually every one of the worlds
>scientists will admit to the validity of global warming. The extent
of
>the warming is however a matter for debate.

See above. If one does not know the extent, one cannot
know whether some other effect will override this one;
and if so, one does not know that there'll be any
warming at all; nor whether past warming
was due to this, or to quite different causes.

For example, the existence of the greenhouse
effect was well known a couple of decades ago, when global
*cooling* was the most popular prediction.

(Of course, for purposes of alarmism, grant-getting
and political influence, either prediction would serve...)

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:

>Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:

>: After working for 30 years with US weather data, I would say that it is
>: highly unreliable. Here are some of my observations:

>: 1. From one of his neighbors who kept his own records, I learned that an

>: official recording officer had made false entires because of drunkenness
>: and frequent absence to go fishing.

One out of how many _thousands of observations made each day? Were the
readings always too high, always too low, or randomly distributed about
the correct value?

Or are you trying to claim that _every_ weather reading was taken by a
drunken slob, and that they all fabricated readings that show the same
trend?

>: 2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the old
>: Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story building on
>: Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
>: air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average recorded

>: temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely due to the
>: closeness of this equipment.

...and that would immediately eliminate it from use in determining
global trends, since analysis typically removes any station _in_its_
_entirety_, if it shows jumps of this sort (even if documentation of a
change is not available). If such a change can be documented as to its
cause, then the record _may_ be used after compensating for the shift,
but if other stations nearby can be used, it still might be junked.

>: 3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the
>: recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation and
>: sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology started to
>: move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned buildings. In a
>: span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the recorded average temp.
>: shot up close to 10 degrees.

...and such stations show behaviour that deviates from other stations
around them, and this would again lead to that station not being included
in an analsyis of global trends.

This sort of situation would only be a problem in remote areas where
available stations are few and far between.

>: If there was an effort to correct for these "errors", I would like to see

>: how they did the correction.

You could start by looking at some of the references that Jan
Schloerer posted a week or so ago. All these "errors" are things that are
taken into account. I can repost the references if you have a sincere
desire to learn about this topic.

>Until then, "Global Warming" is to me just one
>: great big farce.

Until you learn what is actually done to produce the records of global
temperature trends, then your critique is just one great big farce.
You're arguing from a position of personal ingnorance, and the only way
to change that is to learn what really is done.


>Ha, and I remember another thing. The temperature reported in the daily
>records is the highest level the thermometer reached during the day.
>There may have been 60 degrees all day long, but if the sun came through
>for ten minutes and bumped it up to 80, the records would state 80 degrees.

>Then, these high points would be averaged and called "average
>temperature" at the end of months or years, which is, of course, totally
>false.

And on another day, at another location, it may be 80 degrees all day
long, and a cold front bumps it down to 60 degrees in the last hour. The
error in this case offsets the error in yours. In both cases, the recored
daily mean would be 70 degrees, and the mean of the two days would be 70
degrees which is, in fact, the same as if you averaged all hourly readings
instead of averaging the high and low. Using the high and the low only
introduces errors in the long term if there is a consistent bias of hours
near the maximum or minimum.


>So, you "Global Warming" experts, show us also how you tackled this.

So, "global warming ignorant", are you really interested in learning
what _is_ done?

--

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>In article <4d64i0$8...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca> dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca (Dave Halliwell) writes:

[...]

>> Perhaps climate models include the physics that controls cloud
>>formation and evaporation? Perhaps you don't know what the cliamte models
>>do?

>[...]

>Lets cut the bull. This is my principle objection to Climate models,

That you don't know what they do?

>as one who has modeled various physical systems, and been bitten by
>various bugs.

[various statements showing Holland's ignorance about climate models
deleted]

Why don't you try making a _specific_ statement about a problem with
climate models, instead of the vague ignorant ranting you showed here?

Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
rvan...@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

>In article <4d7hep$d...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, "R. T. Pierrehumbert" wrote

[in response to Robin, I think]

>>>If higher temperatures lead to higher evaporation, then higher
>>>condensation in the long run is inevitable (after saturating the
>>>atmosphere the water has to go somewhere). I have yet to see
>>>condensation without clouds.

>>By area, only a small fraction of clouds are precipitating. There's


>>no difficulty increasing precipitation without increasing the area
>>or density of cloud cover.

>By this I presume you mean that percentage wise, only a small increase
>in precipitation from clouds that already precipitate would take care
>of any excess condensation.

Well, just enough increase to exactly match the increase in
condensation, perhaps?

>The question is, if there is more water
>vapour in the air, why should it all concentrate in those clouds that
>are precipitating, without also adding to those which do not?

Um, perhaps because bigger cloud are more likely to precipitate? That
adding water vapour to clouds that aren't precipitating might make them
precipitate? That there may be a spatial correlation between areas of
increased evaporation and increased cloud and precipitation?

You're delving into the realm of cloud physics, and you really need to
do a little homework before you start speculating.

>>And by the way, why don't you explain to us in equations why you
>>think warmer temperatures will lead to more evaporation, if it's
>>so simple. Tell us all about your theory of the boundary layer
>>relative humidity.

>Sorry no formulae. Just a simple observation that warm water
>evaporates faster than cold water. I.e. as the temperature rises so
>does the percentage of molecules that have sufficient energy to escape
>the liquid.

,,,and more humid air over the warmer water will tend to reduce
evaporation.

Often, evaporation is limited by availability of _energy_: evaporation
requires energy, and maintaining a greater rate requires either more
energy (e.g. more sunlight), or removes energy from other fluxes (such as
that going into the water to warm it.)

On land, evaporation removes soil moisture. As soil moisture
decreases, evaporation is reduced. If a limited supply is available,
warmer temperatures just mean the soil dries out faster rather than
increasing the total evaporation.

There are lots of people that _have_ done (and are still doing) formal
research into atmospheric boundary layer processes. Uninformed
speculation comes in a poor second.

>This coupled with on average higher wind speeds should
>lead to increased evaporation.

Where does the magic increase in wind speeds come from?

>There is another effect involved, that I have not yet mentioned. That
>is the fact that the hydrological cycle acts as a gigantic evaporative
>cooler for the planet, carrying heat from the surface higher up in the
>atmosphere from whence it is more readily radiated out into space when
>water vapour condenses. Increasing activity in the cycle is likely to
>increase this cooling effect.

This is incorporated in the models. What makes you think that
climatologists don't know this?

>In my opinion the bottom line is that temperatures will not rise as
>much as would be expected from a pure greenhouse effect alone.

That opinion is contrary to the opinions that most climatologists
hold. Their opinions are the result of making explicit, formal
descriptions of the physical processes (mathematical) and putting them in
models to see how various competing processes react.

Your opinion seems to be based on "I think it works this way".

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4d9u4b$d...@crl8.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: >
: >: 2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the
Sorry, that should read "1962" not "1982".
: >old Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story

: >building on Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
: >air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average
: >recorded temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely
: >due to thecloseness of this equipment.

: What was the environment of the old Federal Building? Did it also have
: heating and A/C equipment?

Heating yes, A/C no.

: How many other temperature recording sites are within 100 miles?
: Dozens, most likely.

: >: 3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the

: >>recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation
: >>and sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology
: >>started to move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned
: >>buildings. In a span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the
: >>recorded average temp. shot up close to 10 degrees.

: I would like to know if someone can independently verify Ernste's


: figure, as he has made significant miscalculations and quotes in the
: past.

Yea, me too. Just answering questions with questions is not getting us
anywhere, Will. You should have learned this by now.

: No, they would be called 'average highs'; the average temperature


: during the day would be input into the average monthly temperature.

For your info, it is mathematically impossible to obtain an average of an
undulating quantity when only the highest and lowest points are known.
I have this directly from Einstein.

Ernst

tomgray

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
"R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> Mr. Holland writes

> >Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already >enjoyed
> >the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.
>
> There have been maybe 100 internationally recognized scientists
> involved in writing the IPCC reports. They have drawn on the
> results of a few hundred more climate theorists, modelers and
> observationalists, carried out over at least thirty years,
> at an expense of many billions of dollars (especially when you
> figure in the costs of NASA satellites).
>
> So I don't see where you have gotten the impression that the
> decision is being made "lightly."
>
> By the way, I have been dipping into you thread from time to time,
> and while I don't have the time to waste responding to you,
> most of what you write about models is nonsense.

What I think is sort of comical is the fancy that the governments of
the world can easily be talked into ratcheting back on fossil fuel
use, instead of holding onto business as usual like grim death.
One need only look at Capitol Hill, where the House not too long
ago invited in panels of skeptics to try to undercut the IPCC's
work and drag things out for a few more years. To put this in
terms familiar to Andy Holland, this was similar to inviting Jane
Fonda and Jeremy Rifkin in to lecture on nuclear power.

Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>


Josh Howlett

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
>: I think there is a long way to go before we reach anything even
>: approaching a scientific consensus on global warming.
>
> You do? How interesting.
>
> What feedback mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community
>that are larger than the heating caused by increased CO2?

<snip>

There are several mechanisms being considered at the moment. First,
there is fact that increased surface temperatures will lead to increased
evaporation, leading to greater cloud formation. Clouds are somewhat of
an enigma currently, as clouds reflect radiation differently depending on
their altitude. Essentially, low altitude clouds warm, high altitude
clouds cool. Clouds reflect 75 watts per m^2, compared to a doubling of
pre-I.R. CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 600 ppm which equates to additional
absorbtion of 2 watts per m^2. Hence, only a relatively small increase
of HIGH altitude cloud cover will offset a massive increase in CO2.
Records show that cloud cover globally has increased slightly. Research
done on the El Nino indicates that increased sea surface temperature does
lead to an increase in high altitude cloud cover.

CO2 absorbs radiation only of fairly specific freq. If the earth is
warming, it follows that the radiation the earth emits back into space
will be of a higher frequency which CO2 will be transparent to.

Increased CO2 acts as a fertiliser for photosynthetic organisms. There
is evidence that the recent rise in (very estimated) global biomass and
the recent fall in the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is
related.

>
> If you can prove that a substantial number of scientists have developed
>and or adopted theories of the type mentioned above, then your claim of
>no consensus is valid. If you are incapable of proving that substandial
>numbers of scientists hold such opinions then the only conclusion is that
>they do not hold such opinions. In other words, there is scientific
>conensus for global warming.
>

<snip>

Source - Gallup - a sample of 400 climatologists.

60% believed that global temperatures had risen significantly over the
last century.

20% believed that the warming was anthropogenic (man-made).

Source - Greenpeace - a sample of selected scientists

14% believed a runaway greenhouse inevitable.

50% believed that the warming was anthropogenic

(These figures are approximate, as I don't have the sources with me at
the moment. I can get them for you if you want)

> I would go so far as to say that virtually every one of the worlds
>scientists will admit to the validity of global warming.

See above ;-) .

> The extent of

>the warming is however a matter for debate. The reality of warming is >not.

I could quote endlessly against "the reality of global warming".
Sadly, little of it ever reaches the mass media. However, the following
shopuld suffice:

- Global temperatures have risen 0.88 C since I.R. However, nearly 70%
of this was pre 1940 - when only a small amount of CO2 had been released.

- The Artic region, the most susceptible to global warming, has actually
cooled.

- Highly accurate satellite surveys show that in the period 1978 to 1992,
global surface temperatures actually cooled by 0.1 (ish) degrees C. Even
accounting in the most pessimistic way for a couple of vol. eruptions
recently, that equates to a rise in temperature of 0.09 C per decade -
somewhat lower than the amount predicted (0.3 - 1.0 C)

>
> In fact, denial of global warming is in direct violation with the basic
>rules of science.

Hmmmm. That would appear contrary to the evidence above. If you have
any evidence to support your views and contradict my evidence, please
feel free to post it. I would be interested to see it. I suspect,
however, that you won't. Sorry.

josh howlett.


Raoul Miller

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) wrote:
>After working for 30 years with US weather data, I would say that it is
>highly unreliable. Here are some of my observations:
>
>1. From one of his neighbors who kept his own records, I learned that an
>official recording officer had made false entires because of drunkenness
>and frequent absence to go fishing.
>
>2. In 1982 the San Francisco recording gauges were moved from the old
>Federal Building on Market St. to the top of the new 22 story building on
>Golden Gate Ave., of which the top four floors consist of
>air-conditioning equipment, heaters and exhausts. The average recorded
>temp. jumped over two degrees from that time on, most likely due to the
>closeness of this equipment.
>
>3. In 1960, in San Jose, the heart of today's Silicone Valley, the
>recording gauges were surrounded by fruit orchards with irrigation and
>sprinkling systems operating all summer long. Then technology started to
>move in, pavement, reflecting sidings and air-conditioned buildings. In a
>span of 20 years the orchards disappeared and the recorded average temp.
>shot up close to 10 degrees.
>
>If there was an effort to correct for these "errors", I would like to see
>how they did the correction. Until then, "Global Warming" is to me just one
>great big farce.
>
>Ernst
>

Of course!! Three unsubstantiated hearsay assertions undo the three decades of careful science that have built the theory. This is=
a perfect example of how otherwise intelligent people will strive to believe anything if it means that they don't have to modify th=
eir lifestyles. Even if these three cases were to be true they would in NO way have any impact on the IPCC's data and findings. Pl=
ease, this is a SCI. newsgroup, let's at least pretend we understand what science, logic, data, etc. mean.


Raoul Miller rmi...@middlebury.edu
Dept. of Geography
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753


Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4dfb13$e...@news.acns.nwu.edu> "R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>Spaandonk:

>>Sorry no formulae. Just a simple observation that warm water
>>evaporates faster than cold water.
>
>But it doesn't! Warm water overlain by saturated air will have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>precisely zero evaporation. Cool water with strong winds
>can have higher evaporation than warm water with light
>winds.
>
>These things can be quantified, and have. They are represented
>in models. They have been checked against aircraft measurements
>of evaporation.
>

In other words, once the evaporation takes place and saturates
the air, its not allowed to rain.

Like the tropical humidity forests.

>You ought to go away and learn some physics and stop making
>a fool of yourself. Come back to the card table when
>you've got the ante.

In other words, since we question the dogma, we are fools not
worthy of enlightenment.

I wish that all the rest of us unwashed, tax paying ignorant
schmucks would come to experience this elitist enlightenment first
hand.

With the internet, perhaps in the next century, it will be the
taxpayers conducting the university sit-ins.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


R. T. Pierrehumbert

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
Spaandonk:
>Sorry no formulae. Just a simple observation that warm water
>evaporates faster than cold water.

But it doesn't! Warm water overlain by saturated air will have

precisely zero evaporation. Cool water with strong winds
can have higher evaporation than warm water with light
winds.

These things can be quantified, and have. They are represented
in models. They have been checked against aircraft measurements
of evaporation.

You ought to go away and learn some physics and stop making

Competitive Enterprise Institute

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

On 12 Jan 1996, Scott Nudds wrote:

> Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
> : I think there is a long way to go before we reach anything even
> : approaching a scientific consensus on global warming.
>
> You do? How interesting.
>
> What feedback mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community

> that are larger than the heating caused by increased CO2? If there are

> none, then increasing CO2 can not decrease the temperature. What feedback

> mechanisms are being proposed by the scientific community that are

> exactly equal to the heating caused by increased CO2? if there are none,
> then increasing CO2 can not leave the temperature unchanged.
>

> If you can prove that a substantial number of scientists have developed
> and or adopted theories of the type mentioned above, then your claim of
> no consensus is valid. If you are incapable of proving that substandial
> numbers of scientists hold such opinions then the only conclusion is that
> they do not hold such opinions. In other words, there is scientific
> conensus for global warming.
>

> I would go so far as to say that virtually every one of the worlds

> scientists will admit to the validity of global warming. The extent of

> the warming is however a matter for debate. The reality of warming is not.
>

> In fact, denial of global warming is in direct violation with the basic
> rules of science.
>

> --
>
>

Most of the miniscule amount of warming we have experienced over the last
100 years occurred before the greatest build up of green house gases.
What basic rule of science does that violate? Global warming computer
model predictions are off by a factor of between 2 and 3. What basic
rule of science does that violate? Satellite based measurements have
shown cooling of 0.13 degrees C over the last 17 years, while the models
have predicted a warming of 0.3 degrees C. What basic rule of science
does that violate?

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4denol$5...@igc.apc.org> tomgray <tom...@igc.apc.org> writes:
>"R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Holland writes
>> >Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already >enjoyed
>> >the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.
>>
>> There have been maybe 100 internationally recognized scientists
>> involved in writing the IPCC reports. They have drawn on the
>> results of a few hundred more climate theorists, modelers and
>> observationalists, carried out over at least thirty years,
>> at an expense of many billions of dollars (especially when you
>> figure in the costs of NASA satellites).

[...]

>What I think is sort of comical is the fancy that the governments of
>the world can easily be talked into ratcheting back on fossil fuel
>use, instead of holding onto business as usual like grim death.
>One need only look at Capitol Hill, where the House not too long
>ago invited in panels of skeptics to try to undercut the IPCC's
>work and drag things out for a few more years. To put this in
>terms familiar to Andy Holland, this was similar to inviting Jane
>Fonda and Jeremy Rifkin in to lecture on nuclear power.

If someone cannot reproduce the last centuries statistical temperature
record, with increases and decreases in temperature recorded at
various sites, why should they be intrusted to set multi-billion
dollar international policy, or make recommendations that affect
billions of people?

If I could not reproduce core physics calculations, and accurately
model a nuclear reactor, I can assure you, I wouldn't be allowed
to build one, or perform the safety analysis on one.

>Tom Gray

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4dekq5$3...@hera.nofc.forestry.ca> dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca (Dave Halliwell) writes:
>zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>
>>In article <4d64i0$8...@minotaur.nofc.forestry.ca> dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca (Dave Halliwell) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>> Perhaps climate models include the physics that controls cloud
>>>formation and evaporation? Perhaps you don't know what the cliamte models
>>>do?
>
>>[...]
>
>>Lets cut the bull. This is my principle objection to Climate models,
>
> That you don't know what they do?
>
>>as one who has modeled various physical systems, and been bitten by
>>various bugs.
>
> [various statements showing Holland's ignorance about climate models
>deleted]

I am ignorant of climate model specifics. I am not ignorant about chaotic
systems, and I believe that climate is a chaotic system.

Am I wrong on this?

> Why don't you try making a _specific_ statement about a problem with
>climate models, instead of the vague ignorant ranting you showed here?

Please prove me wrong, by collecting data from various sites around
the world, from 1880 to 1996, and showing me the predicted versus
measured temperatures. Heck, even from 1950 to 1996 with balloon/satellite
temperatures would be nice. How about the decades of 1970-1996 or
even 1980 through 1996.

I believe that climate models tend to go off the deep end after a decade
or so, so perhaps I am displaying my ignorance by asking you to do the
impossible.

If, however, that is impossible, why should I believe you? Please inform
me, as I am ignorant.

Isn't the burden of proof with the folks who are saying we should limit
coal use?

>Dave Halliwell I don't speak for my employers, and you
>Edmonton, Alberta shouldn't expect them to speak for me.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Dave Halliwell

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>In article <4d9fqv$5...@news.acns.nwu.edu> "R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>Mr. Holland writes
>>>Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already >enjoyed
>>>the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.

>>There have been maybe 100 internationally recognized scientists
>>involved in writing the IPCC reports. They have drawn on the
>>results of a few hundred more climate theorists, modelers and
>>observationalists, carried out over at least thirty years,
>>at an expense of many billions of dollars (especially when you

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>>figure in the costs of NASA satellites).

> ^^^^

>And if their results were null, would anyone pay for this
>scientific welfare?

>Why not get a real job, and solve some real problems?


Yes. More done by private enterprise, where shareholder profit is less
important that scientific accuracy. No reason to let facts get in the way
of making a profit, eh?

I'm sure that anyone interested in learning about causes of lung
cancer is going to get much better results working for the Tobacco
Institute than if they were in a government-funded lab.

Holland: you're a moron.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: There are two logical flaws here.

Primarily yours

Jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: One, a specific feedback mechanism


: need not be proposed to consider some such mechanism possible.
: The question ought to be not, whether such a mechanism has been
: identified, but whether what is already known precludes its
: existence. If not, then one cannot be sure that warming,
: and not cooling or zero change, will occur.

It is a basic law of nature that in equilibrium, a displacement from
the stable state <MUST> be met with negative feedback which can not
exceed the displacement in magnitude.

A system in equilibrium is by definition, stable. The above must be
true if a system is to be stable.

We observe that the earth's temperature is on average stable over long
periods of time and within set temperature ranges. In the 3 billion
years since the origin of life, the earth has stayed within a temperature
range that is compatible with the existance of life. The climate has
been stable over a half dozen 'C over the last several thousand years.

It therefore follows that no mechanism can exist that causes the earth
to cool when it it conditions would otherwise cause it to heat. We can
also assign zero probability to the statement that the net result of
heating will be zero. - exactly offset by a cooling effect.

Heating can only produce one effect. A temperature increase. How big
a temperature increase is a legitimate matter for debate. But the fact
that the average temperature will increase is a scientific fact.

It should be noted however that we are talking about average
temperatures within the range of stability. If the range is exceeded,
the climate can drastically change state - altering modes so to speak.
In this case, we have insufficient information to state the direction of
the nearest local maximum/minimum that the climate will be pushed to.

We can say however, that this state - if it is to be stable, will not
share the same global average as we have today. The temperature will
have to lie outside the extreme averages we see today. This means that
the next mode will be significantly hotter or significantly colder than
the current mode.

The climate can also change in response to warming by increasing the
magnitude or frequency of the observed temperature fluctuations. In
other words, the climate can become less stable.

All of these effects - the only effects that can occur from warming -
have negative environmental impacts.

Life as a whole has evolved to exist in our current climate. Our
societies have evolved to exist in our current climate. Drastic changes
from the norm can only be destructive in the short term (geologic time).

Anyone who makes claims of possible cooling, or complete negation of
the warming trend is showing their ignorance of basic science.

--

Michael Tobis

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:

[Usual misuse of satellite record omitted]

: However, nearly 70 percent of the warming (.37

: degrees C) occurred in the first half of the record -- before the
: greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.

If you measure to an anomalous peak, and ignore the last few years,
indeed.

: R.C. Balling, Jr., "Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, and

: Pointless Policy," in The True State of the Planet, (New York: The Free
: Press), 1995. p. 83-107.

Balling appears to have retreated from the relatively balanced and
responsible skeptical treatment given in his book a few years ago. This
article repeats a number of the most common red herrings and misdirections
that are being pushed by certain segments of the fossil fuel industry.

: I think there is a long way to go before we reach anything even
: approaching a scientific consensus on global warming.

It depends on the definition of "consensus" and the precise issue
on which consensus is being sought. There is certainly general
agreement among qualified scientists that the probability of human
induced climate change of disruptive magnitude in the next century is
large enough to warrant serious concern. Hopefully more research will
dispel this threat, and so even the most serious skeptics should support
such research. However, the current evidence indicates that disruptive
effects are just beginning to be measurable, nd also that policy responses
have a delay of some decades in being effective. If this holds out, the
eventual outcome may well be extremely severe if we await utter certainty
before taking action.

Persons advocating inaction should justify this approach from risk vs benefit.
Instead, we usually see half-informed sniping and a vague position confounding
uncertainty with fallacy. Such must be either dishonest or ignorant.

mt


Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4d9fqv$5...@news.acns.nwu.edu> "R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>Mr. Holland writes
>>Setting world restrictions on technology one society has already >enjoyed
>>the fruits of, is not something to be taken lightly.
>
>There have been maybe 100 internationally recognized scientists
>involved in writing the IPCC reports. They have drawn on the
>results of a few hundred more climate theorists, modelers and
>observationalists, carried out over at least thirty years,
>at an expense of many billions of dollars (especially when you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>figure in the costs of NASA satellites).
^^^^

And if their results were null, would anyone pay for this
scientific welfare?

Why not get a real job, and solve some real problems?

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer

Paul Farrar

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article
<Pine.SUN.3.91.960116...@access2.digex.net>
Competitive Enterprise Institute (Competitive Enterprise Institute
<c...@access2.digex.net>) wrote:
...
>... Satellite based measurements have
>shown cooling of 0.13 degrees C over the last 17 years, while the models
>have predicted a warming of 0.3 degrees C. What basic rule of science
>does that violate?

>Paul Georgia
>The views expressed are nobodies but my own.

Paul:

This issue was discussed on sci.environment about 2 weeks
ago. (Well, actually, it gets discussed about every week or so.)
The following is an extract from a post on this issue I wrote
that you probably missed because it expired during holidays, or
because you read from some other group.

Let me stress that what is measured from the satellites is not the
surface temperature that people like the IPCC make predictions
of (and that we live in). It is not in the same place in the
atmosphere; it has a very different value; it shows far less
variation (and we expect that on theoretical grounds); and,
for much of the world, it really isn't even very well correlated with
the surface temperature. Balling's comparison is completely
worthless; indeed, worse than worthless because it leads people
like the hapless Daigle astray.

Yes, I know who Balling is. The WSJ letter bit may need a :)


In article <30EB0E...@biddeford.com>,
Bob Daigle <rda...@biddeford.com> wrote in reply to some Hugh Easton
posting:
...
>Is it always the "industries" that have to change? Isn't it you and I?
>
>I have a hard time with this because the I've never heard a good response to
>the following criticism of the global warming theory:
>
>1) earth based temperature measurements are affected by local development -
>only orbiting measurements can be believed and our data history is too short
>to suggest a long term trend, and
>

There is one minor problem, though: We can't measure surface air
temperature, the variable in question, from satellites. If it's not
very cloudy, we can get a pretty good estimate from IR sounder data.
Microwave sounders don't have the same degree of cloud problem, but
they cover a very large chunk of the troposphere (for example, the
53.74GHz channel 2 brightness temperature, Ch2TB). As a result, the
Ch2TB gives a TB of around 250K, which is a lot colder than surface
air temperature (~285K average), and it shows a lot less variability
than the surface air temperature. A guy named Balling, who writes a
lot of letters to the Wall Street Journal, has been presenting the
Ch2TB in a way that has led some laymen to think it is surface air
temperature, and has been comparing it to estimates of possible
surface air temperature change (apples & oranges!) Even a good science

journalist, Kerr of _Science_ seems to have made this mistake about a
year ago (3 Feb 95 issue). If you want to see how we get this
satellite data, there is a really good new book, _Satellite
Meteorology_, by Kidder and Vonder Haar, from Academic press. See
Chap.6 on temperature and trace gases. For Ch2TB there is
also Spencer, Christy and Grody (1990), J. of Climate, vol 3, p1111,
which is where Balling said he got one of his figures from (but it's
not in there).

We can also adjust the actual surface air temperatures for local
changes, which is less processing than the satellite data goes
through, but that doesn't completely solve distribution problems.

Paul Farrar
far...@datasync.com
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/
far...@datasync.com 70053,3464


Raoul Miller

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to kno...@crl.com
kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) wrote:
>Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
>
>: Much incorrect BS

>: great big farce.
>
>: Ernst


>
>Ha, and I remember another thing. The temperature reported in the daily
>records is the highest level the thermometer reached during the day.
>There may have been 60 degrees all day long, but if the sun came through
>for ten minutes and bumped it up to 80, the records would state 80 degrees.
>Then, these high points would be averaged and called "average
>temperature" at the end of months or years, which is, of course, totally
>false.
>

>So, you "Global Warming" experts, show us also how you tackled this.
>

>Ernst (again)
>
Once again Ernst you are completely wrong. The temperature recorded for each day is the average daily temperature which is the nume=
rical mean of the daily high and low temps. In fact, NOAA records maximum, minimum, average and departure from normal temperatures.=
All available to you if you bothered to check before making completely false statements.
Cheers,

Steinn Sigurdsson

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
In article <4dgphp$m...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:


If someone cannot reproduce the last centuries statistical temperature
record, with increases and decreases in temperature recorded at
various sites, why should they be intrusted to set multi-billion

They can, the latest Hadley model incorporating the effects
of aerosols and SO2 reproduces the last 130 years well.
I believe the latest MPI and Princeton models do so as well
although I haven't seen their data.


Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
: Most of the miniscule amount of warming we have experienced over the last
: 100 years occurred before the greatest build up of green house gases.
: What basic rule of science does that violate?

First off, .5' is hardly miniscule. Perhaps it is to those who are
ignorant of the consequences of small temperture changes. I hope that
you do not include yoursel in such a category.

Secondly, it is gratifying that free market loonies such as yourself
are finally admitting to the scientific reality of global warming. Now
that you have admitted that it is occurring perhaps you can take part in
some discussions of how great the warming will eventually be.

With this in mind, I must ask you a simple question. Since you now
admit the scientific reality that the planet is heating due to an
increase in atmospheric CO2, and since man in emitting 5 gigatonns more
CO2 than is being sequesterd by nature, how will continuing to emit this
excess effect the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?p

Are you willing to state that by emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere
than is being naturally taken out is a process that will lower CO2
concentrations?

Are you willing to state that higher CO2 concentrations will decrease
the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-radiate heat, thereby decreasing its
ability to keep the earth warm?

Assuming you answer no to both questions, - And I pity you if you
attempt to answer yes - it appears to me that the only logical conclusion
that can be drawn is that continuing to put more CO2 into the atmosphere
can only have one effect... That is to increase the temperature of the
planet.

If you can draw any other logical conclusions or if you have some
insite into the absorption spectra of CO2, or can prove that the
measurements showing atmospheric CO2 levels to be rising, then please
post them here. I am sure the scientists who are responsible for the
science behind the absorption spectra, and CO2 measurements would love to
hear your comments.

Course coming from a rectally inverted organization like the CEI, I can
only expect you to argue that levels of CO2 can not be increasing since
no one is paying for its creation. And if no one is paying for it, it
can not be being produced.


I will ignore the rest of your stpidity and await your reply with great
anticipation. Teach me master.


--

Competitive Enterprise Institute

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to

On 16 Jan 1996, Michael Tobis wrote:

> Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
>

> [Usual misuse of satellite record omitted]

Please explain my misuse of satellite record.

>
> : However, nearly 70 percent of the warming (.37
> : degrees C) occurred in the first half of the record -- before the
> : greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.
>
> If you measure to an anomalous peak, and ignore the last few years,
> indeed.

Nice try, but talk about misdirections. I am including every year from
1881 to 1993. There are no anomalous peaks. A quick look at a graph
shows wild fluctuations in temperature throughout the entire time
period. Despite of the fluctuations there was a warming trend from 1881
to 1940. The trend then levels out over the next 40 yrs. to 1980. From
1980 to the present there has been some warming according to the ground
based measurements, but according to satellite measurements there has
been overall cooling.


> It depends on the definition of "consensus" and the precise issue
> on which consensus is being sought. There is certainly general
> agreement among qualified scientists that the probability of human
> induced climate change of disruptive magnitude in the next century is
> large enough to warrant serious concern. Hopefully more research will
> dispel this threat, and so even the most serious skeptics should support
> such research.

Continued research is fine. However, IPCC scientists all depend on the
existence of global warming to get their government grants. If they said
that global warming was not a threat the money would cease to flow, so
they grasp at every bit of evidence no matter how small in favor of global
warming and ignore or try to debunk evidence which contradicts global
warming no matter how convincing.


> However, the current evidence indicates that disruptive
> effects are just beginning to be measurable,

Please cite some of the evidence. I have seen nothing that even comes
close to making a strong case for the existence global warming.

You could have said the same thing 24 times in the last 100 yrs. You could
have
also said that global cooling was just beginning to be measurable the
same number of times in the last 100 yrs.

> Persons advocating inaction should justify this approach from risk vs benefit.

Only an irrational fool would make decisions without comparing the
relative risks associated with each potential action. Everything we do
entails risks, but we do them because the potential benefits outweigh the
potential costs. What other criteria would you use?

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
In article <4dg2u0$d...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: There are two logical flaws here.
>
>Primarily yours
>
>Jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: One, a specific feedback mechanism
>: need not be proposed to consider some such mechanism possible.
>: The question ought to be not, whether such a mechanism has been
>: identified, but whether what is already known precludes its
>: existence. If not, then one cannot be sure that warming,
>: and not cooling or zero change, will occur.
>
> It is a basic law of nature that in equilibrium, a displacement from
>the stable state <MUST> be met with negative feedback which can not
>exceed the displacement in magnitude.
>
> A system in equilibrium is by definition, stable. The above must be
>true if a system is to be stable.
>
> We observe that the earth's temperature is on average stable over long
>periods of time and within set temperature ranges. In the 3 billion
>years since the origin of life, the earth has stayed within a temperature
>range that is compatible with the existance of life. The climate has
>been stable over a half dozen 'C over the last several thousand years.

In other words, 0.1 C fluxuations per decade may be normal.

How fast did the 1600 mini-ice age come on?

> It therefore follows that no mechanism can exist that causes the earth
>to cool when it it conditions would otherwise cause it to heat. We can
>also assign zero probability to the statement that the net result of
>heating will be zero. - exactly offset by a cooling effect.
>
> Heating can only produce one effect. A temperature increase. How big
>a temperature increase is a legitimate matter for debate. But the fact
>that the average temperature will increase is a scientific fact.
>
> It should be noted however that we are talking about average
>temperatures within the range of stability. If the range is exceeded,
>the climate can drastically change state - altering modes so to speak.
>In this case, we have insufficient information to state the direction of
>the nearest local maximum/minimum that the climate will be pushed to.

Again, why shouldn't there be a negative feedback associated with stability
itself?

Is it not true that climate computer models are unstable. How well do they
predict weather, and weather stability when they are run backwards several
decades?

> We can say however, that this state - if it is to be stable, will not
>share the same global average as we have today. The temperature will
>have to lie outside the extreme averages we see today. This means that
>the next mode will be significantly hotter or significantly colder than
>the current mode.
>
> The climate can also change in response to warming by increasing the
>magnitude or frequency of the observed temperature fluctuations. In
>other words, the climate can become less stable.
>
> All of these effects - the only effects that can occur from warming -
>have negative environmental impacts.
>
> Life as a whole has evolved to exist in our current climate. Our
>societies have evolved to exist in our current climate. Drastic changes
>from the norm can only be destructive in the short term (geologic time).
>
> Anyone who makes claims of possible cooling, or complete negation of
>the warming trend is showing their ignorance of basic science.

Couldn't go a whole post without calling people who do not agree with
you ignorant.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Raoul Miller (RMi...@midd.middlebury.edu) wrote:

: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) wrote:
: >Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: >
: Once again Ernst you are completely wrong. The temperature recorded
: for each day is the average daily temperature which is the numerical mean
: of the daily high and low temps. In fact, NOAA records maximum, minimum,
: average and departure from normal temperatures. All available to you if

: you bothered to check before making completely false statements.

You must be from the New-Math generation. I see you are in geography -
assume you flunked math. Anyway according to Einstein: For a
set of points, adding the highest and lowest points and dividing them by two
does not make an average.

Ernst

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Dave Halliwell (dhal...@nofc.forestry.ca) wrote:
: Holland: you're a moron.

You know, I seem to have sen the exact same sentiment expressed here before.

I wonder why?

--

Raoul Miller

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) wrote:

>I have this directly from Einstein.
>
>Ernst
>

Now we know where Ernst gets his information - he is "channeling" dead
people's opinions. Perhaps he can speak to other dead people as well.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: And if their results were null, would anyone pay for this
: scientific welfare?

So the scientists who work for NASA are welfare bums in your opinion?
Gosh, you got those heebie-geebies real bad.

--

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Scott Nudds (af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:

When my son graduated in physics, he was asked to stay as an assistant.
He soon came home very disgusted and said: "Dad, they spent 80% of their
time dreaming up projects and applying for funding." I guess, "Global
Warming" hit pay dirt and the "Flight of the Bumblebee " lost.

I think it is disgusting, what some of these so-called scientists have
come to.

Ernst,
a scientist who never accepted even a dime for his persuits in magnetic
levitation transportation.

sa...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

The obove post needs a slight injection of reality:
Facts:

1) The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has about doubled since
the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is also unprecedented in
terms of the rate of change of the composition of the atmosphere.

2) This monumental feat has been achieved by the burning of fossil Carbon
(fossil fuels) which has been stored underground and has not been in the
atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of millions of years.

3) All the computer models are inaccurate, however the degree of inaccuracy is
not known.

By altering the atmosphere artificially and faster than it has ever changed in
the history of this planet, we are taking unquantifiable risks that may result
in one of three possible outcomes:

1) Little or negligible change due to the earth's negative feedback systems.

2) Change which is significant and comparable to the changes seen on a time
scale equivalent to the storage time of the fossil carbon, ie: hundreds or
thousand million year.

3) Changes which are unprecedented in the history of life on this palnet due to
the earth's positive feedback systems (eg: methane in Siberian permafrost).

Given that human beings don't actually need fossil fuels to live in the same
way as we need food, water, air, etc. as well as the ease and economic benefits
of implementing energy efficiency measures, it becomes rather obvious that our
current global economic system has failed miserably to serve and benefit
mankind, both in the short and long term.

I believe that environmentalists must work to change the very premises of
economics so that it allows for a "payment" for a kind of "insurance policy"
against these unquantifiable risks of the greenhouse effect. This "insurance
policy" can be implemented by paying for an exponential increase in energy
efficiency, rather than an exponential increase in the fossil extraction from
the earth.
This current exponential increase in fossil extraction is not costing
any extra because of the developments in technology and the inherent cheapness
of pumping something from underground, thus displacing the incentive for more
costly energy efficiency. My argument is that this situation must change.

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <4dil87$j...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
>: And if their results were null, would anyone pay for this
>: scientific welfare?
>
> So the scientists who work for NASA are welfare bums in your opinion?
>Gosh, you got those heebie-geebies real bad.

No, its just a matter of questioning the amount of productive work
and social benefit provided for the amount of money spent. If you
think $600 DoD wrenches are bad, open the lid on NASA.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Scott Nudds (af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:

: Funding, like everything else in science is peer reviewed. Now, unless
: you are going to charge that the majority of the worlds scientists are
: part of a "commie" conspiracy, you have to accept the integrety of the
: process.

: So what is it? Is there a conspiracy of scientists? Are

No, it is hunger to come home with a paycheck. A friend who works in the
University of California budget office confirmed it. Her job was to go
around from campus to campus and help professors with grant applications.
The message was to rake in as much money as you can, on whatever pretence. -
And from the news feature "The Fleecing of America", they followed one
of these "scientific studies" to where it ended up, and, voila, there on
the shelf were lying already 21 identical other studies by previous
"scientist".

: Are you a scientist Ernst? Where did you get your degree? What field
: of study? And if you are a scientist why are you seemingly ignorant of
: the Bumblebee flight myth?
:
: Please refer me to some of your journal publications regarding magnetic
: levitation. I would love to read one.

I posted my patents and papers in response to another questioner. Please
find it below. If you can't locate them please let me know.

Ernst

Mark A. Friesel

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

You should also keep in mind that a model with a large number of
parameters can usually be made to fit relevant in-hand data well,
even if some fraction of those parameters are constrained to a set of
determined values. Being able to fit a model to data indicates that the
model is, in a sense, robust - but not that it is an accurate
representation of the system. It must be able to predict.

Ernst G. Knolle

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Scott Nudds (af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: : You must be from the New-Math generation. I see you are in geography -
: : assume you flunked math.

: Einstein said this? Not that I doubt that he was capable of saying this,
: but it does not sound like something Einstein would have to say. It's

I was only joking.

: You are a scientist... You said you were... Where are your publications?

You asked for it, and remember, I am over 70 years old, I spent half of
my life's income on this. Never allowed my mind to be bought or swayed by
grant money. The National Debt includes billions put there by
unscrupulous "respectable scientist" and not one dime from me.

PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS
(1) 1969 U.S. Patent No.3,320,903, Re. 26673, "Articulated Train System".
(2) 1977 U.S. Patent No. 4,024,947, "Bulk Material Conveyor".
(3) 1989 "Knolle Magnetrans High Speed Maglev People Mover", Automated
People Movers II, Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 89-17833, ISBN
0-87262-73.1-4, pp 871-880.
(4) 1992 "Knolle Magnetrans, a Magnetically Levitated Train System", NASA
Conference Publication 3152, pp. 907-918.
(5) 1993 "Knolle Magnetrans: A Magnetically Levitated Train System", High
Speed Ground Transportation Systems I, Library of Congress Catalog Card
No: 93-11163, ISBN 0-87262-927-9, pp 760-770.
(6) 1993 "Maglev Crude Oil Pipeline", NASA Conference Publication, 2nd
International Symposium on Magnetic Suspension Technology.
(7) 1993 "Bright Future for Languishing Maglev Technology", International
Conference on Speedup Technology of Railway and Maglev Vehicles, Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Yokohama, Japan.

Any other questions are welcome

Ernst


Competitive Enterprise Institute

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

On 17 Jan 1996, Scott Nudds wrote:

> Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:

> : Most of the miniscule amount of warming we have experienced over the last
> : 100 years occurred before the greatest build up of green house gases.
> : What basic rule of science does that violate?
>
> First off, .5' is hardly miniscule. Perhaps it is to those who are
> ignorant of the consequences of small temperture changes. I hope that
> you do not include yoursel in such a category.

And what pray tell are the consequences of small temperature changes.
Let's see I've heard that it will cause diminishing wetlands, but I've
also heard it will cause swamps to expand. I've heard that it will cause
both less and more precipitation. I've heard that it will cause glaciers
to melt and flood the coasts but I've also heard that it will cause
glaciers to grow larger. Deserts will expand but so will floods and
monsoons. You see the environmentalists have this cute
little trick. Anything that happens to our climate they attribute to
global warming. Is there any climatological affect that isn't caused by
global warming?

>
> Secondly, it is gratifying that free market loonies such as yourself
> are finally admitting to the scientific reality of global warming. Now
> that you have admitted that it is occurring perhaps you can take part in
> some discussions of how great the warming will eventually be.
>
> With this in mind, I must ask you a simple question. Since you now
> admit the scientific reality that the planet is heating due to an
> increase in atmospheric CO2,

I never admitted any such thing. I said there has been 0.5 degrees
celsius warming but I never said it was global warming. For global
warming to be established you must detect a trend. That trend must be
extracted from the natural temperature variations. No one has yet been
able to statistically detect a warming trend over the last 100 yrs. IN
fact on study established that temperature variations are purely random.
To quote, "The resulting path closely resembles a kind of random walk
that occurs during a coin-tossing game."

A.H. Gordon, "Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk,"
Journal of Climate, 4, no. 6 (June 1991): 589, 596.

> and since man in emitting 5 gigatonns more
> CO2 than is being sequesterd by nature, how will continuing to emit this
> excess effect the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?p

Could you please cite your source for this ridiculous claim. We don't
know how much CO2 is actually reabsorbed. A substantial amount of the
CO2 emitted naturally is unaccounted for. We simply do not know where it
goes. Furthermore, according to a study "the rate of carbon exchange
between the atmosphere and the upper ocean because of photosynthesis
respiration and nonbiological chemical and physical processes is 20 times
greater than the emissions due to human activity.

William A. Nierenberg, "Atmospheric CO2: Causes, Effects, and Options,"
Chemical Engineering Progress, 85 (Aug. 1989): 27-36.

>
> Are you willing to state that by emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere
> than is being naturally taken out is a process that will lower CO2
> concentrations?

No. Are you willing to state that there has been no correlation between
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and the amount of observed temperature
change?

>
> Are you willing to state that higher CO2 concentrations will decrease
> the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-radiate heat, thereby decreasing its
> ability to keep the earth warm?

Are we talking global warming or global cooling?

>
> Assuming you answer no to both questions, - And I pity you if you
> attempt to answer yes - it appears to me that the only logical conclusion
> that can be drawn is that continuing to put more CO2 into the atmosphere
> can only have one effect... That is to increase the temperature of the
> planet.
>
> If you can draw any other logical conclusions or if you have some
> insite into the absorption spectra of CO2, or can prove that the
> measurements showing atmospheric CO2 levels to be rising, then please
> post them here. I am sure the scientists who are responsible for the
> science behind the absorption spectra, and CO2 measurements would love to
> hear your comments.
>
> Course coming from a rectally inverted organization like the CEI, I can
> only expect you to argue that levels of CO2 can not be increasing since
> no one is paying for its creation. And if no one is paying for it, it
> can not be being produced.

Whoa, calm down there. What you have just said makes no sense. I'll
attribute it to blind rage. I have never said that CO2 is not
increasing. I have merely said that the temperature is not increasing
(above natural variations, of course).

>
> I will ignore the rest of your stpidity and await your reply with great
> anticipation. Teach me master.

Yawn.

Raoul Miller

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com
zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) wrote:

>I believe that climate models tend to go off the deep end after a decade
>or so, so perhaps I am displaying my ignorance by asking you to do the
>impossible.
>

It is very hard to prove that this is not the case because climate models have not been around long enough to test the predictions o=
f the best ones against reality. In short, early models had to come into equilibrium with major changes imposed in one step. More =
recent models have imposed smaller changes to the atmosphere in smaller steps. Still, there is work to be done. I think you may be=
confused with the mathematical stability problems in METEOROLOGICAL models which deal with much smaller temporal and spatial scales=
than do GCMs.
You seem to be an intelligent person rather than some of the ignorant doubters who also inhabit the net. You may, through your res=
earch and beliefs, come to different conclusions about the best social and political responses to POTENTIAL global change. We could=
all wait around until 2050 and then one of us could gloat and brag about being right. Or we could take some steps to minimise the =
potential exposure of our society to posssible risks in the future. It may prove to be wrong but we have done that in the past. We=
spent a lot of time, money and energy preparing for a possible soviet invasion of Europe. It didn't happen. Perhaps we prevented =
it or perhaps it was never going to happen, but the people of the western world were prepared to spend that money and make the chang=
es necessary to prevent and/or prepare for it. I see us faced with the same choice with global change.
Cheers,

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
R. T. Pierrehumbert (rt...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Georgia (CEI)>Please explain my misuse of satellite record.

: It's another Standard Atmospheric Fallacy. The widespread
: misinterpretation of the polar orbiting satellite data
: has been discussed here many times. I don't know why you
: expect people to waste their time walking you through it
: again.

The reason it would appear, is that he has made it his mission to promote
disinformation for some as yet unstated political purpose.

If you repeat a lie often enough and long enough people who don't know
any better will eventually accept it as truth.

Where does the CEI get it's funding?

--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: When my son graduated in physics, he was asked to stay as an assistant.
: He soon came home very disgusted and said: "Dad, they spent 80% of their
: time dreaming up projects and applying for funding." I guess, "Global
: Warming" hit pay dirt and the "Flight of the Bumblebee " lost.

On the contrary, the "Flight of the Bumblebee" was solved long, long
ago. There is even a myth that you seem to share, that it was a scientific
conundrum.

Funding, like everything else in science is peer reviewed. Now, unless
you are going to charge that the majority of the worlds scientists are
part of a "commie" conspiracy, you have to accept the integrety of the
process.

So what is it? Is there a conspiracy of scientists? Are

you are going to start frothing at the mouth over some "New World Order"
conspiracy, black helicopters, or a UN invasion of the U.S?


: I think it is disgusting, what some of these so-called scientists have
: come to.

I think its disgusting that some americans have so much contempt for
their superiors.

: Ernst,


: a scientist who never accepted even a dime for his persuits in magnetic
: levitation transportation.

Are you a scientist Ernst? Where did you get your degree? What field
of study? And if you are a scientist why are you seemingly ignorant of
the Bumblebee flight myth?

Please refer me to some of your journal publications regarding magnetic
levitation. I would love to read one.


--

Raoul Miller

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com
zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) wrote:

>If someone cannot reproduce the last centuries statistical temperature
>record, with increases and decreases in temperature recorded at
>various sites, why should they be intrusted to set multi-billion

>dollar international policy, or make recommendations that affect
>billions of people?
>
And yet economists have never been able to predict even the direction of
market fluctuations with any accuracy and they are entrusted with
running the economy.
The climate system is mind-bogglingly complex and the fact that models
of it are as good as they are is testament to the hard work which has
yielded the understanding we have today. I am sorry that we can't
predict with 100% accuracy how hot it is going to be 10 years from today
but we can give you a reasonable set of outcomes from the observed
conditions today. The last time I checked the newspaper, Hansen and
Schneider weren't controlling congress so your point is fairly fatuous.
I would simply make the suggestion that climate modellers are a lot more
accurate than Greenspan and his buddies and even if all their
recommendations were followed would have less of an impact on the global
economy.

Paul Farrar

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <4dlrot$f...@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
Andy Holland <zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>In article <1996Jan1...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> sa...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
...
>>The above post needs a slight injection of reality:

>>Facts:
>>
>>1) The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has about doubled since
>>the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is also unprecedented in
>>terms of the rate of change of the composition of the atmosphere.
>
>However, ice core sampling to verify this are quite suspect.
>Drilling techniques associated with obtaining samples have been called
>into question because of ice heating, use of anti-freeze on equipment
>etc...
...
>andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
>std. disclaimer

You should know the sci.* group rules by now. Post the citations.
Scientific literature: books from science presses, journals, tech
reports. No Moonie stuff, no LaRouchie stuff, no WSJ, no coal company
PR handouts ("Access to Energy", "World Climate Report"), no
_True State of Planet Earth_. And don't do like some people here
whom I won't name who just copy the notes from Balling complete with
his mispelling, but obviously haven't read them. Indicate which ones
you have read, or never seen. You need to be prepared to discuss the
agreement between the ice core CO2 data for different locations,
and compared to the 14C data, the physical condition, the delta-18O,
and the delta-D data. (If you don't know what those latter mean,
maybe somebody at the Hoover Institution can explain it to you. :) )


--
Paul Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/
far...@datasync.com
70053,3464

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <4dlrot$f...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>In article <1996Jan1...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> sa...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>In article <4diq9j$o...@daisy.pgh.wec.com>, zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>>> In article <4dg2u0$d...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>>>>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>>: There are two logical flaws here.
>>>>
>>>>Primarily yours
[...]

>>2) This monumental feat has been achieved by the burning of fossil Carbon
>>(fossil fuels) which has been stored underground and has not been in the
>>atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of millions of years.
>
>Again, the natural CO2 flux is about 300 Gt/yr, while man's peak contribution
>is now about 5 Gt/yr. It was smaller decades ago. Termites, cows, etc contribute
>a great deal of relatively natural CO2 sources.

Nuts, I meant greenhouse gases, not CO2.

Sorry.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <4dkdkp$h...@news.acns.nwu.edu> "R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>Is it not true that climate computer models are unstable. How well do >they
>>predict weather, and weather stability when they are run backwards >several decades?
>
>Here, you're committing the Standard Fallacy of confusing weather
>and climate. Did you take the CEI Standard Course in Standard
>(TM) Atmospheric Fallacies?

No, I previously sited in a post, the quote from an IPCC author
who stated that "Flux Corrections" were required to maintain
stability of coupled aersol/CO2 Climate models.

A random number generator can be tailored to match the statistical
fluctuations of Climate. That does not make it a good model.

It could be, that even with a decent effort at physcically modeling
a complex system, and dilligent effort at matching trends, that is
what is effectively happening.

So long as "Flux Corrections", and "special statistical methods" are
required, I am highly skeptical.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: You must be from the New-Math generation. I see you are in geography -
: assume you flunked math.

What is "new math" Ernst? I thought you said you were a scientist?
There is no such thing as "new math". "New math" is a myth. If you were
a scientist as you have claimed then you would know this. You wouldn't
be lying to use now would you Ernst?


: Anyway according to Einstein: For a set of points, adding the highest

: and lowest points and dividing them by two does not make an average.

Einstein said this? Not that I doubt that he was capable of saying this,

but it does not sound like something Einstein would have to say. It's

not something that people would even associate with Einstein since it is
verified by a trivial examination of the definition of the term "average".

So Ernst... It seems strage and out of character for a self stated
scientist such as yourself to make such a statement.



You are a scientist... You said you were... Where are your publications?

You wouldn't be lying to use would you Ernst?


--

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <4dio4m$j...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN]
>Xref: news.pgh.wec.com sci.energy:41413 sci.environment:78898

>
>Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
>: Most of the miniscule amount of warming we have experienced over the last
>: 100 years occurred before the greatest build up of green house gases.
>: What basic rule of science does that violate?
>
> First off, .5' is hardly miniscule. Perhaps it is to those who are
>ignorant of the consequences of small temperture changes. I hope that
>you do not include yoursel in such a category.
>
> Secondly, it is gratifying that free market loonies such as yourself

[...]

> Assuming you answer no to both questions, - And I pity you if you

[...]

> I will ignore the rest of your stpidity and await your reply with great
>anticipation. Teach me master

Do you wonder why people don't listen to you, and begin to doubt your
motives when you treat others like this?

I don't think it helps your cause to name call. I should not have used
the term "scam" for CFCs, and for that I do apologize. However, there are
serious questions as to its validity, and especially to the validity
of global warming claims. While the negative consequences of a CFC ban
are small, those of a CO2 ban could be disasterous.

There are legitimate points of view to both sides. However, when someone
uses elitism to try to push their views on others, us "free market loonies"
tend to push back.

My instinct is the facts don't speak for themselves, so you need to
be-little those who don't agree with you.

Well, speaking for my moronic self, I pity you.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer

R. T. Pierrehumbert

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Most of what jwas has posted in this discussion is nonsense, but
I caution the participants that arguing that it is "physically
impossible" for increasing CO2 in a "stable" system is not
really tenable. One can cook up possible (though implausible)
scenarios under which temperature reductions, measured by
some criteria, are possible. The "positive response" theorem
can be proved for only certain types of feedbacks, which depend
on atmospheric temperature in certain restricted ways.

It is not necessary to argue at that general level of abstraction,
though, since many mathematically possible things are not
physically plausible. Climate science has included many
feedbacks that could moderate or amplify the CO2 warming, and
none of them reduce temperature in response to CO2 increases.
These are all based on tested physics.

If somebody claims that temperature might go down in response
to increasing CO2, the onus is on him to propose a specific
physical mechanism and show how it works.

Mark A. Friesel

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

On 17 Jan 1996, Ernst G. Knolle wrote:

> Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : In article <4dgphp$m...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>
>

> : If someone cannot reproduce the last centuries statistical temperature


> : record, with increases and decreases in temperature recorded at
> : various sites, why should they be intrusted to set multi-billion
>

> : They can, the latest Hadley model incorporating the effects


> : of aerosols and SO2 reproduces the last 130 years well.
> : I believe the latest MPI and Princeton models do so as well
> : although I haven't seen their data.
>

> I think, on this subject science has become a religion, or what else do
> you call accepting a theory without facts, but with lots of facts to the
> contrary.

Not science. What you're talking about is something possibly being
presented as science which is not. It's necessary to make the distinction.

I don't think that science has become religion on this topic. I think
what you observe is politics masquerading as science. Again it's important to
be able to differentiate between what is science and what is not. The first
step is to leave prejudice and pre-conceived notions at home.


>
> Ernst
>
>
>

Thomas Palm

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
jw wrote:
>
> In <4dg2u0$d...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>

> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> > It is a basic law of nature that in equilibrium, a displacement from
> >the stable state <MUST> be met with negative feedback which can not
> >exceed the displacement in magnitude.
>
> There is some confusion here. The displacement and the
> feedback have different dimensions and cannot be compared.
> E.g., displacement of a pendulum or a spring
> is measured in units of length,
> e.g., in centimeters; it causes a feedback
> which is a force
> and is measured in units of force.
> One cannot exceed or be equal to the other.
>
> As a result of this feedback, oscilations
> around the point of equilibrium
> can occur, so that displacement to the right
> alternates with displacement to the left.

Bad example!

Take a stationary pendulum, apply a stationary
force, say to the right. The pendulum will then
oscillate, but only to the right of the original
position. Why? Look at the energy of the system.
Movement to the left corresponds to an increase in
potential energy due to the force, which has to be
compensated by a decrease in kinetic energy. But in
the initial position the kinetic energy was zero, and
movement further to the left is therefore impossible.
(This argument does not work for a force that varies in
time.)


...
> I am *not* saying this is the case with CO2
> emissions. Logically, it could be; I could
> easily invent a scenario where it would.
> I'd bet against it - but I wouldn't bet a lot.

It is seems clear that no feedback mechanism can
cause a lowering of CO2 from our emission of CO2.
The important question is then the connection
between heating and increased CO2. Here the
immediate (radiative) forcing is quite clear.
Then there are aditional feedback from this
heating e.g., water vapor (positive), clouds
(uncertain diection) etc, but none of these
will cancel the heating only change its magnitude.
Any mechanism that couples a cooling effect directly
to the CO2, may do so, however. I doesn't seem
likely though.

>> Life as a whole has evolved to exist in our current climate.

> Hardly! Especially since there are many climatic zones,
> and life exists in all of them. There is no single
> "our current" climate.

Right, but a changing climate would require a migration of
species to the new areas where they can live, and there is
much doubt whether they will have time to do that. Trees
for instance move very slowly since thay have long generations
and seeds usually aren't dispersed very far.

> > Our
> >societies have evolved to exist in our current climate.

> ...
> There could be, instead, a shift in geographical
> distribution;
> and it *might* be an improvement in more places
> than not.

How long time does it take to move the populations of entire
countries when their particular areas become less hospitable,
and how many people will be killed in the wars that most likely
will occur as the inhabitants of the more fertile places might
not approve this large immigration?

Another example: It's unlikely that current sea levels are optimal
in some abstract way. But many large cities are built near the
sea so an increasing level would destroy them. The also depend on
shipping and would not appreciate their harbors going dry, so a
lower sea level is also bad.

Even if you assume that the final state is as good as the current,
the costs of relocating large parts of civilization will be much
larger than the cost of reducing our pollution.

R. T. Pierrehumbert

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Tobis>> [Usual misuse of satellite record omitted]

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <4dmhm3$p...@osh1.datasync.com> far...@datasync.com (Paul Farrar) writes:
>In article <4dlrot$f...@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>Andy Holland <zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>...
>>>The above post needs a slight injection of reality:

>>>Facts:
>>>
>>>1) The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has about doubled since
>>>the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is also unprecedented in
>>>terms of the rate of change of the composition of the atmosphere.
>>
>>However, ice core sampling to verify this are quite suspect.
>>Drilling techniques associated with obtaining samples have been called
>>into question because of ice heating, use of anti-freeze on equipment
>>etc...
>...
>>andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
>>std. disclaimer
>
>You should know the sci.* group rules by now. Post the citations.
>Scientific literature: books from science presses, journals, tech
>reports. No Moonie stuff, no LaRouchie stuff, no WSJ, no coal company
>PR handouts ("Access to Energy", "World Climate Report"), no

Actually, I first heard it from someone who was down in Antartica
doing it, though that was many years ago. I was reminded by a
"PR handout" called "Access to Energy".

Could you provide some sitations to data which is not contaminated in
this way?

BTW, the polar caps are rather young, and C14 has not been constant
over the ages. Over 90% of the time in the last 600 million years, there
were no polar caps at all [Encyclopedia Britanica, Climate, 1981]. It also
showed that in 2000 BC, the global temperature was thought to be 2.5C higher
than now. Clearly, we are in an interglacial period, and temperatures have
risen 12C over the last 70000 years.

Besides, flooding New York, San Fran, Washington DC, and other East and West
coast Sodoms might be a good thing in the scheme of things (Not that I really
think we could actually do it :( ).

[...]

>Paul Farrar

Freezin my tail of in Pittsburgh
Potential beachfront property,

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Craig Mohn

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Competitive Enterprise Institute <c...@access2.digex.net> wrote:


>I never admitted any such thing. I said there has been 0.5 degrees
>celsius warming but I never said it was global warming. For global
>warming to be established you must detect a trend. That trend must be
>extracted from the natural temperature variations. No one has yet been
>able to statistically detect a warming trend over the last 100 yrs. IN
>fact on study established that temperature variations are purely random.
>To quote, "The resulting path closely resembles a kind of random walk
>that occurs during a coin-tossing game."

>A.H. Gordon, "Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk,"
>Journal of Climate, 4, no. 6 (June 1991): 589, 596.

Apparently both the CEI and Mr. Gordon are ignorant of basic
time-series concepts. A random walk is a precisely-defined concept,
and if in fact global temperatures follow a random walk, we ought to
give up any sort of long-term planning - since the realization of a
random walk process has variance which increases linearly over time,
after a suitable interval of time the global temperature will be
outside the realm of habitability with probability approaching one.

To claim that something follows a random walk, one had better suggest
a mechanism as to why this is so. Specifically one needs a reason why
any disturbance in temperature has infinite persistance- equivalently,
why tomorrow's temperature would be solely a function of today's
temperature and a set of possible disturbances which have the SAME
probability distribution regardless of the current temperature. A
random walk theory is wholly incompatible with the sorts of feedback
mechanisms discussed by the mainstream participants in this thread.

Superficial use of time-series models to deduce conclusions without a
causal model is asking to be ridiculed. Unfortunately it is an
all-too-common occurence, reflecting the general ignorance of
statistics in our society.

If in fact climate follows a random walk, we should not be reassured.
Our certain impending doom should perhaps make us more fatalistic, and
thus docile. Whose interests would this belief serve?

_______________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mo...@are.berkeley.edu

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <1117cc$d2d6.27d@daprez> Raoul Miller <RMi...@midd.middlebury.edu> writes:
>kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) wrote:
>
>>I have this directly from Einstein.
>>
>>Ernst
>>
>Now we know where Ernst gets his information - he is "channeling" dead
>people's opinions. Perhaps he can speak to other dead people as well.
>
>Raoul Miller rmi...@middlebury.edu

And perhaps he went to Princeton in '50?

Be careful, you might get a little burned here.

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: No, its just a matter of questioning the amount of productive work

: and social benefit provided for the amount of money spent.

What a shame you have no method of measuring the "social benefit" of
scientific work. Even more shameful is the fact that you have shown
yourself to be ignorant of basic science, and yet you feel qualified to
pass judgement on that which you do not understand.


: If you think $600 DoD wrenches are bad, open the lid on NASA.

If you hold this opinion, you must have a justification for doing so.
Please provide an accounting of NASA's wasteful spending, or wasteful,
unnecessary research programs.

--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
: > It is a basic law of nature that in equilibrium, a displacement from
: >the stable state <MUST> be met with negative feedback which can not
: >exceed the displacement in magnitude.

: There is some confusion here. The displacement and the
: feedback have different dimensions and cannot be compared.

Feedback is a function of displacement. You are apparently confused by
basic physics. Please visit your local highschool and have a chat with
the grade 9 physics teacher.


: As a result of this feedback, oscilations


: around the point of equilibrium
: can occur, so that displacement to the right
: alternates with displacement to the left.

Absolutely. I clearly stated that the change can be an increase in the
magnitude of variability along with a movement of the system in the
direction of the displacing force.

In the context of increasing atmospheric CO2, you either produce a
hotter atmosphere or a warmer one that is also more variable. You can
not produce a colder one, and only in the limiting case (zero
probability) will you produce one of equal temperature.


: > A system in equilibrium is by definition, stable. The above must be

: >true if a system is to be stable.

: Note that a very weak - almost meaningless -
: definition of stability stability is used here:

The statement of simple concepts is essential if scientific illiterates
like yourself are to understand the process.


: "Stable" here means merely "staying within an arbitrarily
: chosen range". This imposes no restrictions on underlying
: mechanisms - because there is always *some* range.

It means nothing of the kind. An infinite number of arbitrary ranges
can be set that will be violated by the observed variability. But the
fact remains that since the orign of life on this planet, the surface
temperature has remained remarkably consistant. The oceans have never
frozen solid, they have never boiled away, nor have they come anywhere
close to doing so. If this does not fit your personal expectations of
stability, then it is simply another example of your scientific illiteracy.

: > It therefore follows that no mechanism can exist that causes the


: earth
: >to cool when it it conditions would otherwise cause it to heat.

: Not at all! If this weak stability indicates anything, it's rather
: the opposite.

Again, you are beign scientifically illiterate.


: Had there been a *positive* feedback - warming causing
: more warming or cooling causing more cooling
: - then the temperature would likely
: escape from the range.

Positive feedback is quite possible. But if the climate is to be
stable over the long term, ultimately negative feedback must exceed the
positive feedback.


: If there is a *negative* feedback, then
: warming may cause cooling - and overshooting the equilibrium
: point, which would cause warming and so on.

Ultimately negative feedback must exceed positive feedback if the
climate is stable (which it is). Warming can never cause cooling sice
cooling must then also cause warming. Warming can only cause warming.
Cooling can only cause cooling. But over time the warming and cooling
trends <MAY> drive the system to an extreme where the opposite trend
predominates, at which time the opposite trend will take over.

For this to happen, the system must embody something akin to momentum,
and it is this momentum that carries the system into a region where the
opposite trend predominates.

This is the process by which heating the atmosphere will cause
increased variability.


: The system is so complex that it is likely
: to include a whole lot of positive and negative feedbacks;
: also, there are many external perturbing forces (like
: variations in solar radiation).

It doesn't matter one in any way, shape or form. Basic physics prevents
negative feedback from exceeding the displacing force.


: Sure. "Exactly zero" has a zero probability.
: But "approximately zero" may have a very high
: probability, for all we know!

It may do. Hence you may argue from a scientific basis that global
warming will be small. Only a scientifically illiterate twit attempts to
argue that global warming will not happen, because.... It must happen
this is a fact of basic science. Not to mention that warming has been
observed.


: Since we are only dealing
: with approximate values here, the above tells us
: nothing.

On the contrary, it tells us that those who argue that global warming is
a "scam" are scientifically illiterate fools, who are more interested in
promoting their own brand of personal ignorance than fact.


: Have you heard of the "nuclear winter" debate?

Please tell us how a "nuclear winter" applies to global warming? Are
you saying that nuclear war will change the climate because it heats the
atmosphere?


: > How big

: >a temperature increase is a legitimate matter for debate. But the
: fact
: >that the average temperature will increase is a scientific fact.

: Not yet. It may become a fact - but only through
: experimental confirmation.

Not yet? Are the laws of physics going to change anytime soon? Are
they going to change when <YOU> finally admit that warming has been observed?
No! Contrary to your expectations, the universe does not revolve around
your and your expectations.

: It might - or *more* stable. I've seen assertions that
: the greenhouse warming would be greater at night and in winter -
: thereby decreasing temperature differentials.

You do seem to be quite dense. There are two possibilities, (actually
two extreme limiting cases). The first is that there will be zero
warming and increased variability. The second is to have an increase in
temperature and no change in variability. You can chose any point
inbetween, with increasing variability and lower increases in
temperature, or higher increases in temperature and lower levels of
variability. The endpoints have zero probability.

If you are now changing your tune, and saying that there will be
greater stability, you may very well be right. But the price of your
admission is higher average temperatures. Something you were denying at
the start of the message.


: Hardly! Especially since there are many climatic zones,


: and life exists in all of them. There is no single
: "our current" climate.

And in every region, life has optimally adapted for that climate.
Changing the climate, therefore reduces the viability of the life adapted
to live in the region.


: There could be, instead, a shift in geographical distribution;

The vast majority of plants and animals do not migrate, or do so over
only over very long periods of time. Rapid climate changes are therefore
detremental to the vast majority of lifeforms.

Again, this is basic knowledge in science. How is it that you are
ignorant of so much of basic science?


--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: I should not have used the term "scam" for CFCs, and for that I do apologize.

It is not only yourself who has use the term "SCAM" in reference to the
science of global warming and Ozone depletion. I see it used regularly
by ditto heads. When will they apologize for their slander?

: However, there are


: serious questions as to its validity, and especially to the validity
: of global warming claims.

Global warming is a reality. Get used to it. There is no natural
mechanism that will reduce the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
There is no mechanism that can reduce to zero the heating associated with
higher levels of CO2. It is therefore the height of stupidity to argue
that global warming is not valid.

The only thing that can be argued with some scientific validity, is the
extent of the warming.


: While the negative consequences of a CFC ban


: are small, those of a CO2 ban could be disasterous.

They would be drastic indeed. A fact that makes it all the more
important to reduce emissions now to reduce the rate of heating.

Reducing fossil fuel consumption would also be beneficial in that other
pollutants would also be decreased, fuel reserves would be preserved, and
efficient technologies would be promoted.


: However, when someone


: uses elitism to try to push their views on others, us "free market loonies"
: tend to push back.

Denying reality is the hallmark of "free market loonies". You are
doing <NOTHING> but spreading disinformation that is ultimately socially
destructive. You are having <NO> impact on the formulation of the
scientific consensus opinion on any topic. The only thing you can ever
succeed in doing is misinforming the public.

: My instinct is the facts don't speak for themselves, so you need to


: be-little those who don't agree with you.

You have no qualifications. You are ignorant of basic science. Your
comments typically show a basic lack of understanding of how things work,
the scales of events, peer review, etc.

Ignorance is a quality. If it is a quality you posess in this field of
study then accept it and move on. If it is not, then explain your
conduct and provide evidence of your qualifications.


--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: Again, the natural CO2 flux is about 300 Gt/yr, while man's peak contribution

: is now about 5 Gt/yr. It was smaller decades ago. Termites, cows, etc contribute
: a great deal of relatively natural CO2 sources.

So your opinion is that an excess of 5 Gigatonns/year can not increase
CO2 levels because in nature 300 Gigatonns/year are exchanged between the
biosphere and atmosphere.

Where have we seen this conservative reasoning before?

Go back to the 1980's when conservatives were demanding that the U.S.
debt was not a problem since the deficit was small compared to the total
U.S. economy (GDP).

Well John Boy, your conservative VuDu accounting has bankrupted your
country.

Do you really expect people to fall for this ignorance again?

--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: A random number generator can be tailored to match the statistical

: fluctuations of Climate. That does not make it a good model.

For some purpose, absolutely! If you are interested for example,
modeling the stability of global grain prices, being able to
statistically estimate the effect of flimate fluctuation would be essential.

Statistical estimation is used all the time in science and engineering.

When you build a football stadium, you design it to withstand the weight
of the spectators plus the additional force needed to account for their
movements. You do not design stadiums to withstand the force of the
spectators simultaneously jumping up and down to produce the maximum
force possible.

When you design a telephone system. You do not design it to be able to
handle calls from every phone number simultaneously. You design the
system with the statstical knowledge that at any given instant in time,
most of the telephones will not be in use.

--

Scott Nudds

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: Scott Nudds (af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: : Einstein said this? Not that I doubt that he was capable of saying this,
: : but it does not sound like something Einstein would have to say. It's

Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: I was only joking.

Oh, I see. Just joking. You didn't really intend to sound like a
complete ass.

: : You are a scientist... You said you were... Where are your publications?

: PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS


: (1) 1969 U.S. Patent No.3,320,903, Re. 26673, "Articulated Train System".
: (2) 1977 U.S. Patent No. 4,024,947, "Bulk Material Conveyor".
: (3) 1989 "Knolle Magnetrans High Speed Maglev People Mover", Automated
: People Movers II, Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 89-17833, ISBN
: 0-87262-73.1-4, pp 871-880.
: (4) 1992 "Knolle Magnetrans, a Magnetically Levitated Train System", NASA
: Conference Publication 3152, pp. 907-918.
: (5) 1993 "Knolle Magnetrans: A Magnetically Levitated Train System", High
: Speed Ground Transportation Systems I, Library of Congress Catalog Card
: No: 93-11163, ISBN 0-87262-927-9, pp 760-770.
: (6) 1993 "Maglev Crude Oil Pipeline", NASA Conference Publication, 2nd
: International Symposium on Magnetic Suspension Technology.
: (7) 1993 "Bright Future for Languishing Maglev Technology", International
: Conference on Speedup Technology of Railway and Maglev Vehicles, Japan
: Society of Mechanical Engineers, Yokohama, Japan.

: Any other questions are welcome

I wlll check them out thank you very much..


--

Steinn Sigurdsson

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <4dmbl0$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu> "R. T. Pierrehumbert" <rt...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:


really tenable. One can cook up possible (though implausible)
scenarios under which temperature reductions, measured by
some criteria, are possible. The "positive response" theorem

...


physically plausible. Climate science has included many
feedbacks that could moderate or amplify the CO2 warming, and
none of them reduce temperature in response to CO2 increases.
These are all based on tested physics.

If somebody claims that temperature might go down in response
to increasing CO2, the onus is on him to propose a specific
physical mechanism and show how it works.

North Atlantic Conveyor shuts down or moves south by several hundred
km. Resultant arctic and temperate zone cooling + albedo feedback
leads to decrease in global mean temperatures despite increased CO2.

Possible, arguably far worse than a simple warming.


Competitive Enterprise Institute

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to

On 18 Jan 1996, Scott Nudds wrote:

> R. T. Pierrehumbert (rt...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:

> : Georgia (CEI)>Please explain my misuse of satellite record.


>
> : It's another Standard Atmospheric Fallacy. The widespread
> : misinterpretation of the polar orbiting satellite data
> : has been discussed here many times. I don't know why you
> : expect people to waste their time walking you through it
> : again.
>

> The reason it would appear, is that he has made it his mission to promote
> disinformation for some as yet unstated political purpose.

My purpose is to show you guys with the blinders on that there is more to
the debate and more to climate science than your simple minded, childlike
faith in the global warming hypothesis. I, unlike you, do not believe in
my own infallability. I therefore do not presume that just because I
believe strongly enough in something that I should impose that belief on
others. Environmentalists on the other hand do not admit how limited our
knowledge really is and proceed to advocate controlling everyone elses
lives under the pretense of superior knowledge.

Besides, I debate for the pure enjoyment of it.

>
> If you repeat a lie often enough and long enough people who don't know
> any better will eventually accept it as truth.

Environmentalists should now this better than anyone else.

>
> Where does the CEI get it's funding?

From those evil guys on Captain Planet.

Paul Georgia
The views expressed are nobodies but my own.

"The authority of government can have no pure right over my person and
property but what I concede to it."

Henry David Thoreau

Mark A. Friesel

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to

On 18 Jan 1996, Andy Holland wrote:

> In article <4dil87$j...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> >Andy Holland (zcr...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
> >: And if their results were null, would anyone pay for this
> >: scientific welfare?
> >
> > So the scientists who work for NASA are welfare bums in your opinion?
> >Gosh, you got those heebie-geebies real bad.


>
> No, its just a matter of questioning the amount of productive work

> and social benefit provided for the amount of money spent. If you


> think $600 DoD wrenches are bad, open the lid on NASA.

I think that there are a few points that should be considered before
accepting that government scientists are on some kind of welfare:

- First, government research has been available as a legitimate career
path for some number of years. In priciple government scientists have
been working for the benefit of the state - including its commercial
industries and the general public. Whether you agree with particular
directions that this work has taken is a somewhat different issue.
Coupled with waste of resources - which certainly exists for reasons
which I talk about below - there are also a number of notable achievements,
including the internet which you're using now which began its life as
DARPANET - a project of the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. We can
also include scientists working for private corporations which are contracted
to the government.

- Second, there is heavy pressure on government scientists to enter
program management. I think this arises from three sources:

a) the knowledge necessary to effectively argue for a proposed line of
research is often only available to an experienced and educated
research scientist. Even well-educated managers somewhat familiar
with the particular field of research - somewhat rare in themselves -
are generally not competent to effectively support or create a
research proposal, much less a program plan,

b) scientists must continually adapt their research proposals to
changing government and corporate priorities. The upshot is that
they may spend so much time rewriting and revising proposals, or
creating new proposals, to ensure sufficient program funding that they
are effectively unable to be directly involved in the research, and
often are unable to effectively supervise it.

c) expertise in a given field requires a long-term committment -
maintaining skills and knowledge while learning about new developments.
To actually produce original research requires even greater
committment, and greater risk in addition since many potential lines of
research lead to dead-ends. When a full year of funding is
practically an unachievable dream, and when that funding is spent
on all the required managerial tasks and technical and overhead
support typically required, the abilities and effectiveness of even
exceptionally qualified scientists may be seriously compromised in
a fairly short time.

The result is that critical research is typically carried out by less
well-trained, less experienced, and/or less capable people. Yet
for a research scientist to attempt to do other than continually bring in money
places his job in jeopardy, the more so when money is tight.

- Third, the scientist rarely has anything to do with setting the cost
of a hammer. In his research proposal he may write that he needs a widget,
say a hammer. He cannot typically walk down to the hardware store and
buy one. Usually he must obtain purchase approval from 1-4 managers, a
financial specialist, and a procurement officer who will tell him what hammers
he can buy, and where and how he can purchase them. Of course all of
this requires that various forms be filled out. Most of the cost of
this hammer are therefore indirect, being due to overhead charges made by
non-scientific 'support' and managerial staff.

The result is a six month research project that is extended to ten years,
is incomplete or may be badly done, reports that are falsified or
adjusted to make them appear better than they are, and so forth.

That some good research and successful programs result despite these
tendencies is almost a pleasant surprise, and I've reached the conclusion
that competent and effective managers and scientists can
occasionally, perhaps through good fortune, find themselves in an
environment where they can work up to their capabilities.

Speaking generally, however, management has taken on the responsibility of
assuring that the conditions for good research are available and that the
positions are filled by quality personnel. As a group, government and
corporate upper mangement has the authority, reaps the greatest rewards and
should take greatest responsibility for the success and quality of programs,
hence they should be the first you accuse, if you have to accuse someone, of
being on some kind of 'welfare'. They are the only ones who can limit
overhead loading, hire competent staff, and provide an environment conducive
to good research performed by those most capable of doing it.

>
> andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
> std. disclaimer
>
>
>

Andy Holland

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <4dl9l3$q...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
[...]

>: I think it is disgusting, what some of these so-called scientists have
>: come to.
>
> I think its disgusting that some americans have so much contempt for
>their superiors.

Ahhh, the ingratiating tone of the Scientific Elite.

Last time I checked, it was supposedly "Government of the People,
By the People and For the People", with "all men created equal".

Take a tip from someone like George Washington or the example of
Jesus Christ,

Learn to serve, and by serving, lead.

Moronically, Ignorantly yours,

andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
std. disclaimer


R. T. Pierrehumbert

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
Andy Holland:

BTW, the polar caps are rather young, and C14 has not been constant
over the ages. Over 90% of the time in the last 600 million years,
there
were no polar caps at all [Encyclopedia Britanica, Climate, 1981]. It
also
showed that in 2000 BC, the global temperature was thought to be 2.5C
higher
than now.

========
Both these statements are erroneous and outdated. See the discussion
of respectively warm climates, and the Holocene optimum, in
Crowley and North, Paleoclimatology.

The data does not support the 90% figure, though it isn't clear
now just what the proportion is. In some seasons and at some
latitudes over land, the Holocene optimum could have been
2 or a bit more degrees warmer. but much of the oceans didn't
warm at all, some seasons were dramatically colder, and
the global-annual mean temperature may not have differed from
the present by more than .5C.

This is because the Holocene optimum was driven by changes
in the time of NH summer relative to the perihelion. This
enhances insolation in one hemisphere, but decreases it
in the other, with the pattern flipping with the seasons.

Geoff Foster

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
In article <4do5cl$c...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>, af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Global warming is a reality. Get used to it. There is no natural
>mechanism that will reduce the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>There is no mechanism that can reduce to zero the heating associated with
>higher levels of CO2. It is therefore the height of stupidity to argue
>that global warming is not valid.

Well I guess I'm stupid. I have a lot of skepticism about the global warming
theory. Its based on very simplistic models that still doesn't include water vapour
(go have a look in a crc handbook and check out what a great greenhouse gas water
vapour is compared to CO2, theres also lots of it about, so go figure).

>
> The only thing that can be argued with some scientific validity, is the
>extent of the warming.

Well its up to science to prove first of all that the current increase of CO2 is
having an appreciatable global warming. Until its proven, I'll take the stupid
vote.

Geoff.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages