Global Warming - Data
Sam McClintock
I thought it appropriate to address a new thread as this one subject may
get complicated with references and discussion. Mr. Jones and a few
others on sci.environment have discussed that the surface temperature
data is biased because of urban heat affects, biasing those numbers
high. Specifically, he wrote:
> ***{Why do you continue to make these sorts of vague allusions? I have
>
> repeatedly asked you to cite, if you can, any study not corrupted by
> the
> urban heat island effect which shows a temperature peak above the 1940
>
> level. If you know of such a study, post the reference; if not, please
>
> stop wasting our time. --Mitchell Jones}***
I have continuously stated that not all data is subject to this problem,
and that the original authors of the research that pointed this (urban
heat) out were suggesting corrections to the data and how to integrate
non-urban with urban data. That part of the research was somehow missed
by subsequent white papers funded by less than environmentally friendly
sources.
This first obvious data set that is not biased by urban heat impact is
the sea surface temperatures. Even these have some bias over the
differences between buoy, ship, and subsurface measurements, but all of
these are explained and pretty much accounted for. These data go back
into the 1940s and are published in various formats from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If anyone wants to look at the
preponderous data, you can start at the website of:
<http://www.noaa.gov/> and go to any subject you like. There are no
less that 20 or so government reports that go along with these, but all
the raw data is available on the net.
A second not-so-obvious choice are the Canadians. They Canadians
operate over 200 monitoring stations, of which only 15% are classic
urban sites. The Canadian government studies went three steps further.
First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
totally - such as Toronta. Second, they did an immense amount of work
statistically comparing urban, semi-urban, and rural station readouts to
eliminate any urban-based biases. Third, they went through all of the
different ways of measuring data over the last 100 years (literally
since 1895) to see where biases and problems would be encountered. All
in all one of the most rigorous efforts to exclude and account for
biases. The results - the earth has been getting warming, at least in
the entire country of Canada, which is a pretty big, diverse land mass
to say the least. About 1/2 to 3/4 C averaged over the entire country.
The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
Change, SOE-91-1.
As I continue into this work, I have also interviewed some of the
researchers who originally brought the problem up. I am also asking for
references from other government and research institutions, so more data
and reports will follow. Hope this helps everybody.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
Byron Bodo
In article <355B5975...@nospam.net>, mac-n...@nospam.net says...
>First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
>totally - such as Toronta.
That's Tronna or Trawna. You yanks never get it right.
-bb
Sam McClintock
Byron Bodo wrote:
> In article, mac-n...@nospam.net says...
>
> >First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
> >totally - such as Toronta.
>
> That's Tronna or Trawna. You yanks never get it right.
Sorry, "Toronto" as in Maple Leafs, Blue Jays, and . . . and . . . <hah>
Raptors. :<)
Sam "just another yank" McClintock
Byron Bodo
In article <355B7A94...@nospam.net>, mac-n...@nospam.net says...
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>
>> In article, mac-n...@nospam.net says...
>>
>> >First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
>> >totally - such as Toronta.
>>
>> That's Tronna or Trawna. You yanks never get it right.
>
>Sorry, "Toronto" as in Maple Leafs, Blue Jays, and . . . and . . . <hah>
>Raptors. :<)
>
"Toronto" for formal speech & official pronouncements.
Trawna or Tee-Oh on the street.
As for heat islands, the city climate since the late 1980s has
been unequivocally far hotter than it's been in my life time.
And we've got to contend with abysmal & increasingly worse summer
air quality. Local vehicle traffic generates a lot, but the ground
level ozone gradients increase southwestward towards the US border.
No big surprise, the acid rain work pretty well elaborated the
eastern north american air movement patterns.
-bb
Sam McClintock
Alan Ristow wrote:
> I don't suppose you'd have a reference to this original urban heat study
> and/or any good subsequent studies? I'm interested in learning more
> about it and how the effects are treated by various researchers.
The first reference for accounting and correcting for urban heat island
impacts I can find was in "Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff 1987. Global trends
of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 92." Hansen has
continued working on surface temperatures and has published several papers
since then. I am still have quite a bit of information trickling in - USA,
Canada, Australia, UK, Russia - will pass those references along after I get a
chance to review them. Dr. Balling wrote on the subject, but his reports are
restricted to "right-wing" groups, such as the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. Not to say that work is entirely biased - will have a better
handle after I can read his peer-reviewed work and talk to him on the phone.
Sam McClintock
Byron Bodo wrote:
> As for heat islands, the city climate since the late 1980s has
> been unequivocally far hotter than it's been in my life time.
Well, the Canadian government officials and researchers I have talked to seem
pretty worried about global warming because most of the information indicates
that Northern latitudes may take a large portion of the overall global
impact, e.g. get warmer than other areas of the world. They readily
acknowledge that it may get easier on some farmers - but worry a lot about
key ecosystems and some farm environments that may suffer beyond repair/use.
They seem pretty fatalistic about it, e.g. nothing appears likely to stop the
trend and they fully expect a minimum 2C temp rise. A lot of their effort is
spent on trying to figure out things to do *when* or *as* it happens, not as
*if* it will happen.
Byron Bodo
In article <355C542C...@nospam.net>, mac-n...@nospam.net says...
Well. Much of the far north is on permafrost (frozen mud for practical purposes)
that's already slumping & eroding badly in the Mackenzie valley / delta area.
As for farming, there won't be a heck of alot of it on the shield which is
mostly granites & gneisses covered with thin til, i.e., crushed bedrock that
hardly deserves being called soil, nor on the vast tracts of waterlogged acidic
bog terrain.
-bb
Steve Hemphill
Sam McClintock wrote:
>
> Byron Bodo wrote:
>
> > As for heat islands, the city climate since the late 1980s has
> > been unequivocally far hotter than it's been in my life time.
>
> Well, the Canadian government officials and researchers I have talked to seem
> pretty worried about global warming because most of the information indicates
> that Northern latitudes may take a large portion of the overall global
> impact, e.g. get warmer than other areas of the world. They readily
> acknowledge that it may get easier on some farmers - but worry a lot about
> key ecosystems and some farm environments that may suffer beyond repair/use.
> They seem pretty fatalistic about it, e.g. nothing appears likely to stop the
> trend and they fully expect a minimum 2C temp rise. A lot of their effort is
> spent on trying to figure out things to do *when* or *as* it happens, not as
> *if* it will happen.
>
That's interesting, and not at all the picture I was getting from
them. I was under the impression they were mobilizing for a massive
influx of people and increasing infrastructure. In fact, they've been
sending out calls for civil engineers worldwide. I agree, though, most
people up there feel the effects more already, and the question is not
if, but how.
--
Steve Hemphill
Jemez Engineering
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill
Climate Change:
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html
Headed for Holocene Max:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tax Bads, not Goods.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r570.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Sam McClintock
Steve Hemphill wrote:
> That's interesting, and not at all the picture I was getting from
> them. I was under the impression they were mobilizing for a massive
> influx of people and increasing infrastructure. In fact, they've been
> sending out calls for civil engineers worldwide. I agree, though, most
> people up there feel the effects more already, and the question is not
> if, but how.
I think we are actually talking about the same thing, just the different
perspective of people-climate reactions versus land-use-ecology-climate problems.
I don't know where their priorities are, though, on which to figure out first and
do about it.
Sam McClintock
Byron Bodo
In article <355C6C18...@rt66.com>, hemp...@rt66.com says...
>
>That's interesting, and not at all the picture I was getting from
>them. I was under the impression they were mobilizing for a massive
>influx of people and increasing infrastructure.
And just where have you been getting this from? Have heard squat
about this here in the Great White North.
>In fact, they've been
>sending out calls for civil engineers worldwide.
They (whoever they are) certainly haven't been calling anyone
around here.
>I agree, though, most
>people up there feel the effects more already, and the question is not
>if, but how.
>
-bb
Steve Hemphill
Byron Bodo wrote:
>
> In article <355C6C18...@rt66.com>, hemp...@rt66.com says...
> >
> >That's interesting, and not at all the picture I was getting from
> >them. I was under the impression they were mobilizing for a massive
> >influx of people and increasing infrastructure.
>
> And just where have you been getting this from? Have heard squat
> about this here in the Great White North.
http://www.doe.ca/envhome.html
> >In fact, they've been
> >sending out calls for civil engineers worldwide.
>
> They (whoever they are) certainly haven't been calling anyone
> around here.
You're already there.
> >I agree, though, most
> >people up there feel the effects more already, and the question is not
> >if, but how.
rud...@usa.net
In article <355C542C...@nospam.net>,
Sam McClintock <mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Byron Bodo wrote:
>
> > As for heat islands, the city climate since the late 1980s has
> > been unequivocally far hotter than it's been in my life time.
>
> Well, the Canadian government officials and researchers I have talked to
seem
> pretty worried about global warming because most of the information
indicates
> that Northern latitudes may take a large portion of the overall global
> impact, e.g. get warmer than other areas of the world. They readily
> acknowledge that it may get easier on some farmers - but worry a lot about
> key ecosystems and some farm environments that may suffer beyond repair/use.
> They seem pretty fatalistic about it, e.g. nothing appears likely to stop
the
> trend and they fully expect a minimum 2C temp rise. A lot of their effort
is
> spent on trying to figure out things to do *when* or *as* it happens, not as
> *if* it will happen.
>
A word about Canadian governement officials and researchers. Within the
environmental sciences, these people are an endangered species. Their very
livlihood depends on them toeing the global warming line. Environment
Canada, and in particular, those within the atmospheric sciences have had
their service gutted through layoff, cutbacks and attrition. You should keep
this in mind when listening to any of their pronouncements that might somehow
influence their continued employment.
-Rudy (ex-environemt canada employee)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
rud...@usa.net
In article <355B5975...@nospam.net>,
Sam McClintock <mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I thought it appropriate to address a new thread as this one subject may
> get complicated with references and discussion. Mr. Jones and a few
> others on sci.environment have discussed that the surface temperature
> data is biased because of urban heat affects, biasing those numbers
> high. Specifically, he wrote:
>
> > ***{Why do you continue to make these sorts of vague allusions? I have
> >
> > repeatedly asked you to cite, if you can, any study not corrupted by
> > the
> > urban heat island effect which shows a temperature peak above the 1940
> >
> > level. If you know of such a study, post the reference; if not, please
> >
> > stop wasting our time. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> I have continuously stated that not all data is subject to this problem,
> and that the original authors of the research that pointed this (urban
> heat) out were suggesting corrections to the data and how to integrate
> non-urban with urban data. That part of the research was somehow missed
> by subsequent white papers funded by less than environmentally friendly
> sources.
<snip>
> A second not-so-obvious choice are the Canadians. They Canadians
> operate over 200 monitoring stations, of which only 15% are classic
> urban sites. The Canadian government studies went three steps further.
> First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
> totally - such as Toronta. Second, they did an immense amount of work
> statistically comparing urban, semi-urban, and rural station readouts to
> eliminate any urban-based biases. Third, they went through all of the
> different ways of measuring data over the last 100 years (literally
> since 1895) to see where biases and problems would be encountered. All
> in all one of the most rigorous efforts to exclude and account for
> biases. The results - the earth has been getting warming, at least in
> the entire country of Canada, which is a pretty big, diverse land mass
> to say the least. About 1/2 to 3/4 C averaged over the entire country.
>
> The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
> this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
> Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
> Change, SOE-91-1.
>
> As I continue into this work, I have also interviewed some of the
> researchers who originally brought the problem up. I am also asking for
> references from other government and research institutions, so more data
> and reports will follow. Hope this helps everybody.
>
> Sam McClintock
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
I am flattered that you think so highly of the Canadians' efforts in this
instance but I fear that you have all too skewed an impression of the quality
of the data. I have worked extensively in the offices of a couple of regional
offices of Climate Services in Environemnet Canada, so I feel somewhat
qualified to speak on this subject.
Climate stations in Canada like the ones you mention are almost all entirely
run by volunteer observers. This is not really a problem when the observer is
keen, but is not condusive to a long term record. Many rural sites DO exist
but finding ones that are continuous in record at the same location and with
reputable instrumentation over that period are few and VERY far between.
Records are kept of inspection of these stations, and the quality of
observations but they are confidential and usually kept in district offices.
The PAID or contract observers who have had training tend to be in the larger
centres which also have the longest period of record. These must be excluded
if urban effects are to be discounted. What is left, frankly, I wouldn't
trust as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat.
You will also note that while SOME of the stations show warming, some also
show no discernible change or even decreases in the temperature trend. Your
"average" is highly subjective.
-Rudy
Byron Bodo
In article <355C8C96...@rt66.com>, hemp...@rt66.com says...
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>>
>> In article <355C6C18...@rt66.com>, hemp...@rt66.com says...
>> >
>> >That's interesting, and not at all the picture I was getting from
>> >them. I was under the impression they were mobilizing for a massive
>> >influx of people and increasing infrastructure.
>>
>> And just where have you been getting this from? Have heard squat
>> about this here in the Great White North.
>
>http://www.doe.ca/envhome.html
See nothing about "mobilizing for a massive influx of people and
increasing infrastructure". Nor has there been a word about such
in the national media.
>> >In fact, they've been
>> >sending out calls for civil engineers worldwide.
>>
>> They (whoever they are) certainly haven't been calling anyone
>> around here.
>
>You're already there.
The only adds for engineers I've seen are for MSCE network
engineers, i.e., people who manage computer networks running NT servers.
-bb
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> A word about Canadian governement officials and researchers. Within the
> environmental sciences, these people are an endangered species. Their very
> livlihood depends on them toeing the global warming line. Environment
> Canada, and in particular, those within the atmospheric sciences have had
> their service gutted through layoff, cutbacks and attrition. You should keep
> this in mind when listening to any of their pronouncements that might somehow
> influence their continued employment.
I don't disagree that the Canadian officials in the environmental offices are
stretched for resources, but those there seem pretty secure in the work they do -
which is a large range of climate issues. So you are saying that all the research
and data by the Canadian government has been faked? That the data has been
tampered with? What you have done is denigrate a large number of government
researchers all in one sentence without saying anything specific except don't
trust them. Why don't we try for a little detail - what specifically is wrong
with their work? Point to the data you don't like and tell us what is wrong with
it.
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> Climate stations in Canada like the ones you mention are almost all entirely
> run by volunteer observers. This is not really a problem when the observer is
> keen, but is not condusive to a long term record. Many rural sites DO exist
> but finding ones that are continuous in record at the same location and with
> reputable instrumentation over that period are few and VERY far between.
> Records are kept of inspection of these stations, and the quality of
> observations but they are confidential and usually kept in district offices.
> The PAID or contract observers who have had training tend to be in the larger
> centres which also have the longest period of record. These must be excluded
> if urban effects are to be discounted. What is left, frankly, I wouldn't
> trust as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat.
You have basically denigrated all of the Canadian data, which is extensive, based
on your interpretation of some vague sets of data that no one has access to. So
why don't you supply some detail of which researchers you don't like, which
stations are at fault, which rural sites have to be discounted?
> You will also note that while SOME of the stations show warming, some also
> show no discernible change or even decreases in the temperature trend. Your
> "average" is highly subjective.
Rudy, all monitoring stations throughout the world do not show a warming trend.
Some show distinct cooling trends, such as some Eastern sections of Canada. It is
the entire data set over entire regions which lead to a summary and observation of
global climate change. The average is not subject, it is the statistical
average. This is real elementary material and is not producing any confidence
that you had any direct contact or observation of climate data. Want to tell us
which offices you worked in and in what capacity?
Byron Bodo
In article <6jigi3$fkp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rud...@usa.net says...
>A word about Canadian governement officials and researchers. Within the
>environmental sciences, these people are an endangered species. Their very
>livlihood depends on them toeing the global warming line.
Explain why.
>Environment Canada, and in particular, those within the atmospheric sciences
>have had >their service gutted through layoff, cutbacks and attrition. You should keep
>this in mind when listening to any of their pronouncements that might somehow
>influence their continued employment.
And what precisely does this have to do with "toeing (sic)
the global warming line". Whose line?
Smells like sour grapes to me. Surely not another disgruntled former
civil servant that got the boot.
-bb
Mitchell Jones
> I thought it appropriate to address a new thread as this one subject may
> get complicated with references and discussion. Mr. Jones and a few
> others on sci.environment
***{Nice move, Sam. You deleted the one newsgroup I
read--sci.physics.fusion--which happens to also be the group where this
discussion started. That way, I suppose, you thought you wouldn't have to
face any criticism. Unfortunately for you, some kind-hearted souls tipped
me off that you had deleted my group from your list. --Mitchell Jones}***
have discussed that the surface temperature
> data is biased because of urban heat affects, biasing those numbers
> high. Specifically, he wrote:
>
> > ***{Why do you continue to make these sorts of vague allusions? I have
> >
> > repeatedly asked you to cite, if you can, any study not corrupted by
> > the
> > urban heat island effect which shows a temperature peak above the 1940
> >
> > level. If you know of such a study, post the reference; if not, please
> >
> > stop wasting our time. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> I have continuously stated that not all data is subject to this problem,
> and that the original authors of the research that pointed this (urban
> heat) out were suggesting corrections to the data and how to integrate
> non-urban with urban data. That part of the research was somehow missed
> by subsequent white papers funded by less than environmentally friendly
> sources.
>
> This first obvious data set that is not biased by urban heat impact is
> the sea surface temperatures. Even these have some bias over the
> differences between buoy, ship, and subsurface measurements, but all of
> these are explained and pretty much accounted for. These data go back
> into the 1940s and are published in various formats from the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If anyone wants to look at the
> preponderous data, you can start at the website of:
> <http://www.noaa.gov/> and go to any subject you like. There are no
> less that 20 or so government reports that go along with these, but all
> the raw data is available on the net.
***{As I pointed out in earlier posts, the sea surface temperatures in the
Sargasso Sea have been plotted back to 1000 B.C., and show a declining
trend over that period, from a peak of about 25.2 degrees C in 1000 B.C.
to about 22.8 degrees C today. The long-term trend is down, not up, though
there has been a trivial rise of about .8 degree C in the last 300
years--not yet enough to bring us back to the mean for the 3000 years
period. [See Kegwin, L.D. Science 1996, 274, 1504-1508.]
As for your website address, given above, it's a no show, as I've learned
to expect from you: I did a search for the phrase "sea surface
temperatures" and got 22 hits. When I then pulled down the referenced
documents, they consisted of ordering and billing information. There was
nothing whatsoever in any of them to support your position, despite your
obvious implication that they would do so. Could it be that you are
blowing a bit of smoke, Sam? If not, please cite a specific location where
I can obtain sea surface temperature data which show a 20th century peak
after 1940. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> A second not-so-obvious choice are the Canadians. They Canadians
> operate over 200 monitoring stations, of which only 15% are classic
> urban sites.
***{Define "urban," Sam. No more smoke, please. What do you mean: cities
over 100,000? Over 50,000? If so, it ain't gonna fly, buddy. You need
sites that are not now and have never been subject to the influence of
nearby development. Otherwise, you have to toss the data out, and use
satellite data, radiosonde balloon measurements, and sea surface
measurements, *none of which show a peak after 1940.* --Mitchell Jones}***
The Canadian government studies went three steps further.
> First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
> totally - such as Toronta.
***{Toronto has a population in excess of two million, so I would
certainly hope that they would exclude it! Unfortunately, your implication
would seem to be that metro weather station readings in areas smaller than
Toronto were *not* excluded! Thus your result is trashed already!
--Mitchell Jones}***
Second, they did an immense amount of work
> statistically comparing urban, semi-urban, and rural station readouts to
> eliminate any urban-based biases.
***{Uh-huh. But, of course, they didn't actually go so far as to *toss
out* the urban and semi-urban data, now did they? They just statistically
compared them to make sure that the trends were highly correllated in all
three, right? And, of course, they would be. As I have pointed out to you
several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam: suppose you
have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the Canadian
woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in a ranger
station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will affect the
temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly. What matters is
whether there has been an increase in the concentration of nearby man-made
structures in the vicinity of the data collection point, not whether the
collection site has been classified as "rural," "semi-urban," or "urban"
by some clerk who has no idea of the issues that are riding on his
classification. All that it takes to generate correlated uptrends in data
from "rural," "semi-urban," and "urban" collection sites is that there be
a generalized trend toward the accumulation of man-made structures in the
vicinity of all three types of site. In short, you need to eliminate sites
where there has been a history of growth, Sam! Mindlessly computing
correlation coefficients doesn't justify the inclusion of such data. There
is no reason to think that growth in Canada has occurred exclusively in
urban areas. If you use correlation studies to toss out sites, you just
wind up with sites where the rate of growth has been the same in the
rural, semi-urban, and urban sites. That doesn't eliminate the effect of
the growth on the temperature measurements. The only way you can do that
is to toss out all sites where growth has occurred. --Mitchell Jones}***
Third, they went through all of the
> different ways of measuring data over the last 100 years (literally
> since 1895) to see where biases and problems would be encountered. All
> in all one of the most rigorous efforts to exclude and account for
> biases. The results - the earth has been getting warming, at least in
> the entire country of Canada, which is a pretty big, diverse land mass
> to say the least. About 1/2 to 3/4 C averaged over the entire country.
***{I repeat: you cannot remove the effects of nearby growth on
temperature measurements by means of statistical analysis. The only way
you can do it is by tossing out collection sites where growth has
occurred. Since your comments have made it clear that they didn't do that,
their conclusions are obviously bogus. I would also note the glaringly
obvious omission, in your presentation, of any reference to the source of
your comments. What's the matter, Sam: don't you want anyone to be able to
check your sources? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
> this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
> Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
> Change, SOE-91-1.
***{What websites, Sam? How do we view these reports? Could it be that you
omitted this information because you don't want us to find the holes in
your position? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> As I continue into this work, I have also interviewed some of the
> researchers who originally brought the problem up. I am also asking for
> references from other government and research institutions, so more data
> and reports will follow. Hope this helps everybody.
***{Promises, promises. So far you haven't given us diddley squat.
--Mitchell Jones}***
>
> Sam McClintock
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
===========================================================
Mitchell Jones
In article <355BCA68...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Alan Ristow wrote:
>
> > I don't suppose you'd have a reference to this original urban heat study
> > and/or any good subsequent studies? I'm interested in learning more
> > about it and how the effects are treated by various researchers.
>
> The first reference for accounting and correcting for urban heat island
> impacts I can find was in "Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff 1987. Global trends
> of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 92." Hansen has
> continued working on surface temperatures and has published several papers
> since then.
***{This adds nothing new, Sam. The Hansen reference that you mentioned is
listed at the back of the Robinson white paper which we have been
discussing, along with 2 other articles by him. Here are all three Hansen
references, taken directly from that paper:
23. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R. and Sato, M. (1996) Geophys. Res. Let. 23,
1665-1668; [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/].
33. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S (1987) J. Geophysical Research 92, 13345-13372.
34. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophys. Res. Let. 15, 323-326.
In addition, the above mentioned white paper contains 63 other references
relevant to this discussion. It is entitled Environmental Effects of
Increased Atmosphereic Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., and was
sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It may be
accessed via internal links at http://www.oism.org.
--Mitchell Jones}***
I am still have quite a bit of information trickling in - USA,
> Canada, Australia, UK, Russia - will pass those references along after I get a
> chance to review them. Dr. Balling wrote on the subject, but his reports are
> restricted to "right-wing" groups, such as the Competitive Enterprise
> Institute. Not to say that work is entirely biased - will have a better
> handle after I can read his peer-reviewed work and talk to him on the phone.
>
Mitchell Jones
In article <355C542C...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Byron Bodo wrote:
>
> > As for heat islands, the city climate since the late 1980s has
> > been unequivocally far hotter than it's been in my life time.
>
> Well, the Canadian government officials and researchers I have talked to seem
> pretty worried about global warming because most of the information indicates
> that Northern latitudes may take a large portion of the overall global
> impact, e.g. get warmer than other areas of the world. They readily
> acknowledge that it may get easier on some farmers - but worry a lot about
> key ecosystems and some farm environments that may suffer beyond repair/use.
> They seem pretty fatalistic about it, e.g. nothing appears likely to stop the
> trend and they fully expect a minimum 2C temp rise. A lot of their effort is
> spent on trying to figure out things to do *when* or *as* it happens, not as
> *if* it will happen.
***{Of course. Would you expect bureaucrats to pass up an excuse to obtain
more funding? What would you expect them to do, run around shouting that
the sky isn't falling, so their allotment of slop from the public trough
can be reduced? If so, I can guarantee that it ain't gonna happen. They
will jump on whatever bandwagon seems to offer the most bucks at a given
moment--which means: they will put their support behind a bogus
statistical analysis that treats the heat island effect as real, in
preference to a rational methodology that tosses out the biased readings.
To them, this is all about money and power, not about truth. --Mitchell
Jones}***
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
Another case of rumormongoring and gossip. You have provided nothing of substance
to rebut or debate the issue. When you feel like you have time to read some
research instead of calling government researchers names, please let us know.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
Steven Hales
Sam McClintock wrote in message <356033E9...@nospam.net>...
The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
colleagues' and their own funding would vanish. Fred Seitz thinks something
stinks. I tend to agree.
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{This adds nothing new, Sam. The Hansen reference that you mentioned is
> listed at the back of the Robinson white paper which we have been
> discussing, along with 2 other articles by him. Here are all three Hansen
> references, taken directly from that paper:
> 23. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R. and Sato, M. (1996) Geophys. Res. Let. 23,
> 1665-1668; [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/].
> 33. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S (1987) J. Geophysical Research 92, 13345-13372.
> 34. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophys. Res. Let. 15, 323-326.
No, the very point is that IT IS NOTHING NEW. The impact of urban surroundings have
been studied for quite literally decades with regards to air pollution and
climatology. Yet, Robinson selectively quotes from the data sets and the research
done to date. Or maybe he just has selective memory? I think you should also note
(when you get time to read) that Hansen's material is only part of the picture, and
that his bibliography for his research is quite a bit more extensive than
Robinson's. And that Hansen actually conducts research in the area . . .
When you feel like reading this work, please feel free to tell us what specifically
is wrong with the data sets chosen by Hansen and how his methods for accounting for
or eliminating data are wrong. Robinson sure doesn't; he just quotes from the two
paragraphs that say what he wants to hear.
Thomas Palm
Steven Hales wrote:
> The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
> lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
> colleagues' and their own funding would vanish. Fred Seitz thinks something
> stinks. I tend to agree.
You mean that _all_ journals, whether commercial or owned by non-
profit organizations in all countries somehow have common interests
in this case? You only need _one_ journal to break such an
embargo. Certainly some of the big industries could finance that
if no one else is willing too.
In fact, since IBM, AT&T etc has their own research journals I would
imagine that some of the oil companies also might have theirs. (I
am not familiar with that sector.)
So where are the critical science, e.g, the computer models that do
not show warming from increased CO2? Here I do not count reviews,
only original science continaing new data. Anyone can write a
review showing whatever you want by using selective references.
(On the other hand writing an unbias review of a field is very
difficult.)
--
Thomas Palm
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{Nice move, Sam. You deleted the one newsgroup I
> read--sci.physics.fusion--which happens to also be the group where this
> discussion started. That way, I suppose, you thought you wouldn't have to
> face any criticism. Unfortunately for you, some kind-hearted souls tipped
> me off that you had deleted my group from your list. --Mitchell Jones}***
I really could care less how important you think you are to me.
> As for your website address, given above, it's a no show
The NOAA? Which drugs are you on? Sorry you cannot use a browser.
> ***{Define "urban," Sam. No more smoke, please. What do you mean: cities
> over 100,000? Over 50,000? If so, it ain't gonna fly, buddy. You need
No, you need to show which data you don't like. Instead of blind critiques
and gossip, you need to read some research. I really cannot tell whether you
have read anything actually pertaining to how this data is collected. I
provide a reference, you say redefine the reference, the reference is wrong -
without pointing to what is wrong. Your just blithering on the net - nothing
more than gossip and rumormongoring.
> > The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
> > this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
> > Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
> > Change, SOE-91-1.
Gee, golly whiz, I can find all sorts of stuff from Canada on the net and in
journals. ES&T did a beautiful writeup on how Canada treats global warming
issues and research. I am truly sorry you do not know how to use a browser or
the library. When you feel like you have time to read, or learn how to use a
browser, please let us know.
Let's try a simple task - find A SINGLE REFERNCE of *ORIGINAL* research, point
to the page in question and tell me what is wrong with it. You can use raw
data from the web, raw data from the government, or raw data from
peer-reviewed research. THIS IS HUGE AMOUNT of information - surely even you
can find something. You have all sorts of choices - why the data collected is
biased, or why the methodology of statistical analysis is wrong - but point to
something specific. All you have been doing is calling the entire academic
and government community doing this research a bunch of names for no other
reason than you don't like the answers.
Just try this - it is actually kind of fun to read the original research of
scientists, to talk to them, whatever. You are denigrating people you do not
know, many of whom are dedicated scientists.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
Sam McClintock
Steven Hales wrote:
> The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
> lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
> colleagues' and their own funding would vanish. Fred Seitz thinks something
> stinks. I tend to agree.
You just did it again. Rumormongoring and gossip - nothing more. ES&T is
funded by the American Chemical Society and a small amount of advertising by
predominantly *business sources*. Many journals are similarly funded - e.g. by
a combination of membership and advertising. And their funding is going to be
jeopardized how???? If the scientific body elite is a diversely spread on this
issue as you claim, then it should not matter what is published and how. I sure
did not see anybody shying away from the NASA satellite data of the troposphere.
Still have yet to see either you or Mitchell reference any original data set
from any source doing its own research effort. Both of you have taken to
insulting and denigrating research you have not even bothered to read. I am not
impressed.
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{Nice move, Sam. You deleted the one newsgroup I
> read--sci.physics.fusion--which happens to also be the group where this
> discussion started. That way, I suppose, you thought you wouldn't have to
> face any criticism. Unfortunately for you, some kind-hearted souls tipped
> me off that you had deleted my group from your list. --Mitchell Jones}***
As pointed out in another thread, you publicly acknowledged that I told you
via email I was switching the thread title, as a courtesy on my part *to keep
you in the discussion.* Any whining on your part on how you were being cut
out of the discussion is only hurting yourself.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the reseach.
and your email.
Sam McClintock
Steven Hales wrote:
> The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
> lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
> colleagues' and their own funding would vanish. Fred Seitz thinks something
> stinks. I tend to agree.
Aside from Mr. Hales rumormongoring, I thought it was a good time to insert
something that was not rumor. That awesome impact of funding. Not the actual
researchers, but the paid political hacks of the oil coal industries - such as
Dr. Balling. *By his own admission* he received over $700,000 over a five year
span for writing papers critical of global warming from such entities as Kuwaiti
foundations and other oil interests (Arizona Republic, November 24, 1995). Dr.
Michaels, another naysayer of global wrming, has received more than $115,000
from coal and oil interests over a four year span, and other estimates run
higher [Harper's, "The Heat is On," Ross Gelbspan, December 1995, 35]. Keep
in mind that this money does not go to graduate students, equipment, or
experimentation, but only to write white papers, and is in *addition* to their
university salaries. If there was any bias in funding issues - this is it.
Few if any actual researchers on these issues receive this type of salary
increase, and when they do receive funds it has to pay for a lot more than just
a word processor.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
rud...@usa.net
In article <356039...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se>,
Thomas Palm <eka...@nospam.eka.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> Steven Hales wrote:
>
> > The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
> > lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
> > colleagues' and their own funding would vanish. Fred Seitz thinks
something
> > stinks. I tend to agree.
>
> profit organizations in all countries somehow have common interests
> in this case? You only need _one_ journal to break such an
> embargo. Certainly some of the big industries could finance that
> if no one else is willing too.
>
> In fact, since IBM, AT&T etc has their own research journals I would
> imagine that some of the oil companies also might have theirs. (I
> am not familiar with that sector.)
>
> So where are the critical science, e.g, the computer models that do
> not show warming from increased CO2?
Here is where common sense ought to, but frequently does not, kick in. If you
create a model designed to show warming -- BASED on the simple premise that
radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL show warming from an
increase in CO2. No choice. It must. HOWEVER... models do NOT give data.
No model does. A model is simplification. It cannot reproduce reality. It
MUST be made less complex than nature. Models do NOT give data... and yet how
many articles use the phrase "model data". Some scientists are so enamoured
by their abstractions that they forget what is real and what is theory.
This requires no verification or call to authority. It is just common sense.
The world is far more complex than we have the power to model. Let's not go
off half-cocked.
> Here I do not count reviews,
> only original science continaing new data. Anyone can write a
> review showing whatever you want by using selective references.
> (On the other hand writing an unbias review of a field is very
> difficult.)
>
> --
> Thomas Palm
>
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> Here is where common sense ought to, but frequently does not, kick in. If you
> create a model designed to show warming -- BASED on the simple premise that
> radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL show warming from an
> increase in CO2. No choice. It must. HOWEVER... models do NOT give data.
> No model does. A model is simplification. It cannot reproduce reality. It
> MUST be made less complex than nature. Models do NOT give data... and yet how
> many articles use the phrase "model data". Some scientists are so enamoured
> by their abstractions that they forget what is real and what is theory.
Well first, people were responding to the issue of whether journals were so biased
in their presentation as to negate any hope of any article that does not depict
global warming ever showing up. This was responded to that a) those articles do
show up b) that the journals are sponsored from a variety of sources, including
industrial ones, and c) that funding creates more bias in those disproving the
issue through white papers than with actual research. You did not respond to any
of these issues.
Next, the term "model data" does not frequently use "model" as an adjective; it is
more frequently used as a verb, e.g. to model the data. Now some call the results
data too, and in all objectivity that is correct in that data is any set of
numbers, regardless of where it came from. As to whether models can reproduce
reality or not, some smaller scale models are very good at depicting reality. The
larger scale stuff needs work, but all agree a warming trend (however slight or
great) will occur. But these models are very complex and do not follow simple
rules or singular sets of inputs (at least not any longer), and all, by everyone's
admission, still need work.
Now you seem miffed that all the models out there show an increase in temperature
with the one consistant data input as an increase in CO2. We do have a rising
trend in CO2, and the models use all sorts of a variety of inputs, including
different CO2 concentrations and trends. Since even global warming critics, such
as Dr. Michaels, feel an increase in both CO2 and temperature are going to happen
(and he gets paid extremely well to characterize the change as a minimum impact)
then maybe most of the scientists who study this problem do agree on something.
Michael Tobis
rud...@usa.net wrote:
: >
: > So where are the critical science, e.g, the computer models that do
: > not show warming from increased CO2?
: Here is where common sense ought to, but frequently does not, kick in. If you
: create a model designed to show warming -- BASED on the simple premise that
: radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL show warming from an
: increase in CO2.
The class of model at issue here takes the physical boundary conditions
of the atmosphere and the physical principles of its behavior and
reproduces the statistical properties of the existing climate. Such
models are *not* designed to show warming, and it is a common public
misconception that it is even their primary purpose to make climate
predictions. The purpose of the models is to *reproduce* current climate.
Most research in the discipline amounts to the interplay of these models
with observations. This is why the field is young: its models are
so computationally demanding that computer technology is a prerequisite
for testing the models in any detail.
...
: This requires no verification or call to authority. It is just common sense.
: The world is far more complex than we have the power to model. Let's not go
: off half-cocked.
This amounts to a suggestion that science is impossible. I think most
people will agree that this is wrong.
Models are never perfect, but they are often useful. Whether a model
exists on a computer or not is not an especially important question.
Science is *about* improving imperfect models so they are increasingly
useful.
In fact, it is impossible to build a reasonable general circulation model
of *contemporary* climate without including radiative physics. No one
has built such a model that doesn't show the world warming in response
to greenhouse gas accumulation. There's plenty of motivation to try, and
yet it hasn't been done. That's not the only piece of evidence in this
situation, but it *is* evidence.
mt
Mitchell Jones
In article <3560F7...@prism.gatech.edu>, gt6...@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > ***{Uh-huh. But, of course, they didn't actually go so far as to *toss
> > out* the urban and semi-urban data, now did they? They just statistically
> > compared them to make sure that the trends were highly correllated in all
> > three, right? And, of course, they would be.
>
> Please explain why rural data should be highly correllated to urban and
> semi-urban data if, as you have hypothesized throughout this thread,
> global warming is not occurring.
***{Areas of concrete, steel, tarmac, brick buildings, asphalt shingles,
and the like absorb sunlight and convert it into heat--which means: lots
of little particles jumping around plenty fast. In greenbelt areas, things
are different: green vegetation absorbs sunlight and uses it to drive
metabolic processes that convert the little particles into complex organic
molecules--which means: into more vegetation, rather than into heat. In
addition, ground water is pumped into the structures of plants and, due to
the extremely high specific heat of water, much more sunlight must be
absorbed by plant biomass to produce a given rise in temperature than must
be absorbed by man-made structures. This means that the replacement of
greenbelt with concrete, steel, tarmac, brick building, asphalt shingles,
etc., is accompanied by rising temperatures in the immediate vicinity of
the structures. Such structures emit radiant heat with an intensity that
you can literally feel on your body, and which produces marked elevations
in the readings of thermometers as compared to thermometers placed in
greenbelt areas. Since virtually every location where there were manmade
structures 100 years ago has *even more* manmade structures now, due to
the enormous worldwide growth that has taken place in the last 100 years,
and since sites that collect weather data are virtually always situated
near manmade structures, even when the collection sites are in rural
areas, it follows that the trend toward higher temperatures will not limit
itself to urban data collection sites. Rather: it will occur at virtually
every data collection site, because virtually every site will have more
nearby manmade structures today than it had 100 years ago, or 50 years
ago, or 25 years ago, etc. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > As I have pointed out to you
> > several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
> > significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam: suppose you
> > have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the Canadian
> > woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in a ranger
> > station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will affect the
> > temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly.
>
> Please clarify how close the development must be to a rural monitoring
> station to corrupt its readings. To use your example, how far from the
> ranger station and parking lot would the monitoring equipment have to be
> to avoid being affected? Please cite references.
***{If you question the physics or the biophysics, just about any
elementary text will do. It's very basic stuff, hardly controversial.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone would need to look such things
up. As I noted above, the effect is palpable: you can feel the difference
on your body as you walk from a grassy meadow toward manmade structures.
I, for example, live out in the country, far from urban areas, and yet I
can feel the radiant heat pouring towards me from my house as I walk
toward it on a hot summer day. Moreover, as the years have passed, I have
added outbuildings, driveways, fences, and other manmade improvements.
Thus if a weather monitoring station had been in my yard for the 25 years
that I have lived here, the accumulation of manmade structures around it
would have produced a false uptrend in the temperature readings, even if
temperatures in the surrounding greenbelt were perfectly flat. Concerning
your question of how far away from such structures a thermometer would
have to be placed in order to not be affected, it would depend on the
specifics of the individual situation. The principle, however, is what
matters here: the trend of the last few hundred years has been toward a
buildup of manmade structures at virtually every location where surface
temperature measuring stations would be situated, whether in rural,
semi-urban, or urban areas. The obvious implication is that a thermometer
that was far enough away from such structures 100 years ago would probably
not be far enough away today, due to the buildup that has occurred since
then. Given that state of affairs, it would obviously be foolish to
conclude that global temperatures are rising, when it is only the readings
from sites that are potentially vulnerable to such effects which show a
temperature peak after 1940. As I have noted repeatedly, radiosonde
balloon measurements, satellite MSU measurements, and sea surface
measurements uniformly fail to show the rising trend that appears in the
questionable terrestrial surface measurements. In addition, long term
measurements going back 3000 years based on seafloor sediments show that
present global temperatures are well below the average for the last 3000
years. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> ---------------------------
> Alan Ristow <gt6...@prism.gatech.edu>
> University Center of Excellence for
> Photovoltaics Research and Education
> School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0250
===========================================================
rud...@usa.net
In article <6jskb0$f...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>
> rud...@usa.net wrote:
> : >
> : > So where are the critical science, e.g, the computer models that do
> : > not show warming from increased CO2?
>
> : Here is where common sense ought to, but frequently does not, kick in. If
you
> : create a model designed to show warming -- BASED on the simple premise
that
> : radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL show warming
from an
> : increase in CO2.
>
> The class of model at issue here takes the physical boundary conditions
> of the atmosphere and the physical principles of its behavior and
> reproduces the statistical properties of the existing climate. Such
> models are *not* designed to show warming, and it is a common public
> misconception that it is even their primary purpose to make climate
> predictions. The purpose of the models is to *reproduce* current climate.
> Most research in the discipline amounts to the interplay of these models
> with observations. This is why the field is young: its models are
> so computationally demanding that computer technology is a prerequisite
> for testing the models in any detail.
>
>
sense.
> : The world is far more complex than we have the power to model. Let's not
go
> : off half-cocked.
>
> This amounts to a suggestion that science is impossible. I think most
> people will agree that this is wrong.
This does not suggest that science is impossible. It simply suggests that
appropriate caveats be expressed in the application of these models. The
history of GCMs is that as we get them closer and closer to reality, through
increased parameterization, increased computing power and increased
understanding, they start to give smaller and smaller magnitudes of increase
in temperature. I will not suggest that they will trend to zero, but the
decreases from the 7-11C increases from 2x CO2 (when models were young and
crude) down to the current increases of 1.5 to 3C increases are worthy of
note. All that from just including more levels, increased (marginally)
resolution, and including bizarre things like clouds in the model. What
happens if we actually start to model the oceans or soil accurately?!
> Models are never perfect, but they are often useful. Whether a model
> exists on a computer or not is not an especially important question.
> Science is *about* improving imperfect models so they are increasingly
> useful.
So let's IMPROVE those obviously flawed models that have such high variances
in fit at high latitudes (where the warming is supposed to be greatest).
THEN, maybe we can say with some confidence what will happen. We
climatologists need to be absolutely CERTAIN of our science before we start
touting doom or salvation.
> In fact, it is impossible to build a reasonable general circulation model
> of *contemporary* climate without including radiative physics. No one
> has built such a model that doesn't show the world warming in response
> to greenhouse gas accumulation. There's plenty of motivation to try, and
> yet it hasn't been done. That's not the only piece of evidence in this
> situation, but it *is* evidence.
It is ludicrous to suggest that a model could be constructed with the current
parameterization that would show anything BUT warming with increased
radiatively active gas concentration. But the models are ceteris paribus.
That should never be forgotten or underemphasized. What I continue to
advocate is caution in application of results from models that people believe
are spouting undenialble truth. TELL people how crude the models are. TELL
people how much further we have to go. Is THAT not also the purview of
science?
It just frustrates me that we only hear that the "science is young" and "the
models are imperfect" when the models' flaws are outlined. Until then, we are
only to believe, without question, their dire predictions.
-Rudy
rud...@usa.net
In article <3561D441...@nospam.net>,
Sam McClintock <mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> rud...@usa.net wrote:
>
> > Here is where common sense ought to, but frequently does not, kick in. If
you
> > create a model designed to show warming -- BASED on the simple premise
that
> > radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL show warming
from an
data.
> > No model does. A model is simplification. It cannot reproduce reality.
It
> > MUST be made less complex than nature. Models do NOT give data... and yet
how
> > many articles use the phrase "model data". Some scientists are so
enamoured
> > by their abstractions that they forget what is real and what is theory.
>
<snip explanation not related to my reply below>
>
> Next, the term "model data" does not frequently use "model" as an adjective;
it is
> more frequently used as a verb, e.g. to model the data. Now some call the
results
> data too, and in all objectivity that is correct in that data is any set of
> numbers, regardless of where it came from.
<snip>
Now... you see... we are not going to get anywhere in this particular thread
because MY Webster'" defines "data" as "factual information used as a basis
for reasoning, discussion, or calculation". My understanding of model output
is that it is NOT "factual", but rather predictive, speculative, or a
simulation -- that is, artificial. I am leery of any suggestion that models
give "data". I suggest that YOU be wary of any researcher who believes his
model gives "data".
A picayune point, I admit, but I believe it is the basis for many
misunderstandings in our science.
Sam McClintock
Rudy said:
> A picayune point, I admit
Yes, it is. We started talking about funding, then you brought up the term "model
data." I clearly explained the more common usage as a verb, e.g. "model data"
means to model the data - you ignored that part, ignored any other points of
discussion, and went straight on to one of five possible definitions of "data"
(such as information, records, statistics, etc. etc) and claimed the high ground .
. . ? Data are just numbers - we don't ascribe motives to them - just the
people. And accuracy is based on how well the work is done - not whether it is
data or not. If you actually worked as a scientist or engineer (which you have
inferred) then you would know this.
When and if you ever get time to read some of the research involved, instead of
quoting Webster's when you get upset that your logic is not holding water (maybe
that is the only book you have, I really can't tell), please feel free to let us
know.
Thomas Palm
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> The
> history of GCMs is that as we get them closer and closer to reality, through
> increased parameterization, increased computing power and increased
> understanding, they start to give smaller and smaller magnitudes of increase
> in temperature. I will not suggest that they will trend to zero, but the
> decreases from the 7-11C increases from 2x CO2 (when models were young and
> crude) down to the current increases of 1.5 to 3C increases are worthy of
> note. All that from just including more levels, increased (marginally)
> resolution, and including bizarre things like clouds in the model. What
> happens if we actually start to model the oceans or soil accurately?!
Is this an attempt at a meta study doing an extrapolation from early
models to current ones? In that case I am curious why you think
there will be a linear development in time of the predictions. I
would expect the models to follow a slowly converging random walk
towards the correct value. In that case it is just as likely that
including more effects will start to increase the values again.
> So let's IMPROVE those obviously flawed models that have such high variances
> in fit at high latitudes (where the warming is supposed to be greatest).
> THEN, maybe we can say with some confidence what will happen. We
> climatologists need to be absolutely CERTAIN of our science before we start
> touting doom or salvation.
Anyone seeing a _potential_ problem should inform the public about
that. Perhaps one shouldn't go as far as the military often does
and see ghosts under every closet, but in many cases it may be
very prudent to act even before certain evidence is available.
Unfortunately media are extremely bad on reporting about
uncertainties and not only in climate science. But one can not
keep quiet just becaues of the fear of beeing misquoted.
--
Thomas Palm
rud...@usa.net
In article <3562CE17...@nospam.net>,
I see that you want to turn this into nastiness right away. I don't think ANY
one with at least a high school education could possibly confuse the verb and
noun forms of "model". If that was your problem, then there is little that I
can do to rectify it and that is the primary reason why I chose to ignore the
point. The issue of funding is a matter of conjecture and arguing about that
is of little worth. Knowing the source of funding is important in criticism
but the arguements become academic. The key point becomes the knowledge and
interpretation IN the research. When interpretation is based on faulty
premise, then it needs to be sorted out expeditiously. That you do not
understand what is "data" and what is "simulation" speaks volumes to the
validity of the critiques you hope to formulate.
I am a scientist and I lecture in science, the philosophy of science, and the
nature of criticism. I have spent 20 years reviewing climate information and
climatological research. My views and critcisms are based in fact, bounded by
common sense and constrained by logic. My suggestion to YOU is that you
consult FIRST the dictionary, which you hold with little esteem, and THEN dive
into the arcane world of climate research. Your criticism will be much better
for it.
> Sam McClintock
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>
> . . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
In order to critique the research, you must be able to READ.
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> I am a scientist and I lecture in science, the philosophy of science, and the
> nature of criticism. I have spent 20 years reviewing climate information and
> climatological research.
Then you have done the utmost disservice to those scientists, graduate students,
and government researchers that literally pour thousands and thousands of
man-hours into this work. You have yet to address *one* of the numerous papers on
this subject with any *specific* reference to a data set or methodology you
believe is wrong. And you have yet to provide any substance to your position
beyond your own personal belief, the belief of others that conduct absolutely no
research in this field, or those that are paid quite literally hundreds of
thousands of dollars by fossil fuel interests to kibbitz on other's work.
Then when we press arguments, you decide that quoting Webster for figuring out
what data means constitutes some sort of scientific argument? For the fifth,
sixth? time - when and if you feel so motivated as to read the research, which by
your own admission you should have access to, and make specific arguments instead
of lame generalizations that are an insult to the philosophy of science (J.S. Mill
would be rolling in his grave at your arguments), please let us know.
rud...@usa.net
In article <355CCE35...@nospam.net>,
You don't read too carefully, do you? I said that the quality are reliability
of the RURAL data are suspect. If approriate caution is not exercised in
weeding out changes in observer, programme, or siting, then the results are of
dubious quality. Many of the stations are NAMED and NUMBERED the same but are
not continuous long-term record in one location. This is particularly true of
sites in prairie Canada which seldom have ANY rural sites predating 1930. The
longer period sites tend to be those in an urban setting. Those can be easily
shown to be strongly biased by urbanization. YOUR bias, likewise, is easily
demonstrated by your skepticism of MY assertions while swallowing hook, line,
and sinker, those of the researchers with a vested interest.
-Rudy
p.s. I notice that YOU do not provide any specifics as to the research. My
contention remains that if you work from questionable data, the results are of
similar quality. Garbage in, garbage out, goes the old proverb.
rud...@usa.net
In article <6jijpj$c55$1...@news.interlog.com>,
bo...@interlog.com (Byron Bodo) wrote:
>
> In article <6jigi3$fkp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rud...@usa.net says...
>
> >A word about Canadian governement officials and researchers. Within the
> >environmental sciences, these people are an endangered species. Their very
> >livlihood depends on them toeing the global warming line.
>
> Explain why.
The explanation is implicit in the following.
> >Environment Canada, and in particular, those within the atmospheric
sciences
> >have had >their service gutted through layoff, cutbacks and attrition. You
should keep
> >this in mind when listening to any of their pronouncements that might
somehow
> >influence their continued employment.
>
> And what precisely does this have to do with "toeing (sic)
> the global warming line". Whose line?
IF you worked in a section called "Climate Impacts", do you think your
continued employment would be negatively or positively influenced by a finding
that the climate had LESS impact than previously believed? If the funding of
a "Green Plan" hinged on the public's perception of their being a threat to
the environment, what do you think would come out of such a section? Do you
think that "vested interest" can apply ONLY to the private sector but not the
public sector?
Incidentally... no (sic) needed in referring to my quotation since there was
no flaw in the original.
> Smells like sour grapes to me. Surely not another disgruntled former
> civil servant that got the boot.
Nope... not I. But I know of many quality people in Environment Canada who
have left because of the poor morale. Mostly toadies who are left... or those
trying to hide.
-Rudy
Fred McGalliard
Thomas Palm wrote:
> Is this an attempt at a meta study doing an extrapolation from early
> models to current ones? In that case I am curious why you think
> there will be a linear development in time of the predictions. I
> would expect the models to follow a slowly converging random walk
> towards the correct value. In that case it is just as likely that
> including more effects will start to increase the values again.
Nice point Tom. Course the first order predictions assumed that the only factor
was an increase in CO2 and that all other factors remained fixed. At that point it
might have been argued that the model could display positive feedback as well as
negative. After all, when the ocean finally heats up that additional 2-3 degrees,
it will outgas and perhaps the positive feedback will occure around the end of the
next century, after we have trimmed up our models nicely, matched them to the
short term first order effects, and forgotten just how ignorant we really are.
Guess the reason the models are droping now is the absurdity of the fact that the
temperatures are not rising as fast as they "should". If we then find that this is
due to natural effects that we do not understand, we could find out just how
devistating a greenhouse can get, when and if those factors change and stop
compensating for our medeling.Thank God for Water.
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> p.s. I notice that YOU do not provide any specifics as to the research. My
> contention remains that if you work from questionable data, the results are of
> similar quality. Garbage in, garbage out, goes the old proverb.
I quoted and referenced the specific Canadian report on climate impacts, I have
quoted specific reports on glacial observances, and have gone as far to email
various researchers to get their feedback on various arguments. You of course,
chose not to respond to that with anything other than "the data is wrong." Since
you have been studying this issue for "twenty years," then you should have some of
this material *right at your fingertips.* Since you "lecture in the philosophy of
science" then you should intuitively know that for an argument to be present, some
specific method or datum must be on the table to debate if you are going to call
the research at fault. :<)
Still waiting for you to address *one* report, specify which data set of that
report is wrong, or why the methodology in the report is wrong. Repeated request
of seven? times now. Can you say "library?" When you get time to read . . .
Steve Hemphill
Fred McGalliard wrote:
>
> Thomas Palm wrote:
>
> > Is this an attempt at a meta study doing an extrapolation from early
> > models to current ones? In that case I am curious why you think
> > there will be a linear development in time of the predictions. I
> > would expect the models to follow a slowly converging random walk
> > towards the correct value. In that case it is just as likely that
> > including more effects will start to increase the values again.
>
> Nice point Tom. Course the first order predictions assumed that the only factor
> was an increase in CO2 and that all other factors remained fixed. At that point it
> might have been argued that the model could display positive feedback as well as
> negative.
The "Real Thing" displays many feedback effects, both positive and
negative. Changes in regional climate determine changes in regional
feedback. For instance, the CO2 in the atmosphere are relatively
consistent throughout, while there is relatively wide variance in the
ocean.
> After all, when the ocean finally heats up that additional 2-3 degrees,
> it will outgas and perhaps the positive feedback will occure around the end of the
> next century, after we have trimmed up our models nicely, matched them to the
> short term first order effects, and forgotten just how ignorant we really are.
"Equilibrium" is where the net incoming balances the net outgoing CO2,
from atmosphere to ocean. Since ejection of CO2 depends on water
temperature, where it's cold we have net sink, and where it's warm we
have net "outgassing", as you put it. This is always occurring.
Therefore, outgassing is always occurring and we don't have to wait
for the end of the next century.
We are slowly learning just how "ignorant" we are when it comes to
climate.
--
Steve Hemphill
Jemez Engineering
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill
Climate Change:
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html
Headed for Holocene Max:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tax Bads, not Goods.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r570.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Phil and Darlene Hays
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> The history of GCMs is that as we get them closer and Ìï
> closer to reality, through increased parameterization, ï
> increased computing power and increased understanding, ï
> they start to give smaller and smaller magnitudes of , ï
> increase in temperature. I will not suggest that they ï
> will trend to zero, but the decreases from the 7-11C y ï
> down to the current increases of 1.5 to 3C increases are
Show a reference to a GCM predicting a 7C warming from are
2x CO2.reference to a GCM predicting a 7C warming from are
Show a reference to any published paper predicting a m are
most likely warming of more than 4C in this century. m are
Failure to reply will be taken as admission of guilt m are
as charged in the crime of bullshitting in the first m are
degree.ged in the crime of bullshitting in the first m are
Philee.ged in the crime of bullshitting in the first m are
Scott Nudds
"Steven Hales" wrote:
: The problem is that global warming and climate change research is so
: lucrative that no journal will publish critical studies lest their
: colleagues' and their own funding would vanish.
The problem with Hales' conservative conspiracy theory of course is the
same thing that's wrong with most conspiracy theories. Not only must
all of the scientists on the IPCC be in on it, but so too all their
peers, and all of the journals, and the politicians who fund them, and
the various industries who acknowledge the reality of global warming,
and finally all of the worlds environmentalists must be part of the
conspiracy.
Who do we have left? The only people we seem to have left are the
denialists of course. It's them against the experts, and against the
world. Everyone else is part of a criminal conspiracy in their view.
Many have stated that its a conspiracy to establish a one world
government.
They can even provide proof. Proof in the form of those U.N. trucks
driving around the U.S. Troop movement markers on the back of road
signs, and all those black helicopters following them on their weekly
treks to the drugstore to get their medication.
There is a conspiracy of course. A conspiracy very much like the
tobacco conspiracy.
"It is worthwhile recognizing that there is a class of people who have
vested interests in the current situation. Their strategy is often to
denigrate the issue or deny that there is an issue at all. Like the
tobacco companies who have long denied the addictive effects of nicotine
and adverse effects of smoking on lung cancer, oil-producing countries
and fossil fuel companies spend huge amounts of money to publish often
misleading or invalid material to deny that global warming is a problem.
It is noteworthy that the only two countries who obstructed progress and
continually objected to the IPCC report in the intergovernmental plenary
in Madrid, Spain, in November 1995, were Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Oil
companies often publish selective and biased views in their newsletters
to shareholders. Coal companies in the U.S. wage negative advertising
campaigns and fund the work of skeptics." - KEVIN E. TRENBERTH -
National Center for Atmospheric Research
--
<---->
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{Areas of concrete, steel, tarmac, brick buildings, asphalt shingles,
> and the like absorb sunlight and convert it into heat--which means: lots
> of little particles jumping around plenty fast. In greenbelt areas, things
> are different: green vegetation absorbs sunlight and uses it to drive
Yet, after pointing out research in boreholes, seas surface temperatures, and even
the research into the area, you cannot come up with one single reference and
specify which data set or which methodology you disagree with. Waiting to see if
your visits ot the library have improved.
Mitchell Jones
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > In article <3560F7...@prism.gatech.edu>, gt6...@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ***{Uh-huh. But, of course, they didn't actually go so far as to *toss
> > > > out* the urban and semi-urban data, now did they? They just
statistically
> > > > compared them to make sure that the trends were highly correllated
in all
> > > > three, right? And, of course, they would be.
> > >
> > > Please explain why rural data should be highly correllated to urban and
> > > semi-urban data if, as you have hypothesized throughout this thread,
> > > global warming is not occurring.
> >
> > greenbelt areas. Since virtually every location where there were manmade
> > structures 100 years ago has *even more* manmade structures now, due to
> > the enormous worldwide growth that has taken place in the last 100 years,
> > and since sites that collect weather data are virtually always situated
> > near manmade structures, even when the collection sites are in rural
> > areas, it follows that the trend toward higher temperatures will not limit
> > itself to urban data collection sites. Rather: it will occur at virtually
> > every data collection site, because virtually every site will have more
> > nearby manmade structures today than it had 100 years ago, or 50 years
> > ago, or 25 years ago, etc. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> I understand the physics just fine, which is why it seems that the rural sites
> should NOT correlate to the urban sites if global warming is indeed not
> occuring. However, you seem to be saying that even the rural sites are
> corrupted. What I'm after is evidence that this is or is not the case. After
> all, aren't there guidelines for placing the monitoring equipment in such a
> way as to minimize or eliminate the effects of surrounding structures? Don't
> rural monitoring stations typically place their monitoring equipment far away
> from buildings and such?
***{It would be nice if there were guidelines, but the fact is that nobody
had these issues in mind 100 years ago, or 10 years ago, for that matter.
To the best of my knowledge, Hansen was the first person to notice the
heat island effect, about 10 years ago. He didn't analyze its implications
very deeply and thus managed to convince himself that he didn't need to do
much to compensate for it. What this means is that the history of
temperature collection at these sites is not a history of carefully
reasoned out, skillfully controlled collection, but rather one of
ill-thought-out routine, carried on for the most part by clerical
personnel rather than scientists, and not guided by any enlightened
understanding of the issues which concern us today. Because of that
ignorance and lack of concern, a buildup of structures in the vicinity of
a temperature monitoring site would not have been a matter of concern. It
would have been assumed that, by ensuring that the thermometer and other
instruments were always in shaded and well-ventilated locations,
sufficient precautions had been taken. What would have been ignored was
the fact that increased radiant heat passing through the air around the
monitoring site, due to a buildup of nearby structures, would have slowly,
over time, and ever so slightly, contributed to a rising trend of air
temperature. Since it was the air temperature that the instruments
measured, the result was a creeping bias, and it was a bias that affected
virtually all monitoring sites, not merely those in urban areas, because
growth over the last century has not been confined to urban areas: even
isolated farms have added roadways, outbuildings, parked tractors,
combines, automobiles, water storage tanks, gasoline and diesel storage
tanks, new rooms to houses, and on and on and on. Each such addition is a
new heat sink and source of radiant energy which necessary affects the air
temperature in the vicinity. Result: correlated uptrends in air
temperature at all sites where a buildup of nearby manmade structures has
occurred over the last 100 years--which means: at virtually all sites
whatsoever. Of course, when the sites are classified as "urban,"
"semi-urban," and "rural," it becomes possible to use statistical
correlation techniques to identify outliers, and cull them out, thereby
focusing in on a subset of sites where the temperature trends are
identically the same regardless of classification. But all that does is
improve the correlation between the three types of sites. It does *not*
eliminate the heat island effect from the data. The only way to eliminate
it is to toss out all sites where there has been a buildup of nearby
structures over the last 100 years--which means: the terrestrial surface
data, practically speaking, must *all* be tossed out. It is bogus, when
used to determine long-term trends in global temperatures, because of the
above described, utterly fatal logical flaw. Like it or not, the only data
that can reasonably be employed in this matter are from satellite MSU
readings, radiosonde balloon measurements, and sea surface
measurements--all of which fail to show a temperature peak, or even a
rising trend, after 1940. Bottom line: the global warming theory is
baloney. It is flatly refuted by unarguable facts. Nobody believes it but
scientifically illiterate environmental zealots such as Scott Nudds and
Sam McClintock, and morally challenged "scientists" who have learned that
the government will pay them money when they run around screaming that the
sky is falling. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> I should mention that I'm not trying to argue a point here -- I'm looking for
> information so I can better educate myself on the topic. I'd be very
> appreciative if someone could point me in the right direction.
***{The absolutely best place to start is by reading the Robinson white
paper, which is an excellent overview of the entire issue and, in
addition, contains 63 other references to material relevant to this
discussion. It is entitled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmosphereic
Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., and was sponsored by the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine. It may be accessed via internal links
at http://www.oism.org. --Mitchell Jones}***
Thomas Kellar
On Tue, 19 May 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> areas, it follows that the trend toward higher temperatures will not limit
> itself to urban data collection sites. Rather: it will occur at virtually
> every data collection site, because virtually every site will have more
> nearby manmade structures today than it had 100 years ago, or 50 years
> ago, or 25 years ago, etc. --Mitchell Jones}***
Anyone who rides a motorcycle can feel the different temperatures
of the urban vs suburban vs country areas. I live near a semi-large
city of 200,000, if I ride from the country to the city there is always
about a 10 degree rise in temperature as I get into the city areas.
If I wish to cool off, I ride back into the country. It is consistent
and quite easy to notice. While around here the city is not expanding,
the suburban areas plus their associated strip malls with their
energy absorbing capacity are expanding out toward the city and the
country. Yuck.
Thomas
Scott Nudds
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: You don't read too carefully, do you? I said that the quality are
: reliability of the RURAL data are suspect.
Denialists like Rudy are free to suspect whatever they like.
Climatologists on the other hand do somewhat more than suspect. They
put error bars around their measurements and carry them through their
calculations.
5 times liar, Rudy doesn't seem to understand this, even though he has
claimed to be a teacher. I suspect his claim is just another lie.
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: If approriate caution is not exercised in weeding out changes in
: observer, programme, or siting, then the results are of dubious
: quality.
"Weeding out changes in observer, programme, or siting"? How strange.
One of the first things I was taught in science is that observations
must never be excluded on the basis of personal bias, unless there is
overwhelming evidence that the data is wrong. In all other instances,
the origin of the inaccuracy should be determined and compensated for.
5 times liar, Rudy doesn't seem to understand this, even though he has
claimed to be a teacher. I suspect his claim is just another lie.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: premise that radiative forcing will increase temperature, then it WILL
: show warming from an increase in CO2. No choice.
Unless your model is wrong.
But claimed expertise in climatology - you claimed that was your area
of study didn't you Rudy - climate models are not designed to show
warming. Climate models are designed simply to reproduce various
statistical characteristics of the atmosphere.
For someone who claimed to be a teacher Rudy, you don't seem to
appropriate qualifications.
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: It must. HOWEVER... models do NOT give data. No model does. A model
: is simplification. It cannot reproduce reality. It MUST be made less
: complex than nature.
A model can not reproduce reality? They must be doing a pretty damn
good job given the existence of the box in front of you that contains a
few million transistors.
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: The world is far more complex than we have the power to model. Let's not
: go off half-cocked.
All technology and science is proof that nature is not too complex to
model.
I don't think 5 times liar Rudy is who he has claimed himself to be.
--
<---->
Mitchell Jones
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.980523...@httpd.mead.com>,
Thomas Kellar <tke...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > areas, it follows that the trend toward higher temperatures will not limit
> > itself to urban data collection sites. Rather: it will occur at virtually
> > every data collection site, because virtually every site will have more
> > nearby manmade structures today than it had 100 years ago, or 50 years
> > ago, or 25 years ago, etc. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> Anyone who rides a motorcycle can feel the different temperatures
> of the urban vs suburban vs country areas. I live near a semi-large
> city of 200,000, if I ride from the country to the city there is always
> about a 10 degree rise in temperature as I get into the city areas.
> If I wish to cool off, I ride back into the country. It is consistent
> and quite easy to notice. While around here the city is not expanding,
> the suburban areas plus their associated strip malls with their
> energy absorbing capacity are expanding out toward the city and the
> country. Yuck.
>
> Thomas
***{I agree with everything you said, above, but I am not sure whether you
intended to support, or oppose, the comment of mine that you quoted. Let
me clarify: when manmade structures replace greenbelt, heat sinks that
absorb sunlight and reradiate it back into their surroundings are created.
Result: air temperature in the vicinity of those structures--which include
automobiles, tarmac, concrete, glass, brick, etc.--increases. How much
does it increase? It depends on the amount of the accumulation of nearby
manmade structures, and on how they are situated relative to the point
where temperature is measured. In general, the effect is greatest in the
largest, most concentrated urban areas, less in the smaller semi-urban
areas, and least in the rural areas, precisely as you say.
Note, however, that when you collect temperature data, day-after-day, for
100 years at a particular site, the trend of the measurements will be up
if there is a buildup of nearby manmade structures around the collection
point, and that upward trend in temperature readings will occur
*regardless* of whether the site is rural, semi-urban, or urban. The
upward trend in temperatures, in short, will occur at all three types of
collection points, not merely in the urban sites. Thus while it is true
that the absolute temperature readings will be higher at the sites that
have the larger masses of manmade structures around them (i.e., urban will
be hotter than semi-urban, which will be hotter than rural), the *trend*
in the temperature measurements over time will rise at all three types of
sites.
Most importantly, note that it is the *trend* of the measurements over
time that is of concern when we discuss global warming. The issue is
whether a temperature peak after 1940 has or has not occurred. What I am
saying is that the heat island effect causes a rising trend throughout the
entire 100 year period of data collection, at all three types of sites,
and that trend does not stop in the year 1940, because the growth in human
population and the consequent accumulation of manmade structures did not
stop in 1940. Because the trend of the land-based surface temperature
measurements is *obviously and unarguably biased* by these considerations,
those data *must* be thrown out. This includes not merely the urban
temperature measurements, but also the semi-urban and rural measurements,
because the trends at all three types of sites are obviously biased by the
heat island effect. I repeat: this is a matter of overwhelming logic, and
is quite unarguable. If we want to honestly evaluate the theory of CO2
induced global warming, we *must* employ temperature data that are not
biased by the heat island effect. Since the unbiased data *uniformly* fail
to show a temperature peak after 1940, or even an uptrend, the theory of
CO2 induced global warming has been flatly refuted by the facts.
--Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Green Futures
In article <mjones-1905...@jump-k56flex-0192.jumpnet.com>,
Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> writes
So by this argument you would rule out more and more land mass as having
skewed results. Until you could end up ruling out all land mass if you
think it too close to those heat islands , which grow and meld together
as the popultion and urbanisation continues. Hell, by this logic you
could rule out all mankind's effects on climate and be perfectly
happy!!! Jean, Green Futures ;)
>
>>
>> > As I have pointed out to you
>> > several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
>> > significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam: suppose you
>> > have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the Canadian
>> > woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in a ranger
>> > station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will affect the
>> > temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly.
No, you dont see the logical flaw in your own arguments, see above.
Watch reply address for anti-spamming--
Green Futures
rud...@usa.net
In article <6k6a64$2...@james.hwcn.org>,
damn... i used to b a *SIX* time liar... how have i been downgraded?! to whom
should i speak about this?! what an outrage!
for a technophobe, scott, you sure have a slanted view of science (or a dim
view of nature). technology can come nowhere close to reproducing reality and
any modeller will tell you that. if your world is THAT two-dimensional, then
i pity you, but also now understand how you get many of your warped
perspectives on things.
yes, scott, like the rest of the world, i too am laughing at you.
and you are correct, i am not what i apear to be. i'm just an intricate
model. but you, scott, are clearly an idiot.
again, scott, what ARE your qualifications?
-rudy (huge fan of the conservative demagogue, e.e. cummings!)
rud...@usa.net
In article <6k6a63$2...@james.hwcn.org>,
> : reliability of the RURAL data are suspect.
>
> Denialists like Rudy are free to suspect whatever they like.
> Climatologists on the other hand do somewhat more than suspect. They
> put error bars around their measurements and carry them through their
> calculations.
Ahhhh... and what do you get when you do calculations on data that have
errors? Someone is denying here, Scott, and it ain't me.
> 5 times liar, Rudy doesn't seem to understand this, even though he has
> claimed to be a teacher. I suspect his claim is just another lie.
>
> 5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
> : If approriate caution is not exercised in weeding out changes in
> : observer, programme, or siting, then the results are of dubious
> : quality.
>
> "Weeding out changes in observer, programme, or siting"? How strange.
> One of the first things I was taught in science is that observations
> must never be excluded on the basis of personal bias, unless there is
> overwhelming evidence that the data is wrong. In all other instances,
> the origin of the inaccuracy should be determined and compensated for.
Well, Scott, you've just proved how poor a scientist you'd make and if your
heros would be the type who would alter data to "compensate", then you get
what you pay for.
If you cannot see the reason for excluding stations of improper record then
there is little I can do for your understanding here. One of your mentors
notes an obvious and well-documented urban bias in his data set (hansen) but
refuses to "compensate" for it. I guess he ain't too great a scientist,
either, huh?
> 5 times liar, Rudy doesn't seem to understand this, even though he has
> claimed to be a teacher. I suspect his claim is just another lie.
It is truly sad that Scott held all his teachers in such high esteem that he
never once questioned any of them... never once believing that they might be
even inadvertantly leading him astray. I always tell my students to be
skeptical of everything they hear, including what *I* tell them. I seem to
have no problem in getting Scott to be skeptical... and yet he can't, at the
same time, believe I am a professor. This speaks volumes about his intellect.
I see you as one of my few failures, Scott. It is very frustrating the way
you deny your power to reason.
-Rudy
Rich Puchalsky
rud...@usa.net wrote:
: > Climatologists on the other hand do somewhat more than suspect. They
: > put error bars around their measurements and carry them through their
: > calculations.
: Ahhhh... and what do you get when you do calculations on data that have
: errors? Someone is denying here, Scott, and it ain't me.
This objection is incredibly foolish. All data have errors. Putting
error bars on them means that you've estimated their magnitude. Data
without error bars is *more* suspect than data without. This objection
appears to be a varient of the well-known argument from ignorance that
goes "Unless we know everything with absolutely no error, we know
nothing." Needless to say this argument is only made by people who
know very little themselves.
If "rudy.k" is teaching people about data, he's not doing well.
Sam McClintock
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{The absolutely best place to start is by reading the Robinson white
> paper, which is an excellent overview of the entire issue and, in
> addition, contains 63 other references to material relevant to this
> discussion. It is entitled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmosphereic
> Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., and was sponsored by the Oregon
> Institute of Science and Medicine. It may be accessed via internal links
> at http://www.oism.org. --Mitchell Jones}***
And we see Mr. Jones total faith in the issue - he does not refer to any research
that has been conducted in the area, no peer reviewed research, no actual data sets
by those who do the work. No, he refers to a white paper by a man who has not an
atmospheric scientist, with a report funded through conservative/industrial
interests to explicitly cast doubt on the issue. And when confronted by actual
research, he will not bother to say which specific data or methodology he disagrees
with. Just bitterly complains that some of are extremists. This sort of overlooks
the fact that I am an environmental consultant working for industry - such as
Georgia-Pacific, CITGO, Chrysler. If anybody has reason to cast doubt on global
warming - it is me - some of my client base are the very ones with something to
lose.
The fact is Robinson used a very select set of data to try to "prove" global warming
issues are a myth; the very data he referred to says that the earth's surface is
warming up. The author of the satellite data he pointed say the earth will warm up
more and that man is responsible for at least part of it. Robinson was paid to
discredit global warming, just like others such as Balling and Michaels get paid
literally hundreds of thousands of dollars fossil fuel interests to discredit this
research. And Mr. Jones, like a true dittohead, just swallowed it all up. And when
someone points to boreholes, or sea surface data, or anything else, his excuse is
that the data is all wrong - no reason, just denial.
When you feel ready to read some real research by actual scientists in the field, or
point to a specific data set or methodology, just let us know. You know - just take
up all that research you seem to think is false, point to a page number, and tell us
what part is wrong. You must have some of this material since you have so many
excuses for not believing any of it.
rud...@usa.net
In article <6k82mn$oko$1...@clarknet.clark.net>,
I made no such arguement. I just don't see any error bars on the "data" that
Nudds quotes... do YOU? I see no acceptance of the magnitude of error on
anything that Nudds says. I see only Nudds claiming to spout TRUTH when what
he claims is such, is CONJECTURE. Do you REALLY want to wade into the middle
of a thread and defend this bozo?
> If "rudy.k" is teaching people about data, he's not doing well.
You're correct...I GOTTA stop letting students come in in the middle of
lecture...
Mitchell Jones
In article <35679E8C...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
> And we see Mr. Jones total faith in the issue - he does not refer to any
research
> that has been conducted in the area, no peer reviewed research, no
actual data sets
> by those who do the work.
***{Nobody with a brain is buying your bullshit, Sam. They have read my
posts and yours, and have their own opinions as to who is talking sense
and who nonsense. Your mere assertions have no power to change those
judgments. To change them, *you have to post reasoned arguments*. Do you
have the slightest idea what a reasoned argument is? So far, the evidence
is entirely in the negative. I have posted detailed critiques of your
posts, including even your claims to have posted references from which
information supporting your position could be found. Many readers of these
groups have doubtless tried the same URL's that I tried, with the same
results: they didn't get the supposed information supporting your
position, Sam. They, like me, got a list of publications, prices, and
billing info. Why do I say that? Because I posted a follow-up, noting that
your URL's did not seem to lead anywhere, and asking you for more explicit
info that I could use to find the studies that you claimed were present
and supported your position. No reply from you, Sam, and no reply from
anyone else in this group. My conclusion is that your URL's are bullshit,
Sam, and if not, then I once again challenge you to post specific
information that will enable us to access the specific studies which you
claim support your position. Let me be very specific: you have claimed to
have given pointers to studies that are not vulnerable to the heat island
effect and which show a temperature peak after 1940. How do we access
those studies, Sam? --Mitchell Jones}***
No, he refers to a white paper by a man who has not an
> atmospheric scientist, with a report funded through conservative/industrial
> interests to explicitly cast doubt on the issue. And when confronted by
actual
> research,
***{What research, Sam? Name one study not vulnerable to the heat island
effect which shows a temperature peak after 1940. It's a simple request.
You have claimed to have answered it in the past, but your pointers were
bullshit. They didn't work. Give us some real pointers, Sam. --Mitchell
Jones}***
he will not bother to say which specific data or methodology he disagrees
> with. Just bitterly complains that some of are extremists. This sort
of overlooks
> the fact that I am an environmental consultant working for industry - such as
> Georgia-Pacific, CITGO, Chrysler. If anybody has reason to cast doubt
on global
> warming - it is me - some of my client base are the very ones with
something to
> lose.
***{Large corporations are vulnerable, in a thousand ways, to the actions
of our bloated, tyrannical, and maliciously vindictive government. To
survive, they stuff their boards of directors with individuals who have
influence with the various regulatory bodies to whom they are vulnerable,
and they make sure that the public persona of the corporation is
"politically correct" and sanitized in every conceivable way. The result
is that large corporations are virtual outposts of the government, and
virtually without exception refuse to stand up for individual rights. You
are precisely the kind of politically correct, environmentalist airhead
that they prefer to deal with, because you sing the praises of the big
government that regulates them and to which they are supremely vulnerable.
So don't bullshit us with these claims that you are a courageous crusader
for the truth who is willing to make great personal sacrifices in order to
retain your personal integrity. Anyone with a brain can see with perfect
clarity what you are. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> The fact is Robinson used a very select set of data to try to "prove"
global warming
> issues are a myth; the very data he referred to says that the earth's
surface is
> warming up.
***{He did, indeed, use a very select set of data: he used the data that
were unaffected by the heat island effect--as, in fact, any sane person
who was honestly attempting to determine the truth about "global warming"
would have done. --Mitchell Jones}***
The author of the satellite data he pointed say the earth will warm up
> more and that man is responsible for at least part of it.
***{As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, when two people reach
different conclusions based on the same set of data, only an idiot would
simply assume that the person who collected the data was right, on the
grounds that they are *his* data! A reasonable person would want to
examine the arguments of the two men, so that he could determine which
interpretation was the correct one. Robinson presented his arguments, and
if you are aware of any arguments against his conclusions, you would
presumably have presented them by now. Since you have not--since, instead,
you prefer to continue to focus on who disagrees with him rather than on
why they disagree--you now have zero credibility among reasonable men. If
you want to recover that credibility, I suggest you start posting reasoned
arguments, and cease this tiresome and irrelevant practice of dwelling on
who believes what. --Mitchell Jones}***
Robinson was paid to
> discredit global warming, just like others such as Balling and Michaels
get paid
> literally hundreds of thousands of dollars fossil fuel interests to
discredit this
> research.
***{If this is not a bald-faced lie, then how about posting some facts to
back it up? I have challenged you repeatedly to do that, and all I get
back from you are more empty assertions. Who do you think you are fooling?
--Mitchell Jones}***
And Mr. Jones, like a true dittohead, just swallowed it all up. And when
> someone points to boreholes, or sea surface data, or anything else, his
excuse is
> that the data is all wrong - no reason, just denial.
***{This is, in fact, a bald-faced lie. I never said any such thing, and
anyone who has been following these threads knows it. What I have in fact
said is that the data not biased by the heat island effect uniformly fail
to show a temperature peak after 1940. If this is incorrect, why have you
refused to post a reference to a study which demonstrates same? Do it now,
Sam! Please, please, please, do it now! --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> When you feel ready to read some real research by actual scientists in
the field, or
> point to a specific data set or methodology, just let us know. You know
- just take
> up all that research you seem to think is false, point to a page number,
and tell us
> what part is wrong. You must have some of this material since you have
so many
> excuses for not believing any of it.
***{I repeat, Mr. Data, *what study not biased by the heat island effect
shows a temperature peak after 1940?* It's a simple question. What is your
answer? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> Sam McClintock
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>
> . . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
===========================================================
Sam McClintock
So much garbage, where to start? Hmmm. . . .
As always we have three separate points to consider with posts by Jones and a few
others.
First, the aspect of urban heat islands, or heat due to man-made artifacts, is
nothing new. It has been referred to in various scientific literature for over a
hundred years, and formal treatment of its impact in climatology, temperature
readings, and models, have been in use for decades. Mr. Jones seems to think that
nobody has recognized this or that the problem has somehow surfaced in a different
light, neither of which is the case.
Two, in response to the potential for urban impacts, and as a means of addressing
different ways of accounting for global change, researchers have done a lot over
the last five decades. Sea surface temperature have been studies for over fifty
years now, and we now have ship, buoy, and undersea monitors providing information
*that is not remotely impacted* by urban heat plumes. New rural locations have
monitoring stations now - and the emphasis on monitoring stations is to eliminate
interference from radiant heat. If that was not enough, boreholes are now
routinely dug for new monitoring of temperatures just underneath the ground and
deeper. We now have satellite measurements of various ocean and atmospheric
problems, climate, rain, and temperature. Added to that are balloon measurements
at locations throughout the world. Somehow, Mr. Jones feels that all of this data
is compiled by incompetent people, bad equipment, and baised governments, all in an
effort to falsify results he does not want to see.
Three, he continues to claim all the data is wrong. This makes it real hard to
have an argument of any precision when he just scatters out shots in wind hoping
that he may hit something. Anybody can claim something is wrong with no proof, and
it places an *inordinate* amount of effort on the scientific body of research
because someone this has to look up any possible reference and hope this *may be*
what is being argued about. Jones is then free to say - "well I don't like that
example, it is chosen to prove your point and all the other data is wrong." Again,
placing any burden of proof on everyone else - not Jones (or folks like him) for
pointing to data they do not like. In essence, he does not have to have any
scientific background, common sense, nor position of reason, he just has to say
"all is wrong."
As of this moment, Jones still cannot point to any reference material by source and
or quote saying he has read anything of relevance to the discussion other than a
white paper (non-research) funded by conservative (anti-environmental) interests.
That is exactly what that paper is there for - to cast doubt on issues with no real
proof other than the author's very select set of data. To repeat, those authors do
not do research and their only effort in any forum was to get a word processor, for
which they were paid by interested parties that do not want this issue taken
seriously.
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> claim support your position. Let me be very specific: you have claimed to
> have given pointers to studies that are not vulnerable to the heat island
> effect and which show a temperature peak after 1940. How do we access
> those studies, Sam? --Mitchell Jones}***
Well, for the second time, I pointed to the Canadian report, "State of the
Environment Report" State of Canada's Climate, Monitoring Variability and Change,
SOE-91-1. In this set of studies, the Canadians have a distinct rural network. In
some cases, they eliminated data sites such as Toronto because of obvious urban
biases. Then they compiled data sets with and without semi-urban impacts. And all
stations were treated with statistical inferences from nearby surrounding stations
if they existed - so if five stations were located next to each other - the
measurements had to agree within a certain accuracy or the station in question was
thrown out of the data set.
The second obvious set of data, and for the third time, is that data compiled by
the NOAA on sea surface temperatures and a host of other references. I referenced
the entire web site of NOAA because it has huge sets of related data and research,
thinking Mr. Jones could find something he liked or did not like on his own. Seems
his ability to use the NOAA's own search engine was below that of a high school
drop out, so I'll drawn down to specific areas:
The NOAA global warming update research is at the following website:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/papers/globalwarming/global.html>
You can start with Sea Surface Temperature Anomolies at the the following website:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1997/seasurf.html>
These are meant as starting places - I'll leave the burden of sifting through the
material to your "expert" hand with a browser. :<) When and if you can ever point
to a specific data set or method, please let us know. So far you have not done
diddly except claim how Robinson, all by his lonesome, discovered a flaw in the
data - which was always there and only impacts certain groups of data.
Get a life.
Scott Nudds
4 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: As for MY getting specific about research done in the discipline, I honestly
: would not know where to start.
Strange... I would expect someone who claims to be a teacher, to know
where to start. Yet 4 times liar Rudy claims to be a teacher who
doesn't know where to start, and he never says anything specific. He
just waves his hands and rambles generalities that are often suspect or
typically wrong.
--
<---->
rud...@usa.net
In article <6kaqor$f...@james.hwcn.org>,
DANG, Scott!!!... now I'm only a FOUR times liar?!!! what gives?! I was a 6
time liar two weeks ago and a *5* time liar last week and now I've been
recategorized?! Hey... this is a TREND, Scott... one worthy of one of your
famous ASCII plots!... we could extend the trend into July '98 and by that
time I'll be two "lies" to the good!
Post some "specifics", Scott. They are always good for a laugh and the
minimal practice it takes to show that they are apocryphal or at least wildly
inaccurate. I notice that YOUR post was FULL of specifics this time.
Still awaiting an enumeration of your qualifications to speak with any
authority on climate or even environmental issues.
-Rudy (Stop waving your hands at me!!!...)
rud...@usa.net
In article <355B5975...@nospam.net>,
Sam McClintock <mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
<some snipped>
> A second not-so-obvious choice are the Canadians. They Canadians
> operate over 200 monitoring stations, of which only 15% are classic
> urban sites. The Canadian government studies went three steps further.
> First, in the case of dense urban areas, they excluded the data sets
> totally - such as Toronta. Second, they did an immense amount of work
> statistically comparing urban, semi-urban, and rural station readouts to
> eliminate any urban-based biases. Third, they went through all of the
> different ways of measuring data over the last 100 years (literally
> since 1895) to see where biases and problems would be encountered. All
> in all one of the most rigorous efforts to exclude and account for
> biases. The results - the earth has been getting warming, at least in
> the entire country of Canada, which is a pretty big, diverse land mass
> to say the least. About 1/2 to 3/4 C averaged over the entire country.
>
> The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
> this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
> Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
> Change, SOE-91-1.
So much for specifics. I went to the local Governement Publications depot and
borrowed SOE 91-1 and its title is actually "A Report on Canada's Progress
Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators". It has very little to do
with the research noted above, and that, only obliquely. I would be happy to
review the work in question if indeed, you could point accurately toward it.
I'll assume that this is just a typographical error and not any indication of
more widespread incompetence. I apologise if this is a simple error in report
classification.
It should also be noted that Canada's State of the Environment (SOE) reports
are reviewed only internally and are not refereed in any comprehensive
fashion.
> As I continue into this work, I have also interviewed some of the
> researchers who originally brought the problem up. I am also asking for
> references from other government and research institutions, so more data
> and reports will follow. Hope this helps everybody.
>
> Sam McClintock
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>
-Rudy (To read the research, you must be able to READ.)
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> > "State of the Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate,
> > Monitoring Variability and Change, SOE-91-1.
>
> So much for specifics. I went to the local Governement Publications depot and
> borrowed SOE 91-1 and its title is actually "A Report on Canada's Progress
> Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators".
You know, at first glance, those look like two *different* titles. Maybe you
should go back to the library, idiot.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research (and it helps
to be able to use the card catalogue services).
Matthew Kerr
From what M.Jones has posted, I assume that the heat island effect results
from the fact that manmade structures radiate heat back into the air more
than plants etc. Thus, the argument follows that as more manmade
structures are added to an area, it gets hotter. Is it possible that some
city measurements for the past 50 years or so will be immune to this
effect on the basis that the level of manmade structures around them have
remained constant for this time period with the only increase in
development occuring a few kilometres away? Or is it the case that an
increase of manmade structures occuring on the outside of a city may still
affect the CBD, despite it being kilometres away? Are there any other
factors strong enough to cause an upwards trend in heating in densely
populated areas? For instance, I assume ( I might be wrong) that there is
an increasing trend in the number of cars in a city over time. A car takes
energy stored in hydrocarbons trapped in the ground, burns them to produce
a bit of kinetic energy and a bit more heat. Has research been conducted
to see if this has any contributing effect to the heat island effect. Are
there other factors? Maybe there is a decrease in ventilation in large
cities with many tall buildings? Ie, with less air from the city being
exchanged with cooler air from outside the city would again heat up? Is it
reasonable to suggest that one or two buildings built near a measuring
station will have neglible effect on air exchange? Has this possibility
been discounted? Until such time as all other factors have been ruled out
I would hesitate to generalize the heat island effect to any and all cases
where some building has been constructed at some time.
Matthew
rud...@usa.net
In article <3569D2A0...@nospam.net>,
Perhaps you meant:
Canada. Environment Canada. The state of Canada's climate : monitoring
variability and change. SOE Report no. 95-1. Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1995.
52p.
Contents: Introduction; Climate variability and change; Temperature;
Precipitation; Clouds; Climate change and variability in perspective;
Conclusion
Abstract: The report's theme is climatic variability and change. It expands on
past discussions of temperature by considering seasonal and daily patterns of
long-term temperature change. The report also examines Canadian trends in
precipitation and cloudiness, two other climate elements that are significant
to the understanding of global climate change.
a citation which can be found at:
http://iisd1.iisd.ca/ic/info/statereport.htm
Sam:
You will note that you made a cock-up of the report number, which is important
information because it includes the date of publication. I gave you an
opportunity to graciously admit you had made a typo, which, of course, you
deleted from my post. (You are a FINE one for deleting pertinent parts from
people's posts.).
I did a more than adequate job with the card catalogue in this instance given
the shoddy work YOU do with a keyboard. Our collection does not include this
report and I will have to obtain it otherwise. When I do, I will then address
its specifics and if it is anything like the remainder of the SOE reports, I
will have a blast doing it. I note that the temperature trends are simply an
update of a previous work which I DO have in my possession and is of extremely
dubious veracity and worse, quality. Would you like me to start with
specifics on that one?
-Rudy (hmmm... well SOE-95-1 does KINDA look like SOE-91-1 if you tilt your
head just right...)
Sam McClintock
rud...@usa.net wrote:
> Canada. Environment Canada. The state of Canada's climate : monitoring
> variability and change. SOE Report no. 95-1. Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1995.
> 52p.
It is amazing how fast your ability with a card reader came and search engines
just popped up. . wow. Now that you have the right report (yes, I made a typo -
albeit one started from the fax I received from the Canadian govt), please tell us
which part of the report is wrong, why you don't believe it, or what subset of
data was incorrectly gathered. We will wait . . .
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
Fred McGalliard
Mitchell Jones wrote:
>Most importantly, note that it is the *trend* of the measurements over time that
is of >concern when we discuss global warming.
You know Mitch, I think you have here pointed up the point of my greatest
frustration with the global warming discussion. Even in my home garden, I really
do not care about the trend of the average temperature. I need to know if this
evening it will clear out and drop below 40F, damaging my tomatoes, or if the
daytime high will stay above 90 without rain so I have to stay home and water
everything or loose my garden and some of my forest. I have heard a number of
predictions that the weather may change, but the basic result of a normal
greenhouse is that the internal temperature not only warms but becomes more
stable. I have not been convinced that there is any sound way to get from a global
warming value to a prediction of how much rain, how intense the storms, or
drought, or freezing, might be. In short, lotsa argument about this uninteresting
global trend, not much usefull argument about just how confident we are that the
effect will be even interesting for most communities.
Sam McClintock
For all concerned, I am taking a brief hiatus from usenet. Two week project
in Maine (studying air pollution for an industrial client), surgery scheduled
for my daughter's soccer-induced ACL injury, and an ISP change (going digital
with ADSL courtesy of BellSouth) will leave little time for anything else.
Apologies to all for breaking off in the middle of some debates. End of
June???
Will respond to email as usual. Later.
Rich Puchalsky
rud...@usa.net wrote:
Me:
: > This objection is incredibly foolish. All data have errors. Putting
: > error bars on them means that you've estimated their magnitude. Data
: > without error bars is *more* suspect than data without. This objection
: > appears to be a varient of the well-known argument from ignorance that
: > goes "Unless we know everything with absolutely no error, we know
: > nothing." Needless to say this argument is only made by people who
: > know very little themselves.
: I made no such arguement. I just don't see any error bars on the "data" that
: Nudds quotes... do YOU? I see no acceptance of the magnitude of error on
: anything that Nudds says. I see only Nudds claiming to spout TRUTH when what
: he claims is such, is CONJECTURE. Do you REALLY want to wade into the middle
: of a thread and defend this bozo?
You're not arguing with Nudds; you're claiming that the entire field
of climatology is composed of scientists is composed of scientists who
are too stupid to be able to account competently for the urban heat
island effect. If you would rather argue with the consensus of the
field rather than with Nudds, feel free to read the IPCC report and
post your disagreements with that. Until then, it will continue to
appear that you are yewt another Usenet poster who mysteriously thinks
that their unsupported and ignorant opinion is right and that scientists
in the field are wrong.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Joshua Halpern
In sci.environment Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> wrote:
: > > greenbelt areas. Since virtually every location where there were manmade
: > > structures 100 years ago has *even more* manmade structures now, due to
: > > the enormous worldwide growth that has taken place in the last 100 years,
: > > and since sites that collect weather data are virtually always situated
: > > near manmade structures, even when the collection sites are in rural
: > > areas, it follows that the trend toward higher temperatures will not limit
: > > itself to urban data collection sites. Rather: it will occur at virtually
: > > every data collection site, because virtually every site will have more
: > > nearby manmade structures today than it had 100 years ago, or 50 years
: > > ago, or 25 years ago, etc. --Mitchell Jones}***
Wow! You mean Rush is wrong and there are NOT more trees in the US
today than in 1900.
A problem with this discussion is that it overemphasizes the
suburbanization that occurred in the last 50 years and de-emphasizes
the urbanization and abandonment of farms that has occurred in the
last 100-120, not to mention the decrease in population of many
small towns and rural counties.
josh halpern
Scott Nudds
rud...@usa.net wrote:
: I made no such arguement. I just don't see any error bars on the "data"
: that Nudds quotes... do YOU?
Error bars? No. The ASCII character set does not lend itself very
well to producing error bars when the errors are under a character in
height/width.
Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1990 = 15.47)
1870 ...........*
1880 ................*
1890 .............*
1900 ................................*
1910 ..................*
1920 ........................*
1930 ..............................*
1940 ........................................*
1950 ..........................*
1960 .................................*
1970 ...................................*
1980 ...............................................*
1990 .........................................................*
1997 .........................................................*
1997 - Hottest year on record
Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year
rud...@usa.net wrote:
: I see only Nudds claiming to spout TRUTH when what he claims is such,
: is CONJECTURE.
How does including an error estimate rather than an error bar turn the
truth into conjecture?
"...David A. Johnston (who died at Mt. St. Helens), in a posthumously
published paper (Science, July, 1980), brought many previous estimates
up to date and refined the measuring techniques for chloride in volcanic
emissions. He pointed out that a single eruption of Mount Augustine in
Alaska in 1976 put more chlorine into the stratosphere than was
contained in the worldwide production of CFCs for the entire year 1975."
- Dixy Lee Ray - Environmental Overkill 1993 - Page 35.
Johnston says no such thing. From the abstract of his paper:
"Degassing of ash erupted during 1976 by Augustine Volcano in Alaska
released 525 x 10^6 kilograms of chlorine (+- 40%), of which
82x10^6 to 175x10^6 kilograms may have been ejected into the
stratosphere as hydrogen chloride. This stratospheric contribution is
equivalent to 17 to 36 percent of the 1975 world industrial production
of chlorine in fluorocarbons." [Johnston]
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > Denialists like Rudy are free to suspect whatever they like.
: > Climatologists on the other hand do somewhat more than suspect. They
: > put error bars around their measurements and carry them through their
: > calculations.
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: Ahhhh... and what do you get when you do calculations on data that have
: errors? Someone is denying here, Scott, and it ain't me.
You get results with an error term.
You know Kilvinsky for someone who claims to be a teacher, whose area
of study is climatology your knowledge doesn't appear to be adequate for
either task.
What university do you claim to teach at Rudy?
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > "Weeding out changes in observer, programme, or siting"? How strange.
: > One of the first things I was taught in science is that observations
: > must never be excluded on the basis of personal bias, unless there is
: > overwhelming evidence that the data is wrong. In all other instances,
: > the origin of the inaccuracy should be determined and compensated for.
5 times liar Rudy wrote:
: Well, Scott, you've just proved how poor a scientist you'd make and if your
: heros would be the type who would alter data to "compensate", then you get
: what you pay for.
Altering data to compensate for problems is Standard Operating
Practice Rudy. Doing so is particularly obvious when performing data
reductions. Megabytes of data can be reduced to a few numbers that are
later used as the basis of some other calculation.
Again the fact that you are ignorant of such things, tells me that
your technical training stopped early. I suspect no further than grade
11.
5 times liar Rudy wrote:
: If you cannot see the reason for excluding stations of improper record then
: there is little I can do for your understanding here.
You know, just this evening I calibrated a blood pressure cuff. It's
been several weeks since it's last calibration. In the intervening time
measurements have been taken.
If there had been an error in the pressure gage of the cuff, a stupid
man might exclude (throw away) the readings that had been taken. A
smarter man will apply the change to the previous measurements in a
manner that is consistent with the expected mode of failure.
I wonder however, how a stupid man who excludes the readings could
compute a yearly average reading, when measurements have been thrown
away.
How would you do it Rudy? Would you conclude that it is simply
impossible to produce a meaningful result? Or would you interpolate to
fill in for the missing data? Would you include just the raw data? Or
would you use the data after compensation for the calibration error?
Let me make a prediction here. You will avoid answering the question
since your education is inadequate to respond, and you fear it may be a
trick question.
5 times liar Rudy wrote:
: One of your mentors
: notes an obvious and well-documented urban bias in his data set (hansen) but
: refuses to "compensate" for it.
It is compensated for. Why are you continuing to lie Rudy?
5 times liar Rudy wrote:
: I seem to
: have no problem in getting Scott to be skeptical... and yet he can't, at the
: same time, believe I am a professor. This speaks volumes about his
: intellect.
It does indeed.
What university do you claim to teach at Rudy?
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > I don't think 5 times liar Rudy is who he has claimed himself to be.
5 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: damn... i used to b a *SIX* time liar... how have i been downgraded?!
Oh, would you prefer to be know as a 6 times liar? I believe we have
enough evidence to support such a label.
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: technology can come nowhere close to reproducing reality and
: any modeller will tell you that.
1 photon + 1 photon = 2 photons
That is a remarkably good model of nature.
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: again, scott, what ARE your qualifications?
You may assume my qualifications to be whatever you like Rudy. As a
policy, on Usenet, I make no claims concerning personal qualifications
and demand none from others.
What I do insist upon is honesty, and the ability of accusations to be
supported by reference.
Invariably you fail on both accounts.
Gossman lies
------------
"I have not accused anyone of murder." Gossman sci.environment 1998
"I will say it again. He (Stalin) was a murderer because he conspired
and ordered those deaths. Do you refute that fact of history too." -
Gossman sci.environment 1998
"Do you think that Stalin's murder of millions were in fact justifiable
homicides? Is that part of the socialist, Nuddsian domestication of man
program?" - Gossman sci.environment 1998
--
<---->
Mitchell Jones
In article <GXSolGAO...@gfutures.demon.co.uk>, Green Futures
<gfut...@gfutures.demon.co.yuk> wrote:
***{The goal here is to determine whether there is a *real* upward trend
in global temperatures. Since logic indicates that an upward trend in
measured surface temperatures will appear even if there is no real change,
we must toss out the surface temperature measurements. If the trend is
real, then it should appear in the radiosonde balloon measurements, the
satellite MSU measurements, and the sea surface measurements, right? Thus,
if we are interested in the truth, we should be able to find it without
using data that are obviously biased, right? So what is your problem? You
are interested in the truth about this matter, aren't you? --Mitchell
Jones}***
> >
> >>
> >> > As I have pointed out to you
> >> > several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
> >> > significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam:
suppose you
> >> > have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the
Canadian
> >> > woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in a ranger
> >> > station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will affect the
> >> > temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly.
>
> No, you dont see the logical flaw in your own arguments, see above.
***{What flaw? There is no "flaw" in my desire to exclude data that are
obviously biased, unless the goal is to reach the conclusion that the
Earth is getting warmer even if it isn't. I repeat: why are you unwilling
to rely on the unbiased data? Wouldn't they show a warming trend, if the
trend were real? --Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Mitchell Jones
In article <356B128F...@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
***{Believe me, Fred, nobody would be arguing about this if a "Global
Warming" treaty weren't about to be signed which will force a 30% rollback
in the use of fossil fuels by every nation that is foolish enough to sign
it. CO2 induced global warming is not a threat, because the data
unambiguously demonstrate that it isn't happening. The threat--and it puts
literally billions of lives at risk--is the one posed by the treaty
itself. --Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
rud...@usa.net
In article <6kinsv$9...@james.hwcn.org>,
af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> 6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
> : again, scott, what ARE your qualifications?
>
> You may assume my qualifications to be whatever you like Rudy. As a
> policy, on Usenet, I make no claims concerning personal qualifications
> and demand none from others.
which is why you keep demanding to know where and what i teach...
how sad, scott, but you are really a hoot. when you grow up, either
chronologically, ethically, or intellectually, i may engage you again. you
are a child in all three respects and i am far too busy to continue to try to
drag you into any sort of maturity. careful of those windmills, scott... some
tilt back.
-rudy (liar ad infinitum)
Joshua Halpern
This is a hoot
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>How can rising CO2 levels *not* lead to global warming? Quite possibly
>because as CO2 rises, plants split more water to obtain additional
>hydrogen (which they need to build plant biomass), thereby contributing to
>rising O2 levels in the atmosphere.
No increase in the oxygen concentration has been observed. Therefore almost
certainly this is not the case, and that is being charitable. Thus your
argument fails before it gets started. You postulate that when the CO2 mixing
ratio increases the because of increased photosynthesis the O2 mixing ratio
will increase also. It doesn't, end of argument.
One can inquire as to why this does not happen. The reason has been given
several times recently, but to repeat, basically is that the availability of
CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the limiting factor for plant growth.
Them little buggers is pumping out O2 as fast as they can...giving them more
CO2, does not change the amount of O2 they pump out. They have reached their
limit. An instructive example are experiments in the Southern Ocean, where
the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth in large regions is the
availability of iron. Add more CO2 and nothing would happen. Add iron in a
soluble form and wham.....
The rest of Jones' post is just your basic twaddle, a huge ediface
based on the false assumption that availability of CO2 limits plant
growth and photosynthesis, however there is one other red herring
I would like to comment on...
SNIP....
>*{Hydrocarbons consist of nothing but carbon and hydrogen. Methane, or
>CH4, is a fairly typical example, and is a major constituent in natural
>gas. When methane is burned by man to produce electricity, the reaction
>is:
CH4 is not a typical hydrocarbon. It is the hydrocarbon with the highest
ratio of hydrogen to carbon (H:C=4).
>CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
As a matter of fact, if all we burnt was CH4, the problem posed
by significantly increased CO2 concentrations over a short
period of time would be much less, if at all significant.
On the other hand how about acetylene, C2H2, another "typical"
hydrocarbon (H:C= 1)
C2H2 + 3O2 --> 2CO2 + H2O
or how about coal which is pretty much C
C + O2 --> CO2
or brown coal which is wet C with mixed sand, so you have to heat it to
drive off the water and then heat the sand before you burn it.
>When plants employ photosynthesis to utilize atmospheric carbon dioxide
>(CO2), one of the reactions (out of thousands) is:
>CO2 + H2O --> CHOH + O2
HMM do you mean synthesis of simple carbohydrates such as glucose
6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6CO2
or in more general terms
nCO2 + nH2O --> (CH2O)n + n O2
Which is the generic overall reaction.
CHOH is a VERY simple sugar...so simple it does not exist.
>Superficially —i.e., just looking at the above pair of reactions—one
>would be tempted to conclude that plants are net *consumers* of oxygen,
>since more oxygen is required when the hydrocarbon (methane) is burned
>than is liberated when plants utilize the CO2 to produce CHOH.
The plants are not burning the fossil fuels. They do metabolize at
least some of the carbohydrates that they produce. Plants are only
taking part in the second of Jones reactions, not the first.
He is trying to give the impression that the amount of burning
of fossil fuel is directly proportional to the amount of
photosynthesis.
This would ONLY be the case is the availability of CO2 was the
principal factor limiting plant growth and photosynthesis. It
is NOT.
josh halpern
Scott Nudds
Sam McClintock wrote:
: > The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
: > this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
: > Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
: > Change, SOE-91-1.
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: So much for specifics. I went to the local Governement Publications
: depot and borrowed SOE 91-1 and its title is actually "A Report on
: Canada's Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators".
: It has very little to do with the research noted above, and that, only
: obliquely.
I wonder why.
The publication Mr. McClintock refers to is titled...
"State of the Environment Report"
The publication 6 times liar Rudy claims to have is...
"A Report on Canada's Progress Towards a National Set of
Environmental Indicators".
I bet they are different reports.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > 4 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: > : As for MY getting specific about research done in the discipline, I
: honestly
: > : would not know where to start.
: >
: > where to start. Yet 4 times liar Rudy claims to be a teacher who
: > doesn't know where to start, and he never says anything specific. He
: > just waves his hands and rambles generalities that are often suspect or
: > typically wrong.
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: DANG, Scott!!!... now I'm only a FOUR times liar?!!! what gives?! I was a
: 6 time liar two weeks ago and a *5* time liar last week and now I've been
: recategorized?!
You must be reading the posts out of sequence Rudy. As per your
request you are not at 6 times liar and holding.
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: Hey... this is a TREND, Scott... one worthy of one of your
: famous ASCII plots!... we could extend the trend into July '98 and by that
: time I'll be two "lies" to the good!
Are you referring to the ASCII plots that you repeatedly claimed used
falsified data, repeatedly claimed were deliberately corrupted, and
repeatedly claimed were nonlinearly stretched for the purpose of
deception, and were shown by considering simple proportions to be
as precise as possible, as linear as possible, and directly plotted from
well accepted Hansen temperature Index. A time series that you claimed
not to know about even though you claim to be a climatologist.
How many lies did I expose in that paragraph Rudy?
6 times liar rud...@usa.net wrote:
: Still awaiting an enumeration of your qualifications to speak with any
: authority on climate or even environmental issues.
I have never claimed to have any qualifications Rudy. You are free
to decide whatever you like on this matter. It is of no concern to me.
You on the other hand, have made many claims about yourself.
Given your history of deception, it is doubtful if many are truthful.
"What most scientists fail to realize, observes sociologist Susan Carol
Losh of Florida State University in Tallahassee, is how many people
seriously misunderstand or consciously reject many of the basic precepts
and findings of science. In the United States, she observes, their
numbers are large and growing -- currently approaching half the
population." - When Science and Beliefs collide" - Science News -
(p.360-361)
--
<---->
Steve Hemphill
Joshua Halpern wrote:
<snip>
> He is trying to give the impression that the amount of burning
> of fossil fuel is directly proportional to the amount of
> photosynthesis.
>
> This would ONLY be the case is the availability of CO2 was the
> principal factor limiting plant growth and photosynthesis. It
> is NOT.
Once again, there is no magic bullet. Climate is convoluted. Many
factors have effects that differ depending on location. Specifically,
to say "fossil fuel burning would only be proportional to
photosynthesis if the availability of CO2 was THE principal factor
limiting plant growth" highlights the irrational attempt to isolate a
single mechanism.
Sorry, but complex systems and most of science doesn't work that way,
and only Babellers think it does. There is no such thing as THE
principal factor, except in the lab.
I don't know about the specific proportional rates of sink, but I'll
bet that in the world there are a lot of plants that will increase
growth if their CO2 supply goes up. I wouldn't even be surprised if
MOST plants increased growth with an increased supply of CO2.
--
Steve Hemphill
Jemez Engineering
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill
Climate Change:
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html
Headed for Holocene Max:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tax Bads, not Goods.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r570.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Fred McGalliard
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> One can inquire as to why this (the increased production of O2 as a result of
> increased CO2 respiration) does not happen. The reason has been given
> several times recently, but to repeat, basically is that the availability of
> CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the limiting factor for plant growth.
>
> Them little buggers is pumping out O2 as fast as they can...giving them more
> CO2, does not change the amount of O2 they pump out.
Josh. I am not at all expert in this area, but I do recall reading, years ago,
that the existing CO2 levels were just barely outside the range to severly limit
plant growth. Do you in fact have a sound source supporting the proposal that CO2
concentration is not a factor limiting growth in enough systems to significantly
affect the take up rates? I would hate to go on thinking I know something which is
demonstrably wrong.
Mitchell Jones
In article <6kinsl$9...@james.hwcn.org>, af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds)
wrote:
> rud...@usa.net wrote:
***{Worldwide production of CFC's in 1975, based on the above, would
compute to about 484x10^6 kg, which is less than the 525x10^6 kg released
when Mt. Augustine erupted, precisely as the quote by Dixy Lee Ray, above,
stated. Her comment, please note, was in reference to the *total* amount
of chlorine released by the eruption, not in reference to the amount of
HCl released.
Moreover, since there are thousands of active volcanos scattered about the
world, and since a not inconsiderable number of them (e.g., Mt. Erebus)
erupt continuously--i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per
year--the notion that manmade release of chlorine compounds is destroying
the ozone layer is simply laughable. But never mind: the environmental
whackos have already screwed us to the wall on that issue. Now, when the
old types of inexpensive, reliable, efficient, and non-toxic air
conditioning and refrigeration units selected by the free market wear out,
we will be forced to replace them with enormously expensive, unreliable,
inefficient, and dangerous systems selected by environmental
whackos--systems which, if leakage occurs, will dispatch us quickly into
the great beyond. And why? To comply with the ridiculous precepts of
pseudo-scientific ecobabble, of course!
--Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Mitchell Jones
In article <6kd668$bj1$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, s33...@student.uq.edu.au
(Matthew Kerr) wrote:
***{Matt, climatological research is almost entirely funded by the
government. Result: studies that serve to expand bureaucratic fiefdoms get
funded, and those that do not don't get funded. Now, obviously,
bureaucrats are very happy with the present studies, which, by not
compensating for the heat island effect, manage to conclude that "CO2
induced global warming" is occurring. Why are they happy with them?
Because if the sky is about to fall, then the bureaucrats will have to be
given additional funding and additional regulatory authority to prevent it
from falling--e.g., to enforce the "Global Warming Treaty." Given such a
state of affairs, how much funding do you think a climatologist will get
if he proposes to thoroughly investigate the heat island effect? Hint: not
a thin dime. Why not? Because the bureaucrats are happy with the existing
studies, which imply that they--the bureaucrats--should get more money and
power. Why would they fund a study which will either leave their situation
the same, or make it worse by refuting the global warming theory?
--Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Green Futures
In article <mjones-2805...@jump-k56flex-0156.jumpnet.com>,
getting our feet wet when the ice melts. So, since that depends on
surface temperature, the temperature at high altitudes may not be at all
germaine to the greer.
%%%Jean
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > As I have pointed out to you
>> >> > several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
>> >> > significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam:
>suppose you
>> >> > have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the
>Canadian
>> >> > woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in a ranger
>> >> > station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will affect the
>> >> > temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly.
>>
>> No, you dont see the logical flaw in your own arguments, see above.
>
>***{What flaw? There is no "flaw" in my desire to exclude data that are
>obviously biased, unless the goal is to reach the conclusion that the
>Earth is getting warmer even if it isn't. I repeat: why are you unwilling
>to rely on the unbiased data? Wouldn't they show a warming trend, if the
>trend were real? --Mitchell Jones}***
The trend, the trend is warmer at the surface. The trend may not be so
marked at higher altitudes. This may be due to a time lag in the effect
of warming, or there could be some self-regulatory mechanism. The trend,
the trend is for sea levels to rise and for some little countries to
sink beneath the waves whilst academics argue the toss.
%%%%%%%%%%%%Jean
Mitchell Jones
In article <356ED1CA...@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
> > One can inquire as to why this (the increased production of O2 as a
result of
> > increased CO2 respiration) does not happen. The reason has been given
> > several times recently, but to repeat, basically is that the availability of
> > CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the limiting factor for plant growth.
> >
> > Them little buggers is pumping out O2 as fast as they can...giving them more
> > CO2, does not change the amount of O2 they pump out.
>
> Josh. I am not at all expert in this area, but I do recall reading, years ago,
> that the existing CO2 levels were just barely outside the range to
severly limit
> plant growth.
***{Your recollection is correct. For a detailed presentation of the
relevant facts, plus a list of references, check out "Environmental
Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., which
may be accessed through internal links at http://www.oism.org. Of
particular interest is the chart on pg. 5, comparing the growth rates of
orange trees under 400 ppm CO2 (near present levels) and under 700 ppm
CO2. The results: for young trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.71 times as fast
under 700 ppm as under 400 ppm, and fine roots grew 2.75 times as fast;
for mature trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.07 times as fast, and orange
production per tree was 2.27 times as great. --Mitchell Jones}***
Do you in fact have a sound source supporting the proposal that CO2
> concentration is not a factor limiting growth in enough systems to
significantly
> affect the take up rates? I would hate to go on thinking I know
something which is
> demonstrably wrong.
***{Of course he doesn't have a source. He led off his post with an
implied insult--to wit: "This is a hoot." If you were an old hand in
usenet, you would realize that such behavior is like a leper's bell. It
amounts to an admission up front that he knows he can't win on the merits,
so he has decided to inject unpleasantness into the exchange, in hopes
that his opponent will be driven off by the stench. --Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Joshua Halpern
: <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
: > Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > > One can inquire as to why this (the increased production of O2 as a
: > > result of increased CO2 respiration) does not happen. The reason
: > > has been given several times recently, but to repeat, basically is
: > > that the availability of CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the
: > > limiting factor for plant growth.
snip...: >
: > Josh. I am not at all expert in this area, but I do recall reading, years ago,
: > that the existing CO2 levels were just barely outside the range to
: > severly limit plant growth.
: ***{Your recollection is correct. For a detailed presentation of the
: relevant facts, plus a list of references, check out "Environmental
: Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., which
: may be accessed through internal links at http://www.oism.org. Of
: particular interest is the chart on pg. 5, comparing the growth rates of
: orange trees under 400 ppm CO2 (near present levels) and under 700 ppm
: CO2. The results: for young trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.71 times as fast
: under 700 ppm as under 400 ppm, and fine roots grew 2.75 times as fast;
: for mature trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.07 times as fast, and orange
: production per tree was 2.27 times as great. --Mitchell Jones}***
Of course this was for a well watered plant with all of the
micronutrients and water it needed in perfect soil. THAT is
the point. Most plants don't have their own personal attendents.
For example, there are huge swaiths of the earth's land mass
where water is the limiting factor for plant growth. Increasing
or even decreasing the amount of CO2 available would do damn
all for the growth of the plant or the amount of photosynthesis.
There are vast regions of the land and oceans where the availability
of micronutrients limits plant (and phytoplankton) growth, for
example the sourthern oceans near Antartica. There, it has been
shown that the limiting factor is the availability of iron. Small
experiments have shown that the amount of plant and plankton growth
in these waters can be increased by orders of magnitude simply
by dumping iron dust (This has been seriously proposed as a
remediation, although there are some problems with it). Finally,
a really serious limit on the rate of photosynthesis that can
take place is the temperature and amount of light in the
Northern Hemisphere during the winter. You can have any
amount of CO2 you want, and not much will grow in Siberia
or the Northwest Territories during the winter.
: > Do you in fact have a sound source supporting the proposal that CO2
: > concentration is not a factor limiting growth in enough systems to
: > significantly affect the take up rates? I would hate to go on thinking
: > I know something which is demonstrably wrong.
: ***{Of course he doesn't have a source. He led off his post with an
: implied insult--to wit: "This is a hoot."
It was, a hoot. Your chemistry certainly was
josh halpern
Mitchell Jones
In article <lmPbOFAP...@gfutures.demon.co.uk>, Green Futures
<gfut...@gfutures.demon.co.yuk> wrote:
***{The sea surface temperature measurements are unbiased, and they do not
show CO2 induced global warming. As noted previously, surface temperatures
in the Sargasso Sea were more than 2 degrees C warmer 3,000 years ago than
they are today, and those numbers *cannot* be explained by human burning
of fossil fuels. Indeed, the present temperatures in the Sargasso Sea are
below the mean for the last 3,000 years. Moreover, it is thermodynamically
impossible for the planet to get warmer without the atmosphere also
getting warmer; hence if CO2 induced global warming were taking place, the
airborne measurements should reflect it, and they do not. In fact, the
unbiased measurements *uniformly* fail to show a temperature peak after
1940, despite the fact that over 81% of human CO2 emissions in the last
century took place after 1940. What his means is that the theory of CO2
induced global warming has been flatly refuted by the facts, and thus does
not constitute a basis for fear that you will get your feet wet due to
icemelt. If the ice melts, it will not be due to man's CO2 emissions, and
if it does not melt, it will not be because we restricted our CO2
emissions. The reason is simple: it has been factually demonstrated that
there is *no causal linkage* between man's emissions of CO2 and global
average temperatures. --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > As I have pointed out to you
> >> >> > several times already, the effect of nearby development is very
> >> >> > significant even in hamlets and villages. Think about it, Sam:
> >suppose you
> >> >> > have a data collection site at the end of a 30 mile road into the
> >Canadian
> >> >> > woods and, after collecting data there for 50 years, you put in
a ranger
> >> >> > station and build a parking lot. If you don't think that will
affect the
> >> >> > temperature readings, you simply aren't thinking clearly.
> >>
> >> No, you dont see the logical flaw in your own arguments, see above.
> >
> >***{What flaw? There is no "flaw" in my desire to exclude data that are
> >obviously biased, unless the goal is to reach the conclusion that the
> >Earth is getting warmer even if it isn't. I repeat: why are you unwilling
> >to rely on the unbiased data? Wouldn't they show a warming trend, if the
> >trend were real? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
> The trend, the trend is warmer at the surface.
***{Then why does that trend only show up in surface temperature
measurements that are obviously biased? Why does it uniformly *fail* to
show up in surface measurements that are *not* biased? And why doesn't the
allegedly warmer surface of the earth cause the atmosphere to warm up? The
answer is obvious: the trend is *not* warmer at the surface. --Mitchell
Jones}***
The trend may not be so
> marked at higher altitudes. This may be due to a time lag in the effect
> of warming, or there could be some self-regulatory mechanism. The trend,
> the trend is for sea levels to rise and for some little countries to
> sink beneath the waves whilst academics argue the toss.
***{There is a trend for growing coastal cities to slowly sink, due to the
accumulated weight of brick, mortar, glass, concrete, etc., and also to
the effects of pumping water out of aquifers beneath those cities. Houston
Texas is a fairly typical example of that. And, of course, when the
measurements are taken with the zero point located on land, the seas seem
to be rising in those areas. However, satellite measurements of sea levels
show no significant trends in this regard. --Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
> As a
> policy, on Usenet, I make no claims concerning personal qualifications
> and demand none from others.
>
rudyk. Why does Nudds lie?
>
> Gossman lies
> ------------
A Nudds lie.
> "I have not accused anyone of murder." Gossman sci.environment 1998
Very true. An observation of what a previous poster has said in the
context of refuting an accusation from Nudds is not an accusation of
murder.
>
> "I will say it again. He (Stalin) was a murderer because he conspired
> and ordered those deaths. Do you refute that fact of history too." -
> Gossman sci.environment 1998
Taken out of context. Typical Nudds. The assumption in the conversation
was that Stalin could have been a murderer. Nudds fails to refute the
facts using the defintion of murder used in his own country and instead
attempts to change the conversation. Therefore I engaged in that debate.
Now he takes the ensuing discussion out of context and in doing so is
guilty of the very dishonesty he claims for others.
>
> "Do you think that Stalin's murder of millions were in fact justifiable
> homicides? Is that part of the socialist, Nuddsian domestication of man
> program?" - Gossman sci.environment 1998
Another out of context quote. Nudds have you no shame, to claim honesty
for yourself and then play this sort of dishonest game at the end of
another post in which you have clearly lied. The humor is gone from your
posts. You can't even come up with good name calling anymore. Since you
have in fact challenged the qualifications and intelligence of others
including myself as part of your deceptive posts you have an obligation
to provide the same when asked of you or to continue to be labeled as
the troll you undouptedly are. Which is it Nudds, are you going to
provide us with your credentials, as many of us have provided to you, or
are you just a troll?
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> What university do you claim to teach at Rudy?
This is a request for credentials. So the following is clearly a lie.
"I make no claims concerning personal qualifications and demand none
from others." - Nudds
--
Joshua Halpern
SNIP....
: ***{Your recollection is correct. For a detailed presentation of the
: relevant facts, plus a list of references, check out "Environmental
: Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., which
: may be accessed through internal links at http://www.oism.org. Of
: particular interest is the chart on pg. 5, comparing the growth rates of
: orange trees under 400 ppm CO2 (near present levels) and under 700 ppm
: CO2. The results: for young trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.71 times as fast
: under 700 ppm as under 400 ppm, and fine roots grew 2.75 times as fast;
: for mature trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.07 times as fast, and orange
: production per tree was 2.27 times as great. --Mitchell Jones}***
(Minor point: increased growth rates for plants do
not necessarily mean that there has been an increase
in photosynthese. Larger plants also respire [use
oxygen] more than smaller ones)
Without even going into the question of whether CO2
concentration is in general the limiting factor for
photosynthesis one can find cases in the published
literature where increased CO2 concentrations do NOT
increase photosynthesis even where the plants have
personal butlers (as one can find cases where it does).
Moreover, in general, even in those cases where increased CO2
concentrations increases photosynthesis, the increase in
photosynthesis is LESS than the increase in CO2 concentration.
Here are some examples of plant responses to increased
CO2, both under tender loving care conditions and when
there are other limits. These are taken from the refereed
literature, not the term paper of Robinson, et al.,
published in the vanity press.
**********************************************************
Balaguer, Luis; Valladares, Fernando; Ascaso, Carmen; Barnes,
Jeremy D.; Rios, Asuncion De Los; Manrique, Esteban; Smith,
Elizabeth C., Potential effects of rising tropospheric
concentrations of CO2 and O3 on green-algal lichens, New Phytol.
(1996), 132(4), 641-652
Parmelia sulcata Taylor was used as a model to examine the
effects of elevated CO2 and/or O3 on green algal lichen
symbiosis. Thalli were exposed for 30 d in duplicate controlled-
environment chambers to two atm. concns. of CO2 (ambient [350
.mu.mol mol-1] and elevated [700 .mu.mol mol-1] 24 h d-1) and two
O3 regimes (non-polluted air [CF, < 5 nmol mol-1] and polluted
air [15 nmol mol-1 overnight rising to a midday max. of 75 nmol
mol-1]), in a factorial design. Elevated CO2 or elevated O3
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
depressed the light-satd. rate of CO2 assimilation (Asat)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
measured at ambient CO2 by 30% and 18%, resp. However, despite
this effect ultrastructural studies revealed increased lipid
storage in cells of the photobiont in response to CO2-enrichment.
Simulataneous exposure to elevated O3 reduced CO2-induced lipid
accumulation and reduced Asat in an additive manner. Gold-
antibody labeling revealed that the decline in photosynthetic
capacity induced by elevated CO2 and/or O3 was accompanied by a
parallel decrease in the concn. of Rubisco in the algal pyrenoid
(r = 0.93). Interestingly, differences in the amt. of Rubisco
protein were not correlated with changes in pyrenoid vol.
Measurements of in vivo chlorophyll fluorescence induction
kinetics showed that the decline in Asat induced by elevated CO2
and/or O3 was not assocd. with significant changes in the
photochem. efficiency of photosystem (PS) II. Although the exptl.
conditions inevitably imposed some stress on the thalli, revealed
as a significant decline in the efficiency of PS II photochem.,
and enhanced starch accumulation in the photobiont over the
fumigation period, the study shows that the green-algal lichen
symbiosis might be influenced by future changes in atm. compn.
Photosynthetic capacity, measured at ambient CO2, was found to be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reduced after a controlled 30 d exposure to elevated CO2 and/or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
O3, and this effect was assocd. with a parallel decline in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
amt. of Rubisco in the pyrenoid of algal chloroplasts.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**************************************************************
Kimball, John S.; Thornton, Peter E.; White, Mike A.; Running,
Steven W., Simulating forest productivity and surface- atmosphere
carbon exchange in the BOREAS study region, Tree Physiol. (1997),
17(8/9), 589-599
A process-based, general ecosystem model (BI-OME-BGC) was used to
simulate daily gross primary prodn., maintenance and
heterotrophic respiration, net primary prodn. and net ecosystem
carbon exchange of boreal aspen, jack pine and black spruce
stands. Model simulations of daily net carbon exchange of the
ecosystem (NEE) explained 51.7% (SE = 1.32 g C m-2 day-1) of the
variance in daily NEE derived from stand eddy flux measurements
of CO2 during 1994. Differences between measured and simulated
results were attributed to several factors including difficulties
assocd. with measuring nighttime CO2 fluxes and model assumptions
of site homogeneity. However, comparisons between simulations and
field data improved markedly at coarser time-scales. Model
simulations explained 66.1% (SE = 0.97 g C m-2 day-1) of the
variance in measured NEE when 5-day means of daily results were
compared. Annual simulations of above-ground net primary prodn.
ranged from 0.6-2.4 Mg C ha-1 year-1 and were concurrent with
results derived from tree increment core measurements and
allometric equations. Model simulations showed that all of the
sites were net sinks (0.1-4.1 Mg C ha-1 year-1) of atm. carbon
for 1994. Older conifer stands showed narrow margins between
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
uptake of carbon by net photosynthesis and carbon release through
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
respiration. Younger stands were more productive than older
^^^^^^^^^^^^
stands, primarily because of lower maintenance respiration costs.
However, all sites appeared to be less productive than temperate
forests. Productivity simulations were strongly linked to stand
morphol. and site conditions. Old jack pine and aspen stands
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
showed decreased productivity in response to simulated low soil
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
water contents near the end of the 1994 growing season. Compared
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with the aspen stand, the jack pine stand appeared better adapted
to conserve soil water through lower daily evapotranspiration
losses but also exhibited a narrower margin between daily net
photosynthesis and respiration. Stands subjected to water stress
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
during the growing season may exist on the edge between being
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
annual sources or sinks for atm. carbon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***************************************************************
Nakano, Hiromi; Makino, Amane; Mae, Tadahiko, The effect of
elevated partial pressures of CO2 on the relationship between
photosynthetic capacity and N content in rice leaves, Plant
Physiol. (1997), 115(1), 191-198
The effects of elevated CO2 levels on the photosynthetic rates;
the amts. of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco),
chlorophyll (Chl), and cytochrome f; sucrose phosphate synthase
activity; and total N content were examd. in young, fully
expanded leaves of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The plants were grown
hydroponically under two CO2 partial pressures of 36 and 100 Pa
at three N concns. The light-satd. photosynthesis was lower in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2 than those grown in 36 Pa CO2.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Similarly, the amts. of Rubisco, Chl, and total N were decreased
in the leaves of the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2. However,
regression anal. showed no differences between the two CO2
treatments in the relationship between photosynthesis and total N
or in the relationship between Rubisco and Chl and total N.
Although a relative decrease in Rubisco to cytochrome f or
sucrose phosphate synthase was found in the plants grown in 100
Pa CO2, this was the result of a decrease in total N content by
CO2 enrichment. The activation state of Rubisco was also
unaffected by growth CO2 levels. Thus, decreases in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
photosynthetic capacity of the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2 could
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
be simply accounted for by a decrease in the abs. amt. of leaf N.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
****************************************************************
Hensen, A.; Van Den Bulk, W. C. M.; Vermeulen, A. T.; Wyers, G.
P., CO2 exchange between grassland and the atmosphere . Results
over a four-year period of CO2 measurements at Cabauw, the
Netherlands, ECN-C [Rep.] (1997),
The measurements of the CO2 exchange between grassland and atm.
with an automated CO2 monitoring system showed that during summer
months a max. of 0.25 mg CO2/m2s was obsd. in all years whenever
the short-wave irradiance level was .gtoreq. 400 W/m2. Higher
^^^^^^
uptake levels at daytime occurred in spring and autumn, with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lower temp. and lower respiration. Nighttime respiration levels
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
were generally lower during 1995 (drought year) and 1996 (drought
year with lower temp.) as compared to 1993 and 1994. In 1995 and
^^^^^^^^^^
1996 the net exchange of CO2 between atm. and the pasture was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
almost 0. The emissions due to plant and soil respiration are
^^^^^^^^^
equal 17% of annual fossil fuel emissions. The CO2 uptake in
daytime due to photosynthesis represents 16% of the fossil fuel
emissions. The net annual effect of both processes is equal 0-3%
of the CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use in the Netherlands.
***************************************************************
Adcock, Michael D.; Brooks, Andrew; Leegood, Richard C.; Quick,
W. Paul, The response of photosynthesis and carbon partitioning
in Solanum tuberosum L. at elevated CO2, Photosynth.: Light
Biosphere, Proc. Int. Photosynth. Congr., 10th (1995), Volume 5,
679-682. Editor(s): Mathis, Paul. Publisher: Kluwer, Dordrecht,
Neth.
Initial stimulation of photosynthetic assimilation rate due to
elevated CO2 obsd in 2-wk-old potato plants (35%) was not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
maintained, and the photosynthetic rates of elevated growth
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
plants declined to about 18% above that of the ambient grown
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
plants. Although there was an increase in the activities of
^^^^^^^
sucrose synthase, ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, and sucrose
phosphate synthase in the tuber, and an increase in tuber
carbohydrate content and dry wt., there was also a build-up of
carbohydrates in the leaves accompanied by a small decrease in
the initial and total activities of Rubisco. It appears that
although there is an increase in sink strength, it was unable to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
match the increase in source capacity. Decreasing the O2 concn.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to 2 kPa does not stimulate the assimilation rate, implying that
the long-term down-regulation of Rubisco due to the accumulation
of carbohydrates may also be accompanied by short-term end
product limitation.
**************************************************************
Miglietta, F.; Giuntoli, A.; Bindi, M., The effect of free air
carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) and soil nitrogen availability
on the photosynthetic capacity of wheat, Photosynth. Res. (1996),
47(3), 281-290
A simple system for free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) was
recently developed and it is here briefly described. Such a
MiniFACE system allowed the elevation of CO2 concn. of small
field plots avoiding the occurrence of large spatial and temporal
fluctuations. A CO2 enrichment field expt. was conducted in Italy
in the season 1993-1994 with wheat (cv. Super-dwarf Mercia). A
randomized exptl. design was used with the treatment combination
CO2 .times. soil N, replicated twice. Gas exchange measurements
showed that photosynthetic capacity was significantly decreased
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in plants exposed to elevated CO2 and grown under nitrogen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
deficiency. Photosynthetic acclimation was, in this case due to
^^^^^^^^^^^^
the occurrence of the reduced rates of rubP satd. and rubP
regeneration limited photosynthesis . Gas exchange measurements
did not instead reveal any significant effect of elevated CO2 on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the photosynthetic capacity of leaves of plants well fertilized
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with nitrogen, in spite of a transitory neg. effect on rubP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
regeneration limited photosynthesis that was detected to occur in
the central part of a day with high irradiance. It is concluded
that the levels of nitrogen fertilization will play a substantial
role in modulating CO2 fertilization effects on growth and yields
of wheat crops under the scenario of future climate change.
***************************************************************
josh halpern
Mitchell Jones
> This is a hoot
>
> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> >How can rising CO2 levels *not* lead to global warming? Quite possibly
> >because as CO2 rises, plants split more water to obtain additional
> >hydrogen (which they need to build plant biomass), thereby contributing to
> >rising O2 levels in the atmosphere.
>
> No increase in the oxygen concentration has been observed.
***{Since CO2 levels have risen from about 294 ppm in 1900 to about 365
ppm today, it follows that if we are to see how well the O2 levels are
tracking the CO2, we need O2 levels measured in ppm over the same period.
The reason that comparable accuracy is needed in both measures is that we
need to compare the total quantity of additional CO2 to the total quantity
of additional O2. If, for example, O2 has risen by 1000 ppm while CO2 has
risen by a mere 71 ppm, then vastly more oxygen than carbon dioxide has
been added to the atmosphere due to human burning of fossil fuels, and a
net reduction in the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere becomes
highly plausible. Note also that a rise of 1000 ppm in the O2
concentration would be a change of only 1/10th of 1%, and would not have
any effect on the usual number which we hear--21%--for the percentage of
O2 in the atmosphere. Thus it is only if you have seen a longitudinal plot
of O2 data measured in parts per million that your assertion about the
oxygen concentration would be relevant to this discussion. If you have
seen such a plot, please indicate your source. If not--if, instead, all
you have seen is the usual numbers rounded off to the nearest percent that
are available in standard references--then you do not understand the
issue, and you are wasting our time. --Mitchell Jones}***
Therefore almost
> certainly this is not the case, and that is being charitable. Thus your
> argument fails before it gets started. You postulate that when the CO2
mixing
> ratio increases the because of increased photosynthesis the O2 mixing ratio
> will increase also. It doesn't, end of argument.
***{Sorry, but it isn't quite so easy. We all know that the percentage of
O2 in the atmosphere, as reported in standard references, has been given
at 21% for decades. But that figure lacks the accuracy we need for this
discussion. If you have a source which has the required accuracy and which
supports your position, then post it. I will obtain the study in question,
examine it, and if it seems solid, I will happily concede your point. (Why
not? After all, the theory of CO2 induced global warming has been flatly
refuted by the facts, and is not at issue in the present discussion. All I
am trying to do here is come up with an explanation for *why* the rise in
CO2 has not produced global warming.) Until you post such a reference,
however, all we have from you is an unsupported assertion, and as you can
surely understand, that will not convince anyone. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> One can inquire as to why this does not happen. The reason has been given
> several times recently, but to repeat, basically is that the availability of
> CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the limiting factor for plant growth.
***{This palpably false statement suggests that haven't the slightest idea
what you are talking about, and does not augur well for your prospects in
citing the reference that I requested from you, above. For a detailed
presentation of the relevant facts, plus a list of references, check out
"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by
Robinson et al., which may be accessed through internal links at
http://www.oism.org. Of particular interest is the chart on pg. 5,
comparing the growth rates of orange trees under 400 ppm CO2 (near present
levels) and under 700 ppm CO2. The results: for young trees, trunk and
limbs grew 2.71 times as fast under 700 ppm as under 400 ppm, and fine
roots grew 2.75 times as fast; for mature trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.07
times as fast, and orange production per tree was 2.27 times as great. Nor
is this an isolated occurrence. The article discusses numerous studies
relating to a wide range of types of plants, all of which responded in a
strongly positive was to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. --Mitchell
Jones}***
>
>
> Them little buggers is pumping out O2 as fast as they can...giving them more
> CO2, does not change the amount of O2 they pump out. They have reached their
> limit. An instructive example are experiments in the Southern Ocean, where
> the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth in large regions is the
> availability of iron. Add more CO2 and nothing would happen. Add iron in a
> soluble form and wham.....
***{I have seen the studies concerning the effects of adding iron to iron
deficient waters, and you are correct: the resulting plankton blooms were
fantastic. However, though I admittedly haven't seen a study of the
effects of increased CO2 levels on phytoplankton growth, I have seen lots
of studies on lots of other kinds of plants, and in each case rising CO2
concentrations have had significant and frequently spectacular effects,
and I cannot imagine why phytoplankton growth would be an exception to the
general rule.Even if it is, however, that wouldn't alter the generalized
point one whit: you are flatly and inarguably wrong in your claim that
"CO2 is only very rarely, if ever, the limiting factor for plant growth."
If you are interested in the facts about this matter, read the paper I
cited above, and follow the trail of references until you are satisfied.
--Mitchell Jones}***
>
> The rest of Jones' post is just your basic twaddle, a huge ediface
> based on the false assumption that availability of CO2 limits plant
> growth and photosynthesis, however there is one other red herring
> I would like to comment on...
***{You started out with an implied insult--to wit: "This is a hoot." Now,
after having demonstrated that you lack even an elementary understanding
of this topic, you are referring to my post as "twaddle," and are claiming
that I am practicing conscious deception by the use of "red herrings."
Since I have never posted anything to you, that makes you guilty of
initiating an ad hominem exchange, and so I would like to point out that
such behavior is not in your interest. First, it alienates people who
might otherwise be inclined to agree with you. Second, it ensures that if
you turn out to be wrong, you will crash and burn rather than make a safe
emergency landing with your dignity intact. Think about it. --Mitchell
Jones}***
>
> SNIP....
> >*{Hydrocarbons consist of nothing but carbon and hydrogen. Methane, or
> >CH4, is a fairly typical example, and is a major constituent in natural
> >gas. When methane is burned by man to produce electricity, the reaction
> >is:
>
> CH4 is not a typical hydrocarbon. It is the hydrocarbon with the highest
> ratio of hydrogen to carbon (H:C=4).
***{You are arguing with statements that exist only in your imagination. I
didn't say that the hydrogen to carbon ratio of methane was typical of
hydrocarbons. --MJ}***
>
> >CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
>
> As a matter of fact, if all we burnt was CH4, the problem posed
> by significantly increased CO2 concentrations over a short
> period of time would be much less, if at all significant.
***{There is no "problem" posed by significantly increased CO2
concentrations, unless you consider expansion of plant and animal
populations, increased food supplies, increases in the portion of the
globe suitable for agriculture, the shrinking of deserts, etc., to be a
problem. And if CO2 induced global warming is what you have in mind, that
is certainly not a problem, inasmuch as that theory has been flatly
refuted by the facts. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> On the other hand how about acetylene, C2H2, another "typical"
> hydrocarbon (H:C= 1)
***{This graduates from quibbling to downright silliness. As noted above,
I never claimed that the hydrogen-carbon ratio of methane was "typical,"
and I didn't say anything at all about acetylene. --MJ}***
>
> C2H2 + 3O2 --> 2CO2 + H2O
>
> or how about coal which is pretty much C
>
> C + O2 --> CO2
>
> or brown coal which is wet C with mixed sand, so you have to heat it to
> drive off the water and then heat the sand before you burn it.
***{Is there a point here somewhere? Are you, perhaps, laboring under the
impression that I claimed that methane is the only hydrocarbon burned by
man? If so, then I suggest you re-read my post. --MJ}***
>
> >When plants employ photosynthesis to utilize atmospheric carbon dioxide
> >(CO2), one of the reactions (out of thousands) is:
>
> >CO2 + H2O --> CHOH + O2
>
> HMM do you mean synthesis of simple carbohydrates such as glucose
>
> 6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6CO2
>
> or in more general terms
>
> nCO2 + nH2O --> (CH2O)n + n O2
>
> Which is the generic overall reaction.
>
> CHOH is a VERY simple sugar...so simple it does not exist.
***{You need to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a sugar. My exact
words were: "the CHOH is used as a building block in the construction of
various other molecules--e.g., sugars." Perhaps you are confusing the
"e.g." with "i.e." If so, you need to learn the difference. E.g. stands
for "exempli gratia," which in Latin means "for example." I.e., on the
other hand, stands for "id est," which is Latin for "that is."
As for whether the CHOH molecule exists, well, the above reaction is
standard fare, and is so generally accepted that it even appears in most
encyclopedias. [See, for example, The Encyclopedia Americana under
"photosynthesis."] Bottom line: your allegation of the nonexistence of
CHOH is made from the same bolt of cloth as your earlier claim that CO2
availability only rarely, if ever, limits plant growth.
--Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >Superficially —i.e., just looking at the above pair of reactions—one
> >would be tempted to conclude that plants are net *consumers* of oxygen,
> >since more oxygen is required when the hydrocarbon (methane) is burned
> >than is liberated when plants utilize the CO2 to produce CHOH.
>
> The plants are not burning the fossil fuels.
***{You really need to pay better attention. I didn't say the plants were
burning the fossil fuels. Since you destroyed the continuity of my
presentation when you inserted your comments, I am reproducing the
appropriate passage between lines of asterisks (*) below:
**********************
When methane is burned by man to produce electricity, the reaction is:
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
When plants employ photosynthesis to utilize atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2), one of the reactions (out of thousands) is:
CO2 + H2O --> CHOH + O2
Superficially--i.e., just looking at the above pair of reactions--one
would be tempted to conclude that plants are net *consumers* of oxygen,
since more oxygen is required when the hydrocarbon (methane) is burned
than is liberated when plants utilize the CO2 to produce CHOH.
**********************
Please focus on the first line of my comments, and note the explicit
statement that "methane is burned by man to produce electricity." Note
that I did *not* claim that the plants were burning the methane. Next,
read through the remainder of the passage and see if you can now grasp the
intent of the last sentence.
--Mitchell Jones}***
They do metabolize at
> least some of the carbohydrates that they produce. Plants are only
> taking part in the second of Jones reactions, not the first.
***{A blinding insight. --MJ}***
>
> He is trying to give the impression that the amount of burning
> of fossil fuel is directly proportional to the amount of
> photosynthesis.
***{Nope. I was merely making the assumption that the reader could hold
the context in his brain for a couple of sentences. You, however, have
succeeded in dispatching that assumption straight to hell. --Mitchell
Jones}***
>
> This would ONLY be the case is the availability of CO2 was the
> principal factor limiting plant growth and photosynthesis. It
> is NOT.
***{Check out the Robinson paper, cited above. It should be sufficient to
disabuse you of this notion. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
> josh halpern
===========================================================
rud...@usa.net
In article <6km1a4$1...@james.hwcn.org>,
af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
> Sam McClintock wrote:
> : > The Canadians also have several web sites, and you can also view most of
> : > this work in the various reports and publications, such as "State of the
> : > Environment Report" State of Canad's Climate, Monitoring Variability and
> : > Change, SOE-91-1.
>
> : depot and borrowed SOE 91-1 and its title is actually "A Report on
> : Canada's Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators".
> : It has very little to do with the research noted above, and that, only
> : obliquely.
>
> I wonder why.
>
> The publication Mr. McClintock refers to is titled...
>
> "State of the Environment Report"
>
> The publication 6 times liar Rudy claims to have is...
>
> "A Report on Canada's Progress Towards a National Set of
> Environmental Indicators".
>
> I bet they are different reports.
congratulations, scott, you are one quick customer. they ARE different
reports and that was the point of my post. i guess "subtlety" is ALSO beyond
your ken. ol' "careful sam" couldn't even get his citation correct. i wonder
if anyone can trust him to get the point of the paper, either.
but back on topic... what do YOU think of either SOE-91-1 or what he MEANT to
say, SOE-95-1? hint, scott, "State of the Environment" is the series title.
-rudy (shoot!... how many "lies" am i up to now?!...)
Joshua Halpern
: > This is a hoot
: > >Mitchell Jones wrote:
: > >How can rising CO2 levels *not* lead to global warming? Quite possibly
: > >because as CO2 rises, plants split more water to obtain additional
: > >hydrogen (which they need to build plant biomass), thereby contributing to
: > >rising O2 levels in the atmosphere.
: > No increase in the oxygen concentration has been observed.
: ***{Since CO2 levels have risen from about 294 ppm in 1900 to about 365
: ppm today, it follows that if we are to see how well the O2 levels are
: tracking the CO2, we need O2 levels measured in ppm over the same period.
: The reason that comparable accuracy is needed in both measures is that we
: need to compare the total quantity of additional CO2 to the total quantity
: of additional O2.
Wellll...If the rise in O2 is insignificant, then the effect of
the rise in O2 will be insignificant....BTW why did you choose
1900 as a baseline? However, as you yourself demonstrate, it
is not necessary to measure to O2 to ppm accuracy, merely to
parts per thousand or ten thousand.
: If, for example, O2 has risen by 1000 ppm while CO2 has
: risen by a mere 71 ppm, then vastly more oxygen than carbon dioxide has
: been added to the atmosphere due to human burning of fossil fuels, and a
: net reduction in the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere becomes
: highly plausible. Note also that a rise of 1000 ppm in the O2
: concentration would be a change of only 1/10th of 1%,
Wrong. The concentration of O2 in the present atmosphere
is 209 parts per thousand. A change of 1000 ppm would
correspond to a rise of .47%, or about half a percent.
Even a freshman chemistry student could measure that.
The 209 comes from a beginners book on atmospheric
chemistry called, the Chemistry of Atmosphere, by
Richard Wayne, which I happen to have on hand.
Such a rise would be easily measureable and has not
been seen.
: any effect on the usual number which we hear--21%--for the percentage of
: O2 in the atmosphere. Thus it is only if you have seen a longitudinal plot
: of O2 data measured in parts per million that your assertion about the
: oxygen concentration would be relevant to this discussion.
No, you yourself have stated that you expect a rise of the order of
a thousand parts per million. This would be an increase of 0.47%
in the oxygen concentration. Measurements of atmospheric
composition to three significant digits are standard. Do not confuse
what you read in an encyclopedia, or an introductory text with
the limits of measurement.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
: > This is a hoot
: > >Mitchell Jones wrote:
: > SNIP....
: > >*{Hydrocarbons consist of nothing but carbon and hydrogen. Methane, or
: > >CH4, is a fairly typical example, and is a major constituent in natural
: > >gas. When methane is burned by man to produce electricity, the reaction
: > >is:
: >
: > CH4 is not a typical hydrocarbon. It is the hydrocarbon with the highest
: > ratio of hydrogen to carbon (H:C=4).
: ***{You are arguing with statements that exist only in your imagination. I
: didn't say that the hydrogen to carbon ratio of methane was typical of
: hydrocarbons. --MJ}***
You said that methane, CH4, is a fairly typical example, carried out
a calculation based on burning methane and took that as typical
of the problem. In short, you chose an exceptionally favorable
case, and generalized its results. I repeat. If all that were
burnted were methane, there would be little or no increase in
CO2 mixing rations and little or no global warming problem .
: >
: > >CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
: >
: > As a matter of fact, if all we burnt was CH4, the problem posed
: > by significantly increased CO2 concentrations over a short
: > period of time would be much less, if at all significant.
: ***{There is no "problem" posed by significantly increased CO2
: concentrations, unless you consider expansion of plant and animal
: populations, increased food supplies, increases in the portion of the
: globe suitable for agriculture, the shrinking of deserts, etc., to be a
: problem. And if CO2 induced global warming is what you have in mind, that
: is certainly not a problem, inasmuch as that theory has been flatly
: refuted by the facts. --Mitchell Jones}***
When all about you
are screaming and
running in circles
Maybe there is something
you do not know
: > On the other hand how about acetylene, C2H2, another "typical"
: > hydrocarbon (H:C= 1)
: ***{This graduates from quibbling to downright silliness. As noted above,
: I never claimed that the hydrogen-carbon ratio of methane was "typical,"
: and I didn't say anything at all about acetylene. --MJ}***
No, this is not a quibble. The point is how much CO2 is injected
into the atmosphere. Methane, for the reason that I pointed
out is a "good" fuel to burn, BECAUSE of the high hydrogen
to carbon ratio. For the same reason coal is a "bad"
fuel to burn. Per unit energy produced, the contribution
of burning coal to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere
will be at least twice as much, and that does not include
additional energy costs necessary in mining and transportation
to the site where it is burned.
: >
: > C2H2 + 3O2 --> 2CO2 + H2O
: >
: > or how about coal which is pretty much C
: >
: > C + O2 --> CO2
: >
: > or brown coal which is wet C with mixed sand, so you have to heat it to
: > drive off the water and then heat the sand before you burn it.
: ***{Is there a point here somewhere? Are you, perhaps, laboring under the
: impression that I claimed that methane is the only hydrocarbon burned by
: man? If so, then I suggest you re-read my post. --MJ}***
Yes, you took methane as a typical fuel wrt atmospheric CO2 generation
It is a particularly favorable case. If it were our ONLY fuel, there
would be little or no problem (no acid rain troubles either).
>
: > >When plants employ photosynthesis to utilize atmospheric carbon dioxide
: > >(CO2), one of the reactions (out of thousands) is:
: >
: > >CO2 + H2O --> CHOH + O2
: >
: > HMM do you mean synthesis of simple carbohydrates such as glucose
: >
: > 6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6CO2
: >
: > or in more general terms
: >
: > nCO2 + nH2O --> (CH2O)n + n O2
: >
: > Which is the generic overall reaction.
: >
: > CHOH is a VERY simple sugar...so simple it does not exist.
: ***{You need to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a sugar. My exact
: words were: "the CHOH is used as a building block in the construction of
: various other molecules--e.g., sugars." Perhaps you are confusing the
: "e.g." with "i.e." If so, you need to learn the difference. E.g. stands
: for "exempli gratia," which in Latin means "for example." I.e., on the
: other hand, stands for "id est," which is Latin for "that is."
No, you need to read what you wrote, you asserted that the reaction
that occured was CO2 + H2O --> CHOH + O2. In fact this reaction never
occurs as written and nCO2 + H2O --> nCHOH + nO2, is only a summary
of the net effect of many different elementry reactions. CHOH
itself is unstabl. You are confusing the actual chemistry with
a low level summary of the same. Moreover, you might carefully
note that I said "synthesis of simple carbohydrates" not
"synthesis of simple sugars", of which sugars are an example.
: As for whether the CHOH molecule exists, well, the above reaction is
: standard fare, and is so generally accepted that it even appears in most
: encyclopedias. [See, for example, The Encyclopedia Americana under
: "photosynthesis."] Bottom line: your allegation of the nonexistence of
: CHOH is made from the same bolt of cloth as your earlier claim that CO2
: availability only rarely, if ever, limits plant growth.
It's standard fare at a low level. You are posting in science groups.
What passes as truth in the sixth grade doesn't always make it
in high school.
josh halpern
Mitchell Jones
> In sci.environment Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> wrote:
> : In article <356ED1CA...@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard
> : <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
> : > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> : > > One can inquire as to why this (the increased production of O2 as a
> : > > result of increased CO2 respiration) does not happen. The reason
> : > > has been given several times recently, but to repeat, basically is
> : > > that the availability of CO2 is only very rarely, if ever the
> : > > limiting factor for plant growth.
> : > >
> snip...: >
> : > Josh. I am not at all expert in this area, but I do recall reading,
years ago,
> : > that the existing CO2 levels were just barely outside the range to
> : > severly limit plant growth.
>
> : ***{Your recollection is correct. For a detailed presentation of the
> : relevant facts, plus a list of references, check out "Environmental
> : Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson et al., which
> : may be accessed through internal links at http://www.oism.org. Of
> : particular interest is the chart on pg. 5, comparing the growth rates of
> : orange trees under 400 ppm CO2 (near present levels) and under 700 ppm
> : CO2. The results: for young trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.71 times as fast
> : under 700 ppm as under 400 ppm, and fine roots grew 2.75 times as fast;
> : for mature trees, trunk and limbs grew 2.07 times as fast, and orange
> : production per tree was 2.27 times as great. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> Of course this was for a well watered plant with all of the
> micronutrients and water it needed in perfect soil. THAT is
> the point. Most plants don't have their own personal attendents.
>
> For example, there are huge swaiths of the earth's land mass
> where water is the limiting factor for plant growth. Increasing
> or even decreasing the amount of CO2 available would do damn
> all for the growth of the plant or the amount of photosynthesis.
> There are vast regions of the land and oceans where the availability
> of micronutrients limits plant (and phytoplankton) growth, for
> example the sourthern oceans near Antartica. There, it has been
> shown that the limiting factor is the availability of iron. Small
> experiments have shown that the amount of plant and plankton growth
> in these waters can be increased by orders of magnitude simply
> by dumping iron dust (This has been seriously proposed as a
> remediation, although there are some problems with it). Finally,
> a really serious limit on the rate of photosynthesis that can
> take place is the temperature and amount of light in the
> Northern Hemisphere during the winter. You can have any
> amount of CO2 you want, and not much will grow in Siberia
> or the Northwest Territories during the winter.
***{You are correct in thinking that plants in nature tend to be subject
to more environmental stress than plants which are being attended to by
humans during the course of a scientific study. And each of the examples
of stress given by you, above, are valid. As you say, plants are sometimes
stressed by lack of water, by the availability of micronutrients (e.g.,
iron), by extreme temperatures, by being in shaded locations which limit
their access to sunlight, and so on.
What you overlook, however, is that the scientists studying the effects of
CO2 on plant growth were perfectly capable of thinking of such matters
themselves, and since they and their bureaucratic keepers were for the
most part eager to demonstrate that CO2 did *not* have beneficial effects,
studies were funded to compare the effects of CO2 on stressed plants with
its effects on unstressed plants. Result: it was uniformly discovered that
the beneficial effects of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2
*were vastly greater* for plants that were subject to environmental stress
than for unstressed plants. For example, on pg. 7 of the Robinson study,
which I mentioned earlier and which you apparently still have not read,
there is a chart showing summary data taken from 279 published papers
which compared the effects of CO2 on stressed plants to its effects on the
same plants when unstressed, and in each and every case the growth
enhancing effects of CO2 were much stronger for the environmentally
stressed plants than for the unstressed ones. Moreover, all types of
plants were investigated by the studies, according to Robinson--which
suggests, by the way, that phytoplankton were examined--and the benefits
of CO2 fertilization were discovered to apply across the board: all plants
benefitted, whether stress or unstressed, but the stressed plants
benefitted the most. For a detailed presentation of the relevant facts,
plus a list of references, check out "Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Robinson et al., which may be accessed
through internal links at http://www.oism.org.
--Mitchell Jones}***
>
> : > Do you in fact have a sound source supporting the proposal that CO2
> : > concentration is not a factor limiting growth in enough systems to
> : > significantly affect the take up rates? I would hate to go on thinking
> : > I know something which is demonstrably wrong.
>
> : ***{Of course he doesn't have a source. He led off his post with an
> : implied insult--to wit: "This is a hoot."
>
> It was, a hoot. Your chemistry certainly was
***{The chemistry was fine. As I noted in my specific point-by-point
rebuttal to your post, it was your reading comprehension that was in need
of improvement.
Incidentally, are you still laughing, now that you have crashed and burned
with total loss of dignity? If not, I suggest that you avoid initiating ad
hominem exchanges in the future.
Robert James Kunkle
In article <mjones-3105...@jump-k56flex-0175.jumpnet.com>,
Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> wrote:
>In article <6kpms6$d...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>What you overlook, however, is that the scientists studying the effects of
>CO2 on plant growth were perfectly capable of thinking of such matters
>themselves, and since they and their bureaucratic keepers were for the
>most part eager to demonstrate that CO2 did *not* have beneficial effects,
>studies were funded to compare the effects of CO2 on stressed plants with
>its effects on unstressed plants.
Please say it isn't so. You realize you are accusing the Joshua of saying
that environmental scientists have rocks for brains. Don't worry about me,
I think I must already be in his kill file.
Jim
Mitchell Jones
In article <356ED515...@ihighway.com>, Steve Hemphill
<shem...@ihighway.com> wrote:
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > He is trying to give the impression that the amount of burning
> > of fossil fuel is directly proportional to the amount of
> > photosynthesis.
> >
> > This would ONLY be the case is the availability of CO2 was the
> > principal factor limiting plant growth and photosynthesis. It
> > is NOT.
>
> Once again, there is no magic bullet. Climate is convoluted. Many
> factors have effects that differ depending on location. Specifically,
> to say "fossil fuel burning would only be proportional to
> photosynthesis if the availability of CO2 was THE principal factor
> limiting plant growth" highlights the irrational attempt to isolate a
> single mechanism.
>
> Sorry, but complex systems and most of science doesn't work that way,
> and only Babellers think it does. There is no such thing as THE
> principal factor, except in the lab.
>
> I don't know about the specific proportional rates of sink, but I'll
> bet that in the world there are a lot of plants that will increase
> growth if their CO2 supply goes up. I wouldn't even be surprised if
> MOST plants increased growth with an increased supply of CO2.
***{Steve, you are absolutely correct, and yet you lack conviction. You
say "I'll bet" and "I wouldn't be surprised," when you ought to be saying:
"I know for a fact." Why do you lack conviction? Because you obviously
still haven't bothered to cruise over to the oism website and read the
Robinson study, despite the fact that I have posted the URL a zillion
times. I urge you to obtain the information you need to be sure that your
intuitions are correct. For a detailed presentation of the relevant facts,
plus a list of references, check out "Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Robinson et al., which may be accessed
through internal links at http://www.oism.org. --Mitchell Jones}***
===========================================================
Steve Hemphill
Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> In article <356ED515...@ihighway.com>, Steve Hemphill
> <shem...@ihighway.com> wrote:
> > I don't know about the specific proportional rates of sink, but I'll
> > bet that in the world there are a lot of plants that will increase
> > growth if their CO2 supply goes up. I wouldn't even be surprised if
> > MOST plants increased growth with an increased supply of CO2.
>
> ***{Steve, you are absolutely correct, and yet you lack conviction. You
> say "I'll bet" and "I wouldn't be surprised," when you ought to be saying:
> "I know for a fact." Why do you lack conviction? Because you obviously
> still haven't bothered to cruise over to the oism website and read the
> Robinson study, despite the fact that I have posted the URL a zillion
> times. I urge you to obtain the information you need to be sure that your
> intuitions are correct. For a detailed presentation of the relevant facts,
> plus a list of references, check out "Environmental Effects of Increased
> Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Robinson et al., which may be accessed
> through internal links at http://www.oism.org. --Mitchell Jones}***
The Natural Sciences are largely empirical because we don't
really know a lot of what's going on with life itself. This
being the case it's extremely rare for someone schooled in the
Natural Sciences, particularly something as complex as the
biosphere, to "know for a fact" just about anything beyond the
extreme basics. If they say they do, it's because they've
memorized (or say, or think they've memorized) the empirical
relationships involved in what they do, not because they
understand the actual sciences involved. Someone may have
spent many years on the CO2 response rates of individual flora
and have a good integrated (by biomass) empirical curve, but I
haven't seen it yet.
Phil Hays
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> ***{The sea surface temperature measurements are unbiased, and they do not
> show CO2 induced global warming. As noted previously, surface temperatures
> in the Sargasso Sea were more than 2 degrees C warmer 3,000 years ago than
> they are today, and those numbers *cannot* be explained by human burning
> of fossil fuels.
Right. Even if true, it was even warmer ~100 MYA when palm trees grew
above the Arctic circle. Your point is? Are you trying to wack down
the strawman of "humans are the only source of climate change"? If so,
that is dishonest.
> hence if CO2 induced global warming were taking place, the
> airborne measurements should reflect it, and they do not.
This brings up a real question. What would the MSU data need to show to
convince you that warming was taking place?
> In fact, the
> unbiased measurements *uniformly* fail to show a temperature peak after
> 1940, despite the fact that over 81% of human CO2 emissions in the last
> century took place after 1940.
Oh? Shall we discuss ice core data? Tree ring data?
How about the ice core from Huascran, Peru? Science 7 July 1995 page
46. Start with figure 7. Cross reference to figure 3A. Read figure 6E
carefully. Discuss.
--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principal." Carl Sagan
Joshua Halpern
: > In sci.environment Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> wrote:
: > : In article <356ED1CA...@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard
: > : <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
: plants were investigated by the studies, according to Robinson--which
: suggests, by the way, that phytoplankton were examined--and the benefits
: of CO2 fertilization were discovered to apply across the board: all plants
: benefitted, whether stress or unstressed, but the stressed plants
: benefitted the most. For a detailed presentation of the relevant facts,
: plus a list of references, check out "Environmental Effects of Increased
: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Robinson et al., which may be accessed
: through internal links at http://www.oism.org.
You have one source....Robinson. Would you care to reply to any of
the references which I posted previously before declaring victory?
Clearly, your assumptions DO NOT apply across the board.
BTW, don't imagine this is the sum total of such studies
which contradict Robinson.
*******************************************************************
Balaguer, Luis; Valladares, Fernando; Ascaso, Carmen; Barnes,
Jeremy D.; Rios, Asuncion De Los; Manrique, Esteban; Smith,
Elizabeth C., Potential effects of rising tropospheric
concentrations of CO2 and O3 on green-algal lichens, New Phytol.
(1996), 132(4), 641-652
Parmelia sulcata Taylor was used as a model to examine the
effects of elevated CO2 and/or O3 on green algal lichen
symbiosis. Thalli were exposed for 30 d in duplicate controlled-
environment chambers to two atm. concns. of CO2 (ambient [350
.mu.mol mol-1] and elevated [700 .mu.mol mol-1] 24 h d-1) and two
O3 regimes (non-polluted air [CF, < 5 nmol mol-1] and polluted
air [15 nmol mol-1 overnight rising to a midday max. of 75 nmol
mol-1]), in a factorial design. Elevated CO2 or elevated O3
depressed the light-satd. rate of CO2 assimilation (Asat)
measured at ambient CO2 by 30% and 18%, resp. However, despite
this effect ultrastructural studies revealed increased lipid
storage in cells of the photobiont in response to CO2-enrichment.
Simulataneous exposure to elevated O3 reduced CO2-induced lipid
accumulation and reduced Asat in an additive manner. Gold-
antibody labeling revealed that the decline in photosynthetic
capacity induced by elevated CO2 and/or O3 was accompanied by a
parallel decrease in the concn. of Rubisco in the algal pyrenoid
(r = 0.93). Interestingly, differences in the amt. of Rubisco
protein were not correlated with changes in pyrenoid vol.
Measurements of in vivo chlorophyll fluorescence induction
kinetics showed that the decline in Asat induced by elevated CO2
and/or O3 was not assocd. with significant changes in the
photochem. efficiency of photosystem (PS) II. Although the exptl.
conditions inevitably imposed some stress on the thalli, revealed
as a significant decline in the efficiency of PS II photochem.,
and enhanced starch accumulation in the photobiont over the
fumigation period, the study shows that the green-algal lichen
symbiosis might be influenced by future changes in atm. compn.
Photosynthetic capacity, measured at ambient CO2, was found to be
reduced after a controlled 30 d exposure to elevated CO2 and/or
O3, and this effect was assocd. with a parallel decline in the
amt. of Rubisco in the pyrenoid of algal chloroplasts.
uptake of carbon by net photosynthesis and carbon release through
respiration. Younger stands were more productive than older
stands, primarily because of lower maintenance respiration costs.
However, all sites appeared to be less productive than temperate
forests. Productivity simulations were strongly linked to stand
morphol. and site conditions. Old jack pine and aspen stands
showed decreased productivity in response to simulated low soil
water contents near the end of the 1994 growing season. Compared
with the aspen stand, the jack pine stand appeared better adapted
to conserve soil water through lower daily evapotranspiration
losses but also exhibited a narrower margin between daily net
photosynthesis and respiration. Stands subjected to water stress
during the growing season may exist on the edge between being
annual sources or sinks for atm. carbon.
*************************************************************
Nakano, Hiromi; Makino, Amane; Mae, Tadahiko, The effect of
elevated partial pressures of CO2 on the relationship between
photosynthetic capacity and N content in rice leaves, Plant
Physiol. (1997), 115(1), 191-198
The effects of elevated CO2 levels on the photosynthetic rates;
the amts. of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco),
chlorophyll (Chl), and cytochrome f; sucrose phosphate synthase
activity; and total N content were examd. in young, fully
expanded leaves of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The plants were grown
hydroponically under two CO2 partial pressures of 36 and 100 Pa
at three N concns. The light-satd. photosynthesis was lower in
the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2 than those grown in 36 Pa CO2.
Similarly, the amts. of Rubisco, Chl, and total N were decreased
in the leaves of the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2. However,
regression anal. showed no differences between the two CO2
treatments in the relationship between photosynthesis and total N
or in the relationship between Rubisco and Chl and total N.
Although a relative decrease in Rubisco to cytochrome f or
sucrose phosphate synthase was found in the plants grown in 100
Pa CO2, this was the result of a decrease in total N content by
CO2 enrichment. The activation state of Rubisco was also
unaffected by growth CO2 levels. Thus, decreases in the
photosynthetic capacity of the plants grown in 100 Pa CO2 could
be simply accounted for by a decrease in the abs. amt. of leaf N.
*************************************************************
Hensen, A.; Van Den Bulk, W. C. M.; Vermeulen, A. T.; Wyers, G.
P., CO2 exchange between grassland and the atmosphere . Results
over a four-year period of CO2 measurements at Cabauw, the
Netherlands, ECN-C [Rep.] (1997),
The measurements of the CO2 exchange between grassland and atm.
with an automated CO2 monitoring system showed that during summer
months a max. of 0.25 mg CO2/m2s was obsd. in all years whenever
the short-wave irradiance level was .gtoreq. 400 W/m2. Higher
uptake levels at daytime occurred in spring and autumn, with
lower temp. and lower respiration. Nighttime respiration levels
were generally lower during 1995 (drought year) and 1996 (drought
year with lower temp.) as compared to 1993 and 1994. In 1995 and
1996 the net exchange of CO2 between atm. and the pasture was
almost 0. The emissions due to plant and soil respiration are
equal 17% of annual fossil fuel emissions. The CO2 uptake in
daytime due to photosynthesis represents 16% of the fossil fuel
emissions. The net annual effect of both processes is equal 0-3%
of the CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use in the Netherlands.
***************************************************************
Drake, Bert G.; Jacob, James, Acclimation of photosynthesis and
the response of ecosystem carbon balance to rising atmospheric
CO2, Photosynth.: Light Biosphere, Proc. Int. Photosynth. Congr.,
10th (1995), Volume 5, 767-772. Editor(s): Mathis, Paul.
Publisher: Kluwer, Dordrecht, Neth.
Acclimation of photosynthesis in leaves and canopies to rising
atm. CO2 concn. was studied in a brackish wetland (Scirpus
olneyi) and a scrub-oak ecosystem (Quercus myrtifolia). Although
elevated CO2 increased carbohydrate, reduced Rubisco and sol.
protein concns., and reduced photosynthetic capacity in leaves of
the dominant species in each system, the rate of photosynthesis
of intact leaves was higher in elevated CO2 than in normal
ambient concn. by 30-100%. In the wetland community, dominated by
the C3 sludge, Scirpus olneyi, elevated CO2 stimulated net
ecosystem carbon accumulation throughout 8 yr of treatment in
open top chambers in the field. The combination of acclimation in
the photosynthetic tissue and assimilation of addnl. carbon has
resulted in a no. of marked responses in ecosystem processes
including increased soil carbon, increased invertebrate and
rhizosphere microbial activity which resulted in higher soil
respiration and methane prodn. Acclimation of photosynthesis thus
has important ramifications for the responses of ecosystems to
rising atm. CO2 and temp.
***************************************************************
Adcock, Michael D.; Brooks, Andrew; Leegood, Richard C.; Quick,
W. Paul, The response of photosynthesis and carbon partitioning
in Solanum tuberosum L. at elevated CO2, Photosynth.: Light
Biosphere, Proc. Int. Photosynth. Congr., 10th (1995), Volume 5,
679-682. Editor(s): Mathis, Paul. Publisher: Kluwer, Dordrecht,
Neth.
Initial stimulation of photosynthetic assimilation rate due to
elevated CO2 obsd in 2-wk-old potato plants (35%) was not
maintained, and the photosynthetic rates of elevated growth
plants declined to about 18% above that of the ambient grown
plants. Although there was an increase in the activities of
sucrose synthase, ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, and sucrose
phosphate synthase in the tuber, and an increase in tuber
carbohydrate content and dry wt., there was also a build-up of
carbohydrates in the leaves accompanied by a small decrease in
the initial and total activities of Rubisco. It appears that
although there is an increase in sink strength, it was unable to
match the increase in source capacity. Decreasing the O2 concn.
to 2 kPa does not stimulate the assimilation rate, implying that
the long-term down-regulation of Rubisco due to the accumulation
of carbohydrates may also be accompanied by short-term end
product limitation.
***************************************************************
Miglietta, F.; Giuntoli, A.; Bindi, M., The effect of free air
carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) and soil nitrogen availability
on the photosynthetic capacity of wheat, Photosynth. Res. (1996),
47(3), 281-290
A simple system for free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) was
recently developed and it is here briefly described. Such a
MiniFACE system allowed the elevation of CO2 concn. of small
field plots avoiding the occurrence of large spatial and temporal
fluctuations. A CO2 enrichment field expt. was conducted in Italy
in the season 1993-1994 with wheat (cv. Super-dwarf Mercia). A
randomized exptl. design was used with the treatment combination
CO2 .times. soil N, replicated twice. Gas exchange measurements
showed that photosynthetic capacity was significantly decreased
in plants exposed to elevated CO2 and grown under nitrogen
deficiency. Photosynthetic acclimation was, in this case due to
the occurrence of the reduced rates of rubP satd. and rubP
regeneration limited photosynthesis . Gas exchange measurements
did not instead reveal any significant effect of elevated CO2 on
the photosynthetic capacity of leaves of plants well fertilized
with nitrogen, in spite of a transitory neg. effect on rubP