Re: You know what is odd about global warming theory?
kdt...@yahoo.com
john fernbach wrote:
> > Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > > How little mention was made of it prior to 1990,
> >
Also there's no mention of it in chemistry. You'd think in all the
research by chemists both academic and industrial, some mention of
these unique properties of CO2 would appear. Of course the hoax
experiment of CO2 in glass was around from the 19th century but any
chemist with half of a mind would see that if CO2 has different
temperature change in a concrete vessel, the glass and it's rate of
letting heat out of the CO2 gas is more responsible for temperature
difference in the hoax experiment and never give it another thought.
Probes to venus only discovered the high temperature of venus in the
1960's. Venus also has a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Some
theoretical nut needed a thesis, so the explanation of the high
temperature was attributed to CO2. Of course direct science cannot be
done to confirm this. From this, the speculation on man's input of CO2
into the atmosphere developed into the superstition that it is today.
Any data on warming must be from another cause other than carbon
dioxide.
KD
Phil.
On Nov 15, 8:11 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> john fernbach wrote:
> > > Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > > > How little mention was made of it prior to 1990,Also there's no mention of it in chemistry. You'd think in all the
> research by chemists both academic and industrial, some mention of
> these unique properties of CO2 would appear.
Nothing unique about CO2 just a rather ordinary triatomic molecule
which has a bending mode, an asymmetric stretch and symmetric stretch
which absorb IR, of which the bending mode coincides fairly closely
with the peak IR emissions from the Earth.
> Of course the hoax
> experiment of CO2 in glass was around from the 19th century but any
> chemist with half of a mind would see that if CO2 has different
> temperature change in a concrete vessel, the glass and it's rate of
> letting heat out of the CO2 gas is more responsible for temperature
> difference in the hoax experiment and never give it another thought.
As I posted here when Hanson suggested his CO2 in a bottle experiment I
pointed out that the bottle would need to be made of material
transparent to 15 micron radiation.
>
> Probes to venus only discovered the high temperature of venus in the
> 1960's. Venus also has a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Some
> theoretical nut needed a thesis, so the explanation of the high
> temperature was attributed to CO2. Of course direct science cannot be
> done to confirm this. From this, the speculation on man's input of CO2
> into the atmosphere developed into the superstition that it is today.
> Any data on warming must be from another cause other than carbon
> dioxide.
Try reading the following:
Chemistry of Atmospheres
An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Atmospheres of Earth, the
Planets, and their Satellites
Third Edition
Richard P. Wayne
CobblyWorlds
> > Of course the hoax
> > experiment of CO2 in glass was around from the 19th century but any
> > chemist with half of a mind would see that if CO2 has different
> > temperature change in a concrete vessel, the glass and it's rate of
> > letting heat out of the CO2 gas is more responsible for temperature
> > difference in the hoax experiment and never give it another thought.
>
> As I posted here when Hanson suggested his CO2 in a bottle experiment I
> pointed out that the bottle would need to be made of material
> transparent to 15 micron radiation.
>
>
2 identical plastic fizzy drinks bottles will do.
It's used in a class experiement on some course curriculums in UK
schools. And yes the bottle CO2 containing reaches a higher equilibrium
temperature than does the one containing air.
Orator
So what? The true experiment relating to the effect of CO2 is at its
present level in the "air" compared to "air" with the CO2 component
removed. THAT would produce a something close to a meaningful result. I
can also predict what that result will be - the result will be
immeasurable and will have to be concluded "it has no measurable effect".
news.cogeco.ca
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Probes to venus only discovered the high temperature of venus in the
> 1960's. Venus also has a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere.
Ahahahahahahahaha.... The surface temperature of Venus was not only measured
more than 100 years ago, but the explanation was known as well.
You are one fucking ignorant moron Kdthrge.
news.cogeco.ca
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote
> So what? The true experiment relating to the effect of CO2 is at its
> present level in the "air" compared to "air" with the CO2 component
> removed. THAT would produce a something close to a meaningful result. I
> can also predict what that result will be - the result will be
> immeasurable and will have to be concluded "it has no measurable effect".
Ah, so in your opinion then the absorption/emission spectra of CO2
differes dramatically depending if it's in air rather than just a pure gas.
You do realize that that kind of thing is impossible don't you? Gas
molecules are quite far apart and do not readily interact. That's why there
is such a thing as a universal gas law.
Stupid... Stupid... Orator...
Orator
Yes I'm so "stupid" that you end up supporting what I say - good one :-)
news.cogeco.ca
> > You do realize that that kind of thing is impossible don't you? Gas
> > molecules are quite far apart and do not readily interact. That's why
there
> > is such a thing as a universal gas law.
> >
> > Stupid... Stupid... Orator...
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote
> Yes I'm so "stupid" that you end up supporting what I say - good one :-)
So when I illustrate your scientific illiteracy you actually believe that
I am supporting you ay?
Obviously your ignorance is so vast you don't even know you are ignorant.
Stupid... Stupid.. Orator...
The Ghost In The Machine
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:30:10 -0500
<1Lb7h.1201$J32...@read1.cgocable.net>:
Lemme guess...Velikovski? :-P
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CobblyWorlds
>
> So when I illustrate your scientific illiteracy you actually believe that
> I am supporting you ay?
>
> Obviously your ignorance is so vast you don't even know you are ignorant.
>
> Stupid... Stupid.. Orator...
Another reason Orator is stupid (not for not knowing, but for thinking
they can prove professional scientists wrong, without actually
understanding the theoretical background).
The troposphere is not a bottle of gas. It's temperature profile is
built up by the thermal interactions of adacent layers throughout it's
height profile. The temperature at the boundary layer is in part
determined by the temperature at higher altitudes, and at higher
altitudes there is less spectral saturation. (I'm not even mentioning
amplifiers like WV feedback.)
This is also the reason why the Beer-Lambert law objection to the
mechanics of GW (Heinz Hug(I think) at John Daly) is flawed.
So the point of the experiment is to demonstrate the principle, not for
horse-brains to incorrectly extrapolate from.
Right, I'm bored of contrarists again.
john fernbach
off.
Look - there have been questions about global warming theory over the
years -- but NOT about the effects of CO2 concentrations on heat
absorption by the atmosphere. If you'd concentrate on some of the
legitimate debates and uncertainties, you might make a somewhat logical
case that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 until -- to my mind -- we
have really screwed up the planet and wrecked the lives of several
hundred million people who will be starved, drowned, flooded out etc.
by the effects of climate change. I
But if you're trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you're
either fibbing or you're delusional. You're contributing mental
pollution to the cybersphere.
Perhaps the most respectable nay-sayer on global climate issues these
days is Richard Lindzen of MIT, who predicts that any slight increase
in average global temperatures caused by greenhouse gas will simply
cause more cloud formation. To the extent that the right sorts of
clouds are formed, Lindzen argues, they will then reflect more sunlight
back into space, thus providing a negative feedback loop -- a
moderating effect -- on the temperature rise.
Over the years, other skeptics about global warming have speculated
that the oceans will absorb most of the increased CO2s, or that more
CO2 in the air will trigger more plant growth, which somehow will slow
down climate change. Recent research on climate change has discredited
most of these theories, I believe.
Some defenders of the fossil fuel biz and business as usual have argued
that hey, global climate change will be a GOOD THING -- which actually
is what Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrehenius also believed when he
researched the question of greenhouse warming and CO2 emissions in the
1890s. Coming from Sweden, Arrehenius looked forward to a warming
climate; he probably thought it would make his homeland a bit more
livable, and also he believed it would be good for agriculture.
The idea that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, though, is bullshit. Its
effect in blocking infrared radiation has been known since the
mid-1800s. As for the heat-trapping effects of CO2 in the atmosphere of
Venus, I think I saw references to this in some of my elementary school
science textbooks in the 1950s. That's one reason why when fantasies
about space travel began to blossom after the launching of Sputnik in
the 1957, the focus was on going to Moon or Mars or the asteroid belt
-- not Venus, because Venus was likely to be an oven.
Pull the other leg, Kdth - it's got bells on it.
john fernbach
title of this book and the first name of the author, and I've been
citing it incorrectly.
"Greenhouse," by Gale Christianson, is a history of scientific
discovery and debate over the science of global warming, aka global
climate change.
I recommend that the average reader skip roughly the first third of
this book, for Christianson screws around discussing the early
Industrial Revolution in England and the pollution associated with it,
with no real indication of exactly how this information ties in to his
bigger theme. For around 100 pages, he seems to roam over English
industrial history and scientific history with no real focus - it's
quite annoying.
Beginning around page 105 of "Greenhouse," however, Christianson begins
laying out the scientific achievements of Svante Arrhenius and
Arrhenius's breakthrough research on CO2 concentrations and global
temperatures.
The rest of the book is pretty good in tracking the research of
different scientists during the 20th century (Calendar, Keeling,
Revelle, Broecker, Hansen etc.) who contributed to the environmental
movement's sense of urgency about CO2 and climate -- as well as some
other researchers (e.g. Richard Lindzen) who have questioned the
theory.
Christianson is a "distinguished professor of arts and sciences" at
Indiana State University, according to the cover of my PB edition of
the book.
The book came out in 1999, so it's obviously missing the most recent
research and debate on global climate change.
-----------------------------
Sorcerer
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163956130.6...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|I should apologize to people in this group. I'd forgotten the exact
| title of this book and the first name of the author, and I've been
| citing it incorrectly.
|
| "Greenhouse," by Gale Christianson, is a history of scientific
| discovery and debate over the science of global warming, aka global
| climate change.
|
| I recommend that the average reader skip roughly the first third of
| this book,
I recommend they skip roughly the last 5/6 of the book, its drivel
about global warming.
Androcles
Gordon
<fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I should apologize to people in this group. I'd forgotten the exact
>title of this book and the first name of the author, and I've been
>citing it incorrectly.
>
>"Greenhouse," by Gale Christianson, is a history of scientific
>discovery and debate over the science of global warming, aka global
>climate change.
>
>I recommend that the average reader skip roughly the first third of
>this book, for Christianson screws around discussing the early
>Industrial Revolution in England and the pollution associated with it,
>with no real indication of exactly how this information ties in to his
>bigger theme. For around 100 pages, he seems to roam over English
>industrial history and scientific history with no real focus - it's
>quite annoying.
>
>Beginning around page 105 of "Greenhouse," however, Christianson begins
>laying out the scientific achievements of Svante Arrhenius and
>Arrhenius's breakthrough research on CO2 concentrations and global
>temperatures.
>
Does this book explain how the effects of the modern world's
industrial gases were retroactive to some 10 to 12 thousand years
ago, when this present interglacial warming period got under way?
Or, was this current interglacial warming period initiated by
cave people burning wood to keep warm? Gordon
CobblyWorlds
>
> Over the years, other skeptics about global warming have speculated
> that the oceans will absorb most of the increased CO2s, or that more
> CO2 in the air will trigger more plant growth, which somehow will slow
> down climate change. Recent research on climate change has discredited
> most of these theories, I believe.
>
You believe right...
1) Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis (clouds reducing warming)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/ , has been examined and
doesn't seem to be evidenced. e.g.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2.html (The most
comprehensible ref I have.)
Furthermore if it did work then how would one account for the changes
seen in ice-ages, i.e. why would it apply now and not then? AND clouds
can warm be trapping infra-red, not just cool by reflecting short-wave
back into space.
2) If the biosphere is going to 'save us' by absorbing all of our CO2
then why are atmospheric levels going up and oceans becoming more
acidic due to dissolved CO2?
Oceans may be taking CO2 up now, but if atmospheric levels drop they
can pump it out to 'seek' local chemical equilibrium between surface
water and the air above. So even if we massively reduced emissions the
oceans will help CO2 levels stay as they are by pumping CO2 back into
the atmosphere.
If the oceans were a person I'd think that they were giving us enough
rope to hang ourselves with. Soaking up most of what we emit. But being
ready to give it back to us if we decide we really are in a tight spot
and decide to reduce emissions, thus keeping us in that tight spot.
If a person eats a poison, are they poisoned after taking it but before
they feel the side effects?
Or does it only count as being poisoned once they have collapsed in
agony?
If a person thinks they may have accidentally taken a poison, but they
don't leave work and go to the hospital because they've decided it's
best to wait and see what happens (After all don't want to risk any
financial loss do we?). Then I reserve the right to call them a witless
knuckle-dragging atavistic aberation and have absolutely no sympathy at
all.
Dumb, really, really DUMB.
But can you really expect more from a bunch of tool using apes?
john fernbach
Just ignore the science and rely on magic. I'm impressed.
john fernbach
> Does this book explain how the effects of the modern world's
> industrial gases were retroactive to some 10 to 12 thousand years
> ago, when this present interglacial warming period got under way?
> Or, was this current interglacial warming period initiated by
> cave people burning wood to keep warm? Gordon
Gordon - The cave people don't seem to have been the cause. And to
understand the apparent causes of recurrent ice ages and periods of
warming that have occurred over the past several million years,
Christianson's book is actually not your best source.
I recommend Stephen Schneider -- I think the book I have in mind is
"Laboratory Earth," but it may be the one published before that.
Also Sir John Houghton's book "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing"
has a few paragraphs summarizing the received wisdom on the causation
of past periods of warming and cooling.
Basically what we're talking about are "Milankovitch" cycles that have
to do with the Earth's orbit and angle to the sun, more than past
fluctuations in CO2 levels.
I'm not any expert on the Milankovitch cycles, but Houghton identifies
"three regular variations [that] occur in the orbit of the Earth around
the sun."
One has to do with variations in the eccentricity of the oval orbit
that the Earth follows around the sun.
The second has to do with the so-called "wobble" in the Earth's axis,
with the angle of the axis vis a vis the line between the earth and the
sun varying between 21.6 degrees and 24.5 degrees.
The third has to do with the Earth's "perihelion," the time of the year
when the Earth is nearest to the sun. This undergoes a cycle of about
23,000 years, in which the part of the earth facing the sun at
perihelion moves through the different months of the year. When you
get the Arctic or Antarctic regions facing the sun at perihelion, it
has a different effect on climate -- temperatures, ice formation at the
poles, polar melting etc. -- than when the equator is facing the sun at
perihelion.
All three of the Milankovitch factors affect how much solar energy the
Arctic regions receive in the winter, I believe. Hence they influence
Arctic ice formation and the coming and going of ice ages.
Schneider, who is a strong supporter of the theory that greenhouse gas
emissions are now promoting global climate change, readily admits that
in the past, Milankovitch cycles caused very significant climate
changes -- apparently without CO2 being a causal agent.
Schneider also is explicit in predicting that with or without CO2
buildup, the Milankovitch cycles will continue operating. Absent some
major effect on global warming due to greenhouse gas buildup,
therefore, it looks like the Earth eventually will head into another
ice age due to one or more of the Milankovitch factors.
Variations in the intensity of solar radiation due to the dimming and
brightening of the sun, for whatever reason, also may have influenced
global climate in the past, Christianson acknowledges in his book.
However, global climate is what you could call "overdetermined." There
are several different factors operating on it, and a change in any of
these factors can make a difference in how warm or how cool the average
global temperature is. Ditto how warm or cool the temperature is at
the poles.
One of these factors -- not the only one -- but one very significant
factor is the effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases. Together,
they make the upper atmosphere resistant to the radiation of infrared
heat waves back into space, but at the same time they're transparent to
visible radiation. Therefore, they have the effect of allowing more
solar energy to reach the surface of the planet than radiates outward,
and the net effect is to cause the temperature to rise.
Obviously CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were not a big
factor 12,000 years ago, because there wasn't any significant burning
of fossil fuels at that time.
But over the past 100 - 200 years, human civilization has extracted
huge volumes of coal, oil and natural gas from the earth, and we've
burned these fuels in quantity, releasing back into the atmosphere
large amounts of CO2 that had previously been out of circulation since
the era of the great dinosaurs, 65 million years ago or more.
So TODAY -- not 12,000 years ago -- but TODAY, with all of that
long-buried carbon getting reinjected into the atmosphere, rising
greenhouse gas emissions are a significant climate factor. Obviously,
something else -- the recurrence of one of the major Milankovitch
factors, for example -- could have a big effect on the climate in the
future.
john fernbach
novel, I wonder?
I seem to remember a great sci fi novel with "cobbly worlds" in it, but
I can't recall the author or the title right now.
On "tool using apes" -- well, so we are, all of us. At least I am -
don't know if you're from Arcturus, or an angel in disguise. But most
of us on both sides of this debate, or all "n" sides, are big naked
apes with opposable thumbs and -- of course -- really big mouths. And
we vocalize and beat our chests, I suppose, which maybe is what this
debate is partly about.
So far, we've were clever enough in our tool use to find ways to mine
and burn all of that long-buried carbon. And also we've been clever
enough to invent weather balloons and satellite sensors and high-speed
computers to model the effects of this.
Let's hope we're smart enough now to figure out what we've done, and
correct what needs correcting. :-)
Gordon
<cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>Gordon wrote:
>
>> Does this book explain how the effects of the modern world's
>> industrial gases were retroactive to some 10 to 12 thousand years
>> ago, when this present interglacial warming period got under way?
>> Or, was this current interglacial warming period initiated by
>> cave people burning wood to keep warm?
>
>Wow, you really are dumber than fuck.
>
>I am almost, but not quite, speechless.
>
>I just feel this urge to comment on stupidity today.
>
>http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
Konstantin, if you haven't yet become completely speechless,
please tell us what triggered and sustained the interglacial
warming period that started some 10 to 12 thousand years ago.
Please feel free to use obscene expletives if you can't express
your thoughts adequately without them. I understand that some
people can't, and I am very tolerant toward them. Gordon
Sorcerer
| Sorcerer --- what a great screen name for you!
|
| Just ignore the science and rely on magic. I'm impressed.
Facts to ignore:
1) The Northern ice cap melted 11,500 yars ago. Evidence of
glaciation can be found as far south as Moraine State Park,
Pennsylvania.
2) There was a world wide flood 11,500 years ago, recorded from
grandfather to grandson in all civilisations before written recorded
history of man. There is a grain of truth in the fictional children's story
of a man building a farm on a boat to save all the animals. The
time-line is incorrect, the facts distorted.
3) The Earth's perihelion advances 11.6 arc seconds per year.
4) The Sahara desert was a lush green place 11,500 years ago,
a Garden of Eden.
5) We still have 14,000 years to go before the next ice age, and
as Arthur C. Clarke called it, our planet "Ocean" is still warming.
Listen to the magic of man causing global warming, you are impressed.
I'm not. The ability of man to fool himself knows no bounds, Nature
will not be dictated to. The green shits are hugging trees and making
money, the popular press is reporting it and making money, the politicians
are kissing babies and making money. China has over 5,000,000,000, India
has 1,000,000,000, the West has but a fraction of that.
You are not going to stop the East from going forth and multiplying,
the Pope likes it too much.
Man's problem isn't global warming, he can do nothing about that. It is
his loins. Contraception is the answer, not hugging trees. In the meantime
he'll exploit and steal your wheat, we've always had war. Yahoo!
I ignore neither science nor history, john fernbach. I'm a realist.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Konstantin Tsiolkovsky" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:ZI38h.521$nW7...@newsfe02.lga...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > I'm a realist.
|
| You're just a run of the mill usenet crackpot.
|
| http://cosmic.lifeform.org
You are just a snipping cunt.
Fuck off.
Gordon
<fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gordon wrote:
>
>> Does this book explain how the effects of the modern world's
>> industrial gases were retroactive to some 10 to 12 thousand years
>> ago, when this present interglacial warming period got under way?
>> Or, was this current interglacial warming period initiated by
>> cave people burning wood to keep warm? Gordon
>
>Gordon - The cave people don't seem to have been the cause. And to
>understand the apparent causes of recurrent ice ages and periods of
>warming that have occurred over the past several million years,
>Christianson's book is actually not your best source.
>
I was being facetious. I should have put a smiley face at the end
of my post. :-)
On a serious level...I think there is a lot more to the
glaciation/interglaciation cycles than we have figured out, yet.
And, I remain a bit less than firmly convinced that the
industrial greenhouse gases are likely to make much difference in
the whole scheme of things. Gordon
>
>I recommend Stephen Schneider -- I think the book I have in mind is
>"Laboratory Earth," but it may be the one published before that.
>
>Also Sir John Houghton's book "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing"
>has a few paragraphs summarizing the received wisdom on the causation
>of past periods of warming and cooling.
>
>Basically what we're talking about are "Milankovitch" cycles that have
>to do with the Earth's orbit and angle to the sun, more than past
>fluctuations in CO2 levels.
>
I've studied various writings on the Milankovitch cycles and
still think there must be more factors involved than these slow,
smooth transitions of earth's orbital state can explain. The
Milankovitch cycles don't explain why the earth drops back into a
glaciation period slowly but rather steadily over a period of
maybe 80,000 years, then pops back into an interglaciation warm
period in a span of 10 to 12 thousand years. There has to be
another major cause involved here.
Something like cyclical solar output variations, or perhaps
cosmic dust that the solar system passes into and out of in a
cyclical pattern, could explain the sudden warm up followed by a
slow cool down.
Perhaps we're out of the cosmic dust, in the clear, now, and the
solar energy is coming through undiminished, but when we pass
back into the galactic region where cosmic dust is more abundant
solar energy reaching the earth might be attenuated enough to
cause a slow fall back into the next period of glaciation. Gordon
>
>I'm not any expert on the Milankovitch cycles, but Houghton identifies
>"three regular variations [that] occur in the orbit of the Earth around
>the sun."
>
>One has to do with variations in the eccentricity of the oval orbit
>that the Earth follows around the sun.
>
>The second has to do with the so-called "wobble" in the Earth's axis,
>with the angle of the axis vis a vis the line between the earth and the
>sun varying between 21.6 degrees and 24.5 degrees.
>
>The third has to do with the Earth's "perihelion," the time of the year
>when the Earth is nearest to the sun. This undergoes a cycle of about
>23,000 years, in which the part of the earth facing the sun at
>perihelion moves through the different months of the year. When you
>get the Arctic or Antarctic regions facing the sun at perihelion, it
>has a different effect on climate -- temperatures, ice formation at the
>poles, polar melting etc. -- than when the equator is facing the sun at
>perihelion.
>
>All three of the Milankovitch factors affect how much solar energy the
>Arctic regions receive in the winter, I believe. Hence they influence
>Arctic ice formation and the coming and going of ice ages.
>
This all seems rational, but none of these variations seem to
account for the comparatively rapid warm-up and slow cool down of
the earth's glaciation cycles. There surely must be another, or
some other factors involved. Gordon
>
>Schneider, who is a strong supporter of the theory that greenhouse gas
>emissions are now promoting global climate change, readily admits that
>in the past, Milankovitch cycles caused very significant climate
>changes -- apparently without CO2 being a causal agent.
>
>Schneider also is explicit in predicting that with or without CO2
>buildup, the Milankovitch cycles will continue operating. Absent some
>major effect on global warming due to greenhouse gas buildup,
>therefore, it looks like the Earth eventually will head into another
>ice age due to one or more of the Milankovitch factors.
>
Periods of intense volcanic activity in the geologic past
probably released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
has been released by the current industrial age, but these don't
seem to have perturbed the glaciation cycles appreciably. Gordon
>
>Variations in the intensity of solar radiation due to the dimming and
>brightening of the sun, for whatever reason, also may have influenced
>global climate in the past, Christianson acknowledges in his book.
>
Yes, I would think this could be one of the major causes. Gordon
>
>However, global climate is what you could call "overdetermined." There
>are several different factors operating on it, and a change in any of
>these factors can make a difference in how warm or how cool the average
>global temperature is. Ditto how warm or cool the temperature is at
>the poles.
>
True, the whole process is very complex, and I doubt we will ever
get it all figured out. Still the way the glaciation cycles occur
suggests that we are overlooking something very significant to
the whole process. Gordon
>
>One of these factors -- not the only one -- but one very significant
>factor is the effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases. Together,
>they make the upper atmosphere resistant to the radiation of infrared
>heat waves back into space, but at the same time they're transparent to
>visible radiation. Therefore, they have the effect of allowing more
>solar energy to reach the surface of the planet than radiates outward,
>and the net effect is to cause the temperature to rise.
>
>Obviously CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were not a big
>factor 12,000 years ago, because there wasn't any significant burning
>of fossil fuels at that time.
>
But, there were periods of intense vulcanism, and the volcanic
gases didn't seem to perturb the glaciation cycles. Gordon
>
>But over the past 100 - 200 years, human civilization has extracted
>huge volumes of coal, oil and natural gas from the earth, and we've
>burned these fuels in quantity, releasing back into the atmosphere
>large amounts of CO2 that had previously been out of circulation since
>the era of the great dinosaurs, 65 million years ago or more.
>
>So TODAY -- not 12,000 years ago -- but TODAY, with all of that
>long-buried carbon getting reinjected into the atmosphere, rising
>greenhouse gas emissions are a significant climate factor. Obviously,
>something else -- the recurrence of one of the major Milankovitch
>factors, for example -- could have a big effect on the climate in the
>future.
>
One big methane belch from the deep ocean methane hydrates could
spew a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, but this
doesn't seem to have caused any major changes in the glaciation
cycles of the past. Gordon
Don't misunderstand me...I'm not saying that greenhouse gases are
not cause for our concern. I'm just saying that there seems to be
some other factors involved that may be MUCH more significant
than greenhouse gases. We should be addressing these potential
problems and trying to determine what, if anything, can be done
about them, or done to counteract them.
John, thanks for your insights. I remain skeptical, but I do
appreciate sane, rational dialog on the subject. Gordon
john fernbach
For an eye-opening and defty written account of current debates over
the science of global climate change, readers of this web site may want
to read "THE CHANGE IN THE WEATHER," by New York Times science reporter
William K. Stevens.
Like Gale Christanson's "GREENHOUSE," the Stevens book provides a
capsule history of how scientific ideas about climate and greenhouse
gas levels have evolved since the 1900s.
Also like Gale Christianson's book, Stevens in THE CHANGE IN THE
WEATHER covers the ideas of major supporters of global warming theory,
as well as the ideas of some important "contrarians" who dispute or
downplay the findings of the more mainstream group, with the contrarian
group including Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels.
One interest passage in Stevens that is not prominently featured in
Christianson, however, is an account of how Benjamin Santer and Tom
Wigley, in the 1990s, came to argue that a "greenhouse footprint" was
detectable in the available climate data, even though the evidence for
global climate change based on temperature increases alone is still too
small to be definitely distinguished from background noise.
Rather than trying to reason whether the average global temperature had
risen enough to provide a convincing signal of climate change, Santer
in the 1990s looked for other evidence that the climate around the
world was changing in ways that the computer simulation models
predicted.
In 1995, Santer was the lead author on Chapter 8 of the IPCC's report
of that year -- the chapter dealing with whether an identifiable signal
of anthropogenic climate change had been detected.
His group's conclusions in Chapter 8 were that yes, the "footprint" of
global warming was definitive enough to say that yes, evidence for
human-generated climate change had been detected -- a conclusion that
touched off a firestorm of criticism on the part of people on the other
side.
Like Christanson's "Greenhouse," William Stevens' "The Change in the
Weather" was copyrighted in 1999, so it lacks any account of the global
climate research done in the early 21st century. However, Stevens'
account of Santer's work on the global warming "footprint" issue, and
the attacks made on Santer by GW contrarians, provides a great deal of
information that seems to be lacking in the Christianson book.
Orator
>
> Another reason Orator is stupid (not for not knowing, but for thinking
> they can prove professional scientists wrong, without actually
> understanding the theoretical background).
Listen CollyWobbles, when the "professionals" (the AGW Muftis) make
claims like different latitudes of Earth rotates at different RPM, then
your "professionals" aren't worth spitting on!
news.cogeco.ca
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote
> Listen CollyWobbles, when the "professionals" (the AGW Muftis) make
> claims like different latitudes of Earth rotates at different RPM, then
> your "professionals" aren't worth spitting on!
The atmosphere does rotate at different RPM depending on latitude, you
fucking ignorant Shit Licker.
news.cogeco.ca
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> Facts to ignore:
> 1) The Northern ice cap melted 11,500 yars ago. Evidence of
> glaciation can be found as far south as Moraine State Park,
> Pennsylvania.
You might ignore them, but then you appear very ignorant. We on the other
hand would rather not live during an ice age where everything down to the
mid latitudes is completely covered in ice. Neither can a major percentage
of the worlds population live in a world that is 5'C warmer than today. Not
only would primary water sourced simply melt and evaporate, but large areas
of what are now prime crop land would vanish as it is vanishing in the U.S.
midwest today.
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> 2) There was a world wide flood 11,500 years ago, recorded from
> grandfather to grandson in all civilisations before written recorded
> history of man.
Really? Tell us more about this flood you pathetic prick, we need a good
laugh.
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> 3) The Earth's perihelion advances 11.6 arc seconds per year.
Ya and your cock is only 2 inches long.
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> 4) The Sahara desert was a lush green place 11,500 years ago,
> a Garden of Eden.
The Garden of Eden is in Iraq - Bushie can't seem to manage that desert
country. Then he can't seem to manage much of anything.
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> 5) We still have 14,000 years to go before the next ice age, and
> as Arthur C. Clarke called it, our planet "Ocean" is still warming.
Yup, the planet is warming as a result of enhanced CO2. The science has
long been settled on that fact you shit licking moron.
> The ability of man to fool himself knows no bounds
You are ample proof of that.
Now go fuck off and die.
Flying V
East of Eden, Czar, is Yemen.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> world was changing in ways that the computer simulation models
"Man it's hot today. It's never been this hot. IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!!!
IT'S CO2 CAUSIN' IT!!!"
"We should shut down our economy and live like the Aimish people."
"Everybody will just have to ride a bicycle to work"
"Everyone will have to make sacrifices. Except for those at the top of
the intellectual ladder at the public educational institutions. They'll
probably get a raise for their brilliance of leading us to the
conclusion that we should give up our standard of living and quit all
that damn industrialization. I guess they've even done studies of
african nations. So that they can tell us how we too can live on 50
dollars a year mean income. What would we do without the intellectual
creed spending public money to derive such brilliance."
Global warming is not caused by CO2. If there is drastic changes in
temperature, to bleed our economies dry by taxation and inhibition of
economic development in the useless reduction of CO2, would make it
impossible to cope with the real situation confronting us.
There is no scientific evidence showing CO2 can retain heat or block
radiation in conditions of the atmosphere. Those proponents of this
theory pushing for legal restriction on the production of CO2 will be
held accountable for their actions.
Grenhouse gas theory is a bogus science. It is superstition made up by
theoretical scientists. CO2Phobia is a similar disease to rabies.
KD
The Ghost In The Machine
<ne98h.2797$J32....@read1.cgocable.net>:
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
>> Facts to ignore:
>> 1) The Northern ice cap melted 11,500 yars ago. Evidence of
>> glaciation can be found as far south as Moraine State Park,
>> Pennsylvania.
>
> You might ignore them, but then you appear very ignorant. We on the other
> hand would rather not live during an ice age where everything down to the
> mid latitudes is completely covered in ice. Neither can a major percentage
> of the worlds population live in a world that is 5'C warmer than today. Not
> only would primary water sourced simply melt and evaporate, but large areas
> of what are now prime crop land would vanish as it is vanishing in the U.S.
> midwest today.
"Primary water source"? All water comes from the sea. More precisely,
all fresh water comes from evaporated sea water that precipitates.
I'll admit I'm not at all sure how the climate will change
as the globe warms, though. If we're real lucky the water
will stay in the air and it'll get nice and steamy.
If we're less lucky storms will increase and we'll get lots
more fresh water, probably in the wrong places at the wrong
time (a la Katrina and New Orleans). It's certain climate
zones will shift around, and probably not to our benefit.
>
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
>> 2) There was a world wide flood 11,500 years ago, recorded from
>> grandfather to grandson in all civilisations before written recorded
>> history of man.
>
> Really? Tell us more about this flood you pathetic prick, we need a good
> laugh.
I'll admit to some curiosity as to where the 11.5 millennia
figure came from. Standard YEC timetable is about 6000 years.
>
>
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
>> 3) The Earth's perihelion advances 11.6 arc seconds per year.
>
> Ya and your cock is only 2 inches long.
I'm not sure about the precise precession figure but the
cycles theorized by Milutin Milanković are reasonably
well known, and rather complicated.
Wiki suggests a 22000 year cycle in the equinoxes, which
is consistent with a 58.9 arc second advance per year,
on average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
>> 4) The Sahara desert was a lush green place 11,500 years ago,
>> a Garden of Eden.
>
> The Garden of Eden is in Iraq - Bushie can't seem to manage that desert
> country. Then he can't seem to manage much of anything.
The Garden of Eden might have been in Mesopotamia.
Iraq now encompasses parts thereof. I don't remember
when the lines got all redrawn.
>
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
>> 5) We still have 14,000 years to go before the next ice age, and
>> as Arthur C. Clarke called it, our planet "Ocean" is still warming.
>
> Yup, the planet is warming as a result of enhanced CO2. The science has
> long been settled on that fact you shit licking moron.
>
The question is how much and what can humanity do about it. Not the
prettiest of pictures, especially since Bush & Co. decided that the free
market is somehow a better solution than the Kyoto Protocol. (It might
be, but we'd have to engineer a carbon tax.)
>
>
>> The ability of man to fool himself knows no bounds
>
> You are ample proof of that.
>
> Now go fuck off and die.
>
Oh, be nice to poor Androcles. He can't help it. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
john fernbach
Gordon wrote:
Sorry to delete so much of this, but I'm in a hurry at the moment.
Will try to reply to other things you wrote later . well, maybe. :-)\
>
> Don't misunderstand me...I'm not saying that greenhouse gases are
> not cause for our concern. I'm just saying that there seems to be
> some other factors involved that may be MUCH more significant
> than greenhouse gases. We should be addressing these potential
> problems and trying to determine what, if anything, can be done
> about them, or done to counteract them.
>
> John, thanks for your insights. I remain skeptical, but I do
> appreciate sane, rational dialog on the subject. Gordon
Gordon - gosh. Maybe we have a mutual admiration society going. For
now, anyway.
I like your point about "just saying there seems to be some other
factors involved ..."
I'm not a scientist, but I've tried to follow this stuff for several
decades now, and my sense is that very few of the scientists think
they've discovered ALL of the factors that are at work affecting the
climate. The science on this is relatively new, the computer models
were quite crude to begin with and have been improving, but I'm not
sure the best climate scientists are really satisfied with them yet.
And as far as I can tell, the respected scientists on all sides of this
debate agree that climate is "over-determined" -- or at least, it's
shaped shaped by several different factors that affect how much of the
sun's energy is retained by the earth's surface and lower atmosphere,
thus warming (or not warming) the climate.
What the scientists who support the IPCC findings do agree on, though,
is that we have reason to be concerned about greenhouse gases and their
concentration in the atmosphere.
Hold that thought, OK? I mean, I'm a green, and I'm obviously somewhat
biased on this subject, if only because my best professors were talking
about this stuff 30, 35 years ago and I'm still pretty much sold on the
idea that they were right.
But now that the IPCC panels and all kinds of independent researchers
publishing in SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and NATURE are confirming
what my profs said, I think there's good evidence that my profs were
right. And that damn it, we do need to look to controlling global CO2
emissions, or face a really risky future.
But does this mean that the world isn't going to face another ice age
some time in the mid to distant future, due to Milankovitch cycles? Or
due to sunspots or dust clouds or whatever?
I haven't seen any reputable scientist on the Green side of this debate
who's denying that this is possible, or maybe even likely.
I think the implication of Stephen Schneider's work is that yes, at
some time we WILL face the risk of sharply colder temperatures.
In that case - maybe we'll want to start burning fossil fuels like
crazy again, to keep the damned glaciers at bay. And probably we want
to keep the technology around to do that if we need to - in fact, maybe
we need to start creating some new technologies to pump out large
volumes of CO2 into the air - IF AND WHEN we need it.
What the IPCC and the environmental scientists and meteorologists who
are concerned about climate change are saying, though, is that we don't
need or want more greenhouse gases in the air NOW, or over the next
several centuries.
I don't know if this devilishly clever display of intellectual
flexibility on my part is going to win you over ... heh, heh, heh.
But seriously, I think it's important to distinguish between a concern
over global climate change that's more or less based on scientific
reasoning and one that's rooted in a "spiritual" or emotional aversion
to industrial civilization on the part of radical Greens.
I share some of the romantic green critique of civilization, dispute
other parts -- but I think it's important to understand that the
leading scientists working on climate change, and using weather
satellites and high-speed computers to do so, aren't simply a group of
"back to nature" romantics.
To the extent that Global Climate Change is a real issue, I think --
and I'm convinced that it is -- it's going to call on all the economic,
technological and political ingenuity that human beings can muster for
us to solve the sucker satisfactorily.
And obviously, meeting the challenge of curbing destructive global
warming over the next 3 centuries shouldn't mean depriving ourselves of
the scientific and technical tools we may need to grapple with global
cooling in another 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 years.
john fernbach
environmentalist, with democratic socialist principles, but you're the
one who sounds like a "vulgar marxist" here.
You're refusing to engage with the scientific research, but making a
"class based" or at least an anti-intellectual, "populist" argument
that everyone should just ignore the science because the scientists are
getting paid more than the average person.
Those evil scientists are "elitists," and supposedly they'll be calling
on us to make sacrifices that they won't have to make ... well,
probably, anyway. And so therefore what they're saying must be wrong.
As a democratic socialist, I think I agree with you that the average
MIT graduate probably gets paid too much, and the average fast food
worker or for that matter the average factory worker -- I dunno about
the Detroit autoworkers, but certainly the average factory worker gets
paid too little.
But we don't reject the work of the scientists and engineers who build
Humvees or nuclear submarines for the military on the basis that the
damned scientists and engineers get paid too much.
We don't refuse to fly in airplanes because they were designed by
engineers making big bucks, and we don't reject our bridges when
they're designed by engineers making big bucks.
And much as we may hate the drug companies for overcharging us, and
occasionally sticking us with a bad product that kills people, we
generally don't reject the expertise of drug company researchers or
medical researchers on the grounds that these people are unequally
rewarded, and live in the high end suburbs rather than the slums.
To accept the science and technology put forward by the one group of
"elitist" experts, the ones who are working for profit-making
industries, and to reject the scientific findings of other "elitist"
experts, because they're workign for the government or a big university
or even an environmental group, is being completely inconsistent.
It's just cherry-picking the kind of science you choose to listen to.
Oh, these guys have designed a new Chevy pickup truck I like, or a
great new big screen TV I want, or a drug that can cure my kid's
illness -- so hey, I believe THESE guys.
But these other guys over there -- who may have gone to the same
graduate schools as the other guys, and gotten teh same kinds of grades
-- THESE guys over here are telling me something that I don't like to
hear. Or at least they're telling me something that the big oil
companies and maybe Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party tell me I
SHOULDN'T like.
And so I accept what the one group of egghead elitists are saying, and
I reject what the other group of egghead elitists are saying -- based
on what? Based on what I think of as my own self-interest, or maybe
based on what the oil companies and the coal companies and the
politicians say is their self-interest.
In other words, I'm accepting or rejecting what scientists are saying,
based on economic bias.
Is this a good way to make decisions about what you do and don't
believe? Do you only believe the weather man when he predicts sunny
skies tomorrow for your hunting trip or your softball game or your
golfing game?
No - that's just cherry picking the evidence, based on emotion and
wish-fufifllment. You don't want to plan your baseball games or your
hunting trips or your golf games that way. And you sure don't want
your government to be doing this kind of cherry picking the evidence
when it makes decisions about your future.
Sorcerer
|
| Gordon wrote:
|
| Sorry to delete so much of this, but I'm in a hurry at the moment.
So am I.
Androcles
Sorcerer
|
| For an eye-opening and defty written account of current debates over
| the science of global climate change, readers of this web site may want
| to
CobblyWorlds
> CobblyWorlds -- love the screen name. Is this from a Gordon Dickson
> novel, I wonder?
> I seem to remember a great sci fi novel with "cobbly worlds" in it, but
> I can't recall the author or the title right now.
>
Hello John,
Thanks for asking - self indulgence time. :o)
Cobblyworlds: Clifford Simak's City. A great modernist fantasy spanning
the demise of the city as a result of nuclear power giving us
'electricity too cheap to meter', the decline of humans. And the rise
of the dogs under the stewardship of Jenkin's the Webster's ancient
robot. The Cobblyworlds are Earth's in paralel dimensions to where
Jenkins sends the last of the humans, and eventually the dogs.
In view of the crash of the modernist dream that is climate change, and
our need for parallel Earth's to keep up with our demands.
It seemed apt to a jaded free-market conservative former sceptic like
me. ;)
>
> On "tool using apes" -- well, so we are, all of us. At least I am -
> don't know if you're from Arcturus, or an angel in disguise. But most
> of us on both sides of this debate, or all "n" sides, are big naked
> apes with opposable thumbs and -- of course -- really big mouths. And
> we vocalize and beat our chests, I suppose, which maybe is what this
> debate is partly about.
>
Whilst on the individual level we may be capable of intelligent action.
Our day to day unthinking actions make it apparent that we remain but
animals. On the wheel of 'breed and consume, breed and consume, breed
and consume" Locked into eveolved behaviours until external factors
rein us in.
Climate change is a symptom of our large scale behaviours. I don't see
the actions of an intelligent species in what we're doing.
Humanity may have the potential for greatness. But when one looks at
the way our largescale behaviour reflects how animal we still are. I
think it remains potential only, at the moment. My attitude, we just
need a few thousand generations to decide the matter. At present we're
apes aspiring to godhood.
Anyway, I tend to only pop in here, and back to my old haunts, for
occasional entertainment. I remain interested in the science, but I am
getting to the point where I am happy to let the ongoing physical
process address the concerns of the contrarists.
I'm glad that I ditched my scepticism when I did, frankly the
contrarists (for that is what they are) are simply an amateurish
ill-informed embarassment. A close call with idiocy there. ;)
john fernbach
book.
Regarding some of what you write about humans as naked apes - you say
we're not an intelligent species. And I'm not totally saying you're
wrong. I often feel just that way myself.
But the question is - compared to what?
I don't know if you grew up like me, with a half-skeptical, half
theological view of the world.
But I think much of our fury and frustration at our own misbehavior
comes from an implicitly theological view of the universe, or maybe the
word I'm thinking of is "metaphysical" -- a metaphysical and
idealistic view of what human beings "SHOULD' be like.
By that starndard -- from the standard of some imagined Platonic
idealism, some hypothetical scientific rationality, from the standpoint
of highly idealistic Western love poetry, or the Judaeo-Christian
viewpoint that that human beings are supposedly creatures of God, and
"a little lower than the angels" - we come woefully, woefully short.
Compared to what we like to image about the angels, or even what we
like to imagine about the intellectual lives of respectable scientiss,
most of us are morons, criminals, lunatics and worse.
But if you think of us as big, dangerous, incredibly adaptable monkeys
with thumbs and big brains -- isn't it astounding what we have
accomplished, both for good and for evil?
How many other species on Earth can boast of having created a multitude
of warring religions, a vast array of musical and liteary masterpieces,
a multitude of brutal torture instruments, and the Salk polio vaccine
and the atom bomb?
Could the whales, could the wolves, could the great apes or the
dolphins have harnessed fossil fuels the way we have done, and created
the internal combustion engine, and begun to change the climate of the
world?
I don't think so. Strip away doubts and fears about our moral
character, which is often horrifying, and our capacity for deceit and
self-deceit, which is astounding, and you see a truly amazing animal
species. Almost as sexually obsessive as the rabbit, smarter and more
agile than the monkeys and great apes, far deadlier than the Siberian
tiger, and trickier by far than the wily coyote.
That's why I have some hopes that we'll come to see our way past the
global climate change situation - not out of our moral virtues, god
knows, but out of our incredible creativity and our ruthless drive for
personal and species survival.
Anyway - thanks for sharing on the climate issue. And thanks again for
helping me remember Clifford Simak.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> No - that's just cherry picking the evidence, based on emotion and
> wish-fufifllment. You don't want to plan your baseball games or your
> hunting trips or your golf games that way. And you sure don't want
> your government to be doing this kind of cherry picking the evidence
> when it makes decisions about your future.
You are dead wrong. If you analyze CO2 for it's particular properties,
you find that in any experiment in which it is not contained at
constant volume in glass, there is absolutely no difference in the
final temperature that is reached with any concentration of CO2. The
claim is that many infrared frequencies pass through O2 and N2 gas
without being absorbed but are absorbed by CO2. This is false. The
experiment in the glass does not demonstrate absorption of CO2. It
demonstrates a different rate of heat loss through the glass because of
common strong bands of radiation of the glass and O2 and N2.
I am not cherry picking data. The scientists you refer to do not tell
you the facts. That there is absolutely no difference in final
temperature in experiments with CO2. This proves that there is no
property of CO2 that is claimed.
I resent your accusation that it is me cherry picking data. I know for
a damn fact that grenhouse theory is criminal fraud. The burden of
proof is upon this theory for it to impose it's controls upon our
society. It is pure insanity what passes for science in this theory and
what laymen presume to be rational people that present this fraud. I am
only demanding a valid scientific analyses. The burden of proof is upon
the proponents of this theory.
Kent Deatherage
Eric Swanson
Come on, Ore_ate_er, could it be that you are confused by the Coriolis Effect?
Do give us a reference, oh it one.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
john fernbach
Kent - You are the first person in the world I have ever heard of
making this particular claim.
And since I'm not a professional scientist, I can't rule out the almost
invisibly tiny possibility that you could be right, while practically
the entire scientific community is wrong. But I really doubt it. I
think you're inhabiting an alternative universe, at least in your own
mind.
By the way, I've repeatedly pointed out something that's obvious to
many economists -- which is that simply wasting vast amounts of money
on large government projects, useful or useless, is not necessarily bad
for economic prosperity. Nor is what many people would call the
totally wasteful expenditure of vast sums of money on various luxury
goods, frivolities and fashionable trends in the private market.
Whatever else it is, capitalism is a fabulously productive system
compared to all previous economic systems that have preceded it in
history. It repeatedly encounters business slumps and downturns NOT
only because of its running into resource shortages, but rather more
frequently because of "surplus production" -- because it has more than
enough factory capacity and other economic capacity to provide what the
market wants.
Accordingly, large expenditures on seemingly frivolous luxury goods and
on government programs -- usually military programs -- has been
essential to periods of capitalist prosperity for several centuries
now. Often enough, the creation of some new "need" that has never
existed before, and was never particularly missed, has proved to be
critical in generating economic gooms in Western capitalist markets.
The boom in sugar, silk and tea exports in 18th century England, the
building of a vast railway network and a vast fleet of steam-powered,
iron-clad, ocean going ships in England in the 19th century, and the
burgeoning of the American automobile industry in the 20th century
(with its vast requirements for iron and steel, chemicals, rubber,
petroleum supplies, and paved roads on which cars can operate) have
been among the major generators of wealth for the capitalist world.
In the late 20th century, of course, the creation of an entirely new
consumer electronics industry, coupled with the invention of the PC and
the emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web on which PC users
could operate, proved really important in generating a new burst of
economic growth in the United States, even as US manufacturing
industries such as steel production, auto production and chemical
production were fleeing overseas or shutting down capacity.
If we want to see continued prosperity in the United States over the
next century, therefore, we're going to need to see NEW INDUSTRIES and
new OUTLETS FOR INVESTMENT CAPITAL, new sources of demand for what
basic American industries can produce. And clearly, a national
initiative to build a climate-friendly, energy efficient economy could
provide the new industries, new investment outlets and new sources of
demand that are required.
The argument that building a new energy-efficient, renewably powered
energy economy would be too costly, therefore, is total nonsense.
This is exactly the opposite of what's really at stake.
What would be really, really dangerous to the future of American
capitalism would be the invention of some new energy technology that
would be too CHEAP - one that would make only a minimal demand on the
country's supplies of capital, labor and natural resources, so that the
country could easily install the new technology and still leave
businessmen with shrinking markets and still leave many working people
unemployed.
Orator
> In article <NG78h.68671$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>
>>CobblyWorlds wrote:
>>
>>>Another reason Orator is stupid (not for not knowing, but for thinking
>>>they can prove professional scientists wrong, without actually
>>>understanding the theoretical background).
>>
>>Listen CollyWobbles, when the "professionals" (the AGW Muftis) make
>>claims like different latitudes of Earth rotates at different RPM, then
>>your "professionals" aren't worth spitting on!
>
>
> Come on, Ore_ate_er, could it be that you are confused by the Coriolis Effect?
> Do give us a reference, oh it one.
>
What part of "RPM" didn't you understand? It stand for "Revolutions Per
Minute". I kid you not, that was actually claimed as "factual" by an AGW
Mufti!!
Orator's Oozing Facial Syphillis Sores
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gccalc.shtml
Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator
At latitude 20 degrees the line around the planet staying on 20 degrees
the whole way is 23346 standard miles, 37566 km.
At latitude 30 degrees the line around the planet staying on 30 degrees
the whole way is 21492 standard miles, 34596 km.
At latitude 40 degrees the line around the planet staying on 40
degrees the whole way is 19008 standard miles, 30582 km.
At latitude 60 degrees the line around the planet staying on 60
degrees the whole way is 12384 standard miles, 19926 km.
At latitude 75 degrees the line around the planet staying on 75
degrees the whole way is 6408 standard miles, 10296 km.
At latitude 89.9 degrees the line around the planet staying on 89.9
degrees the whole way is 36 standard miles, 72 km.
The question put to you, Oralator, and the whole world is watching to
see how poorly the average Australian cocksucker with oozing facial
syphillis sores is educated, is how many miles does each of these move
relative to their starting place in one hour if the globe rotates one
full turn in 24 hours?
Eric Swanson
Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
What part of "Do give us a reference" doesn't IT understand? Troll, let me
remind it again that this is a science group and posting claims such as it did
above must be supported by evidence. Else, it's only mindless troll babble.
CobblyWorlds
ready for another reading next year.
My Northern British humour mixed with deeply ingrained spite and
contempt for wilful idiocy (most especially when I am being stupid) may
have mislead you. I actually think we're amazing animals. However the
more I learn the more similar to other animals I see us as being. We're
good but we're not that good. And we're certainly not good enough to do
anything about this.
But I still reserve the right to take the mick. ;o)
For all of the talk of the media types and the politicians this really
is not getting through. People who know me know about my change of mind
on this (my boss was sceptical too, I in turn persuaded him on the
science). When things are in the press people ask my opinion. Yet their
behaviour doesn't change. Here in the UK the message has got out that
this is real and is a threat. But even with that growing public
awareness and acceptance, even with people who say to me how it worries
them for their children. People are happy for 'something to be done',
but they don't want to compromise their standard of living for it to be
done.
I think it'll 'be alright', not because we'll do anything about it. But
because we can be almost certain that our actions(in the sense of
climate change) won't kill the planet. And as events like the KT
extinction show. Life is extremely resilient. And even in the extreme
where a world of wonder is extinguished, all it takes is time for
evolution to a new unique world of equal wonder.
None of that however excuses the fact that messing around with our
climate as we are is utterly mindless. It's one of those dumb-ass
moments that can completely eclipse any moments of brilliance for it's
sheer monumental stupidity.
Regards
CobblyWorlds
john fernbach
better go attend to the crunch.
When I get pessimistic about the seemingly impervious folly of other
human beings - or my own, for that matter -- I try to think about
Antonio Gramsci's slogan concerning "pessimism of the intellect,
optimism of the will." Whatever happens on this issue, whether it's
good or horrible, I hope I have the guts and the stubborness and the
will to just keeping pushing for a good outcome, for a sane response to
the climate issue on the past of my fellow American citizens. I'm not
saying I EXPECT such a response anytime soon -- but I get some
satisfaction out of demanding it. Makes me feel like I'm doing my
duty.
As for people readily agreeing to reduce their lifestyles to save the
planet -- Well, I want them to give up some destructive habbits, sure.
But I can see why rational and responsibile people are quite resistant
to giving up material benefits just on the say-so of some stranger with
an advanced science degree.
I choose to have faith that when most people understand how important
the issue is, and how much it affects their children's future, they
will begin to make many of the behavior changes needed to solve the
problem. But naturally, they're not going to jump to making lifestyle
sacrifices when I say so, just because I say so. Nor should they.
You're absolutely right about our probable ability to wipe out life on
the planet, I think. Not only that, but the planet itself is a tiny
flyspeck of rock compared to the vastness of the universe.
So iff the human species does cause immense damage to the Earth --
which we may well do, though I hope we wont' -- we'll mostly be
harming ourselves. There will be vast realms of space and stars that
we never touch, never affect at all. Vast realms of deep space and
galactic explosions that remains "pristine," as my wildlife
preservation friends would call it.
Which means people like me can try to fight for sane CO2 control
policies without despair, I think, Even when the battle goes badly
against us.
In the States, we're about to celebrate our Thanksgiving holiday. I
don't know if you have anything comparable in England -- Guy Fawkes'
Day has passed, hasn't it? But in any case, if I don't trade posts
with you for several days, here's wishing you an enjoyable and
flfilling late November.
Dare to struggle, dare to win, okay?
--------------
Sorcerer
"CobblyWorlds" <Cobbly...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1164141806.6...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's a bad day when we put all our faith in chemists and physicists.
The "growing public awareness" is yet one more fear based on a
misconception.
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
Androcles.
john fernbach
Sorcerer wrote:
> > It's a bad day when we put all our faith in chemists and physicists.
> The "growing public awareness" is yet one more fear based on a
> misconception.
> http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
>
> Androcles.
Androcles or Sorcerer - you lovable, lying rascal and flim flam man,
you master of mental misdirection -- you've given us a fun hyperlink,
and thank you for it.
But it's basically irrelevant.
Are you aware of this?
Your hyperlink is to a web site discussing the precession of the
equinoxes and the Milankovitch cycles.
And that's interesting info, and most reputable writers on global
climate change agree about the importance of Milankovitch cycles in the
coming and going of ice ages and interglacial periods.
But the fact that past climate changes have been triggered by the
Miltankovitch cycles, of course, doesn't really touch on the question
of "climate forcing" due to shifting concentrations of greenhouse gases
(including CO2) in the atmosphere.
So your hyperlink gives us a model of climate change based on the
Milankovitch cycles, and that's perfectly valid. But the
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air constitute a separate
factor affecting the climate -- and your hyperlink just ignores these.
Worse, you seem to be implying that the existene of the Milankovitch
cycles somehow negates the importance of greenhouse gases such as CO2
-- and this isn't true.
What the Milankovitch cycles and the greenhouse gas levels BOTH
influence, of course, is how much solar radiation strikes the earth,
and especially how much solar radiation strikes the polar regions at
times of the year when the earth is closest to the sun.
The Milankovitch cycles basically have to do with the earth's wobble on
its axis, the question of whether the poles or the equatorial regions
are facing the sun at periihelion, or the point in the year when the
planet is closest to the sun, and also eccentricities in the earth's
orbit that bring the planet closer to the sun or farther away at key
periods.
All three of these Milnakovitch factors affect how much solar radiation
strikes the Arctic, say, during the winter, and whether there's a
buildup of ice or not at the poles -- precursor to a new ice age.
The concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
ALSO influences how much solar radiation is absorbed -- but this factor
influences solar radiation in another way.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to visible electromagnetic radiation
-- e.g.., light -- but absorb or reflect infrared rays -- i.e., heat
waves that the Earth's surface emits in the direction of space.
The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases, therefore, the more
heat waves being radiated outward are bounced back again to the earth's
surface, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
So Milankovitch cycles, by affecting the absorption of solar energy in
one way, have a big effect on climate change. And shifts in greenhouse
gas emissions, by affecting the net absorption of solar energy in
another way, ALSO have a big effect on climate.
And of course the brightening or dimming of the sun, variations in
solar intensity caused by sunspots or other solar activities, can
influence the Earth's solar energy absorption in a third way -- so that
they, too, have a big effect on climate.
You're really not trying to persuade people, I hope, that because
Milankovitch cycles or sunspot activity can be important determinants
of climate, that "therefore" the level of CO2 in the air is irrelevant.
That's just a dumb argument, once people understand it.
It's sort of like thinking about fertilizers for your lawn, or
important vitamins that are needed by your body.
The fact that your lawn needs phosphates, of course, doesn't signify
that it has no need for nitrogen or calcium. Or certain minor
nutrients, in some cases.
Similarly, the fact that Vitamin A and Vitamin C can affect your body's
functioning certainly doesn't mean that Vitamin D and the various B
vitamins have no effect. Just as the fact that food greatly affects
your metabolism does not mean that water is not important to it..
It's kind of like that with the climate. The Earth's position vis a
vis the sun is an important factor here; the brightness of the sun
itself is another important factor, the presence or absence of
reflective particles of dust or aerosols in the atmosphere is a third
important factor, and the thinness or density of the greenhouse gases
is a fourth important factor.
But thanks for the hypertext link to the Milankovitch cycles site.
It's very interesting, even if it's irrelevant to the question of
whether we need to control greenhouse gas emissions to head off this
generation's particular risks of negative climate change..
Sorcerer
Perihelion is early January. We are currently as far from an
Ice Age as we get.
As far as I know, the Earth doesn't have a glass roof.
The total amount of energy radiated into space is balanced by the
total amount of sunlight falling on the day side, and when the
planet warms up more water is evaporated from the oceans.
That produces more cloud, and cloud is reflective. You may
notice the change in temperature when passing from sunlight into shade.
Anyone that lives in Britain would know all about cloud.
While you are ranting about CO2, you forgot water vapour, you
lovable, lying rascal and flim flam man, you master of mental
misdirection who failed to take that into account.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17_big.gif
See anything white?
Snow and ice produce positive feedback. The more ice, the
more reflection, the colder it gets, the more ice is formed.
Cloud produces negative feedback. [*] The hotter it gets, the more
cloud, the more cloud, the cooler it gets, the cooler it gets, the
less cloud, the less cloud the hotter it gets. Go to [*]
If it gets warmer (and it will) the wheat will move North into Canada
and the USA will be less wealthy. The wealth of the Western world
is based on agriculture, technology is just the payoff. We have to
eat before we enjoy other creature comforts. 5,000,000,000 Chinese
and 1,000,000,000 Indians want a piece of the pie, and you are
not going to prevent it from happening. Climate change is inevitable,
all the green shits will do is start another war. Maybe that is "politically
correct", so do a Tony Blair and tell us we have to fight to win the peace,
or we have to be less greedy. Win-win, "I told you so" politics.
The total amount of carbon is constant, whether locked up in
coal and oil or trees in the Amazon, plankton in the sea, wheat
and rice (grasses) on the Great Plains or in the atmosphere.
Forests burn and release it, forests grow and absorb it. Naturally.
Climate isn't the issue, it'll change anyway. Politics is, man is a
territorial greedy animal that wars on his own species and cannot
control his loins. He survived the ice ages by migrating, and he'll
do it again.
Your's is just a dumb argument, whether people understand it or not.
So let's have "green" taxes, eh? That's what it's really about, and
I say fuck that shit.
Reputable writers on global climate change agree they should make
money out of bullshit.
"I have a cunning plan" - Tony Robinson to Blackadder.
Androcles.
Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy
Stiff Oil Pipelines of Propaganda?
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> Perheilion is erlay Jnuaray We are curenrtly as far from an
> Ice Age as we get
> As far as I konw the Earth dosn'et hvae a glass roof
> The ttoal amunot of enregy radateid into sapce is blancaed by teh
> ttoal amuont of snuilght flalnig on the day sdie and when the
> plneat wrmas up mroe wtear is eapvratoed from the oceans
> Taht porucdes mroe could and colud is rfelcteive You mya
> noitce the chnage in tmpeertarue when passnig form snuilhgt into sahde
> Anoyne taht lveis in Briatin wuold know all aobut cloud
> Wihle you are rnating aobut CO2 you frogot water vaopur you
> lvoalbe liyng rasacl and film falm man you master of mntael
> msiirecdtoin who filaed to take that into acoucnt
> htp://anttrwp gsfc nasa go/vpod/amaie/eagthr1_apollo17_b_ig gfi
> See aynhtnig whtie
> Sonw and ice prdouce psotivie feedback The more ice teh
> mroe refeltiocn the codelr it gtes the mroe ice is frmeod
> Cloud prouceds ngaetvie feebacdk [*] The hotetr it gtes the mreo
> colud the more cloud the coloer it gets the cooler it gets the
> less cluod the lses could the httoer it gtes Go to [*]
>
> If it gets wamrer (and it wlli) the wehat wlil move Nroth into Caadna
> and the USA wlil be less waelthy The weltah of the Wseetrn wrold
> is based on agiruclture tehcolongy is jsut the pyaoff We hvae to
> eat beofre we enjoy other craetrue cmfortos 5 000 000 000 Chniese
> and 1 000 000 000 Idianns want a peice of the pie and you aer
> not gonig to perevnt it form hpapneing Clmatie chnage is ineitavble
> all the green siths will do is satrt aontehr war Mybae taht is "opitilalcyl
> corecrt" so do a Tony Balir and tlel us we hvae to fight to win the peace
> or we have to be lses greedy Wi-wnin "I told you so" pliotcis
> The ttoal aoumnt of crbaon is cnostant whehter lcoked up in
> caol and oil or trees in the Aamozn panltokn in the sea whaet
> and rcie (rassgse) on the Geart Pailns or in the atospmerhe
> Forsets brun and reealse it frestos gorw and absrob it Ntauarlly
>
> Climtae is'nt the issue i'tll change anyway Polticis is man is a
> trertoiiral geedry aniaml taht wars on his own speceis and cnaotn
> cntorol his lonis He sruvvied the ice ages by mirgating and h'ell
> do it agian
> Yur'os is just a dumb argmuent wethher peolpe udnretasnd it or not
>
> So lt'es hvae "regen" txaes eh That's waht i'ts really abuot adn
> I say fuck taht siht
> Reptublae witrres on global cimlate cahnge agree tehy sholud mkea
> moeny out of bullshit
>
> "I have a cuninng paln" - Tnoy Rboinosn to Balkcadedr
>
> Anrdcoels
Lily
details???\PLEASE
john fernbach
Nice rant, Sorcerer, and it's good to get your point of view.
Some of it is even plausible and debatable; the rest, however, doesn't
pass the laugh test.
On clouds, you're half right, I believe. Clouds close to the ground
have a net cooling effect, I believe. Clouds high in the atmosphere
have a net warming effect. Whether greater formation of clouds due to
CO2 induced warming will serve as a positive feedback or a negative
feedback is therefore unclear: it depends a great deal on the sorts of
clouds that are formed.
So far the IPCC scientists are reporting a net increase of about 1.6
degrees F in average global temperatures over the past century, however
-- and if greater evaporation and greater cloud formation act as a
dampening mechanism, Mr. Sorcerer -- or should I say, Mr. Sorcerer's
Apprentice? - then how come greater cloud formation didn't stop THIS
warming?
I'm not a professional meteorologist, just an interested amateur who
follows this stuff. But it looks to me as if your theory regarding
clouds and cooling fails to account for the observable facts. However,
I know that Richard Lindzen of MIT, who is a smart man and a fairly
well respected climate scientist, is stubborning holding to your cloud
hypothesis.
So I don't think it's crazy for you to be stating it here -- not crazy,
but not very plausible, either. If we've already seen a climb in
temperatures of 1.6 F over the past century, then it would seem that
your cloud cooling mechanism just isn't functioning as advertised.
As for your point about the total amount of carbon in the system being
"constant" -- LOL!
I mean, sure, it is -- IF you count the billions or trillions of tons
of carbon that were buried underground by the end of the Jurassic, some
65 million years ago, and that have remained underground morphing into
fossil fuels until only recently, when human beings began extracting
them and burning them for energy.
Perhaps the major point in contention in the debate over GCC is what
the effect on the atmosphere, the oceans and the global climate will be
of reinjecting this huge slug of carbon into the normal carbon cycle
again.
But yeah, if you want to say that the total quantify of carbon on
planet earth has not changed sinced the planet was formed several
billion years ago - well, sure, you're probably correct. You're just
citing a piece of self-evident trivia that has almost nothing to do
with the climate.
But I'm not sure you guys on the GW denialist side are will planning to
win any of your debates.
Investigative reporters who've looked into funding for the GW denialist
lobby by the big energy companies have stated that the policy goal at
this point is to keep just enough appearance of scientific uncertainty
going, concerning this issue, that the politicians are kept from
enacting regulatory laws or economic subsidies or whatever for
addressing the threat posed by climate change.
So long as you can keep people like me fielding sometimes meaningless
or absurd questions, I suppose, you can try to convey to the public
that the science on climate change is still too open-ended to justify
any major programs to bring greenhouse gas emissions down.
I join with a lot of other people in this group in considering this an
evil and criminal enterprise, basically. I think y'all ought to know
better, and that the smartest of you really do know better, and out of
greed or misplaced ideological zeal, you're doing your best to
perpetuate various industrial practices that are likely to cause the
deaths or the geographical and social displacement of tens of millions
of people, during our lifetimes.
In a just universe, you would go to hell to suffer there in eternity
for this behavior, I think.
But on the other hand, most of you seem to be defending the profits if
not the conitinued existence of several large, powerful, wealthy, and
extremely threatened industries.
If the people of the United States wake up to the climate threat and
push the government to take effective action on CO2 controls, I think
the people you probably work for would lose incredible sums of money.
Naturally, then, they're fighting against the scientific handwriting on
the wall -- and they're fighting hard, for their profits and the very
survival of their corporations. Naturally they're going to lie and
cheat and misrepresent the science whenever they feel a need to.
So your utterly bogus point about the total amount of carbon in the
planetary system being "constant" is pretty expectable, I think. And I
imagine that when you spread disgusting and laughable misinformation
like this, you're probably only doing yuor job.
Whatever they're paying you, though - well, sure, youi may win big by
investing it in fossil fuels in the SHORT run. But I wouldn't let them
pay me off in oil company or coal company stock or auto company
options. In the long term, Sorcerer's Apprenctice, you'll probably
take a bath on those..
Lily
kT wrote:
> Lily wrote:
>
> >>[snipped for sanity]
>
> >> Perihelion is early January. We are currently as far from an
> >> Ice Age as we get.
> >
> > details???\PLEASE
>
I didn't
Thanks for letting me know.
pleased to meet!
Someone I know used to say that at mass instead of peace
be with you
>
> Just look up orbital geometry and orbital variations, Milankovitch etc.,
> it's all fairly straightforward, except for the thresholds of feedback
> induced state changes. I suspect Mars is going to be a lot easier to
> figure out, once we get our hands on some decent ice and rock cores.
>
> The problem with Mars is there is no moon to dampen the oscillations,
> plus the whole planetary formation environment out there was a lot more
> chaotic, with Jupiter right next door mucking everything up.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Orator
> In article <CaC8h.69662$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>
>>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <NG78h.68671$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>
>>>>CobblyWorlds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Another reason Orator is stupid (not for not knowing, but for thinking
>>>>>they can prove professional scientists wrong, without actually
>>>>>understanding the theoretical background).
>>>>
>>>>Listen CollyWobbles, when the "professionals" (the AGW Muftis) make
>>>>claims like different latitudes of Earth rotates at different RPM, then
>>>>your "professionals" aren't worth spitting on!
>>>
>>>
>>>Come on, Ore_ate_er, could it be that you are confused by the Coriolis
>>>Effect? Do give us a reference, oh it one.
>>>
>>
>>What part of "RPM" didn't you understand? It stand for "Revolutions Per
>>Minute". I kid you not, that was actually claimed as "factual" by an AGW
>>Mufti!!
>
>
> What part of "Do give us a reference" doesn't IT understand? Troll, let me
> remind it again that this is a science group and posting claims such as it did
> above must be supported by evidence. Else, it's only mindless troll babble.
Listen wanker, you are well aware of the text as you have seen it
yourself. It isn't that old (Nov 12 2006) in this group!
You have been spanked many times already - you must be a masochist and
LIKE being spanked! Therefore this is the last time I'll respond to a
stupid request from you.
See:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.environment/msg/70fdc898e308f5bb
"All other parallel lines to the equator are smaller, therefore rotate
at lower RPMs."
Maybe that is you posting that sort of insane material so don't go
creaming your pants over this latest spanking you had!
Orator's Oozing Facial Syphillis Sores
It was a typo, should have been "MPH" instead of "RPMs". Nothing to
shit your baby diapers over.
Sorcerer
"Lily" <lemn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1164170725....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
See my discussion with hahahanson in sci.physics.
Re: Andro's Global Warming (was Re: Nobel Prizes not that noble)
news:XMX8h.718$qd7...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
At
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
we find perihelion to occur on
Jan 4, 1993
Jan 2, 1994
Despite all attempts to explain and teach why, the idiot Owen Gwynne
claims :
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/OG.JPG
Sorcerer
|
| Nice rant, Sorcerer, and it's good to get your point of view.
Let's have a nice flame war, shall we? I like to escalate rapidly in
flame wars, dumbfuck.
Nice rant, Fernbach, your's is just a dumb argument, whether
people understand it or not. I can't say is good to get your
PoV since you are just another sheep bleating the PoV of others.
"Baaa...global warming...baaa". Bah, humbug.
|
| Some of it is even plausible and debatable; the rest, however, doesn't
| pass the laugh test.
Your argument passes the laugh test easily, shithead, hahahanson is
splitting his sides. <shrug>
|
| On clouds, you're half right, I believe. Clouds close to the ground
| have a net cooling effect, I believe.
You probably believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin tooth fairy, too.
| Clouds high in the atmosphere
| have a net warming effect. Whether greater formation of clouds due to
| CO2 induced warming will serve as a positive feedback or a negative
| feedback is therefore unclear: it depends a great deal on the sorts of
| clouds that are formed.
SO4 clouds from volcanic emissions are formed. The sky is falling.
|
| So far the IPCC scientists are reporting a net increase of about 1.6
| degrees F in average global temperatures over the past century, however
| -- and if greater evaporation and greater cloud formation act as a
| dampening mechanism, Mr. Sorcerer -- or should I say, Mr. Sorcerer's
| Apprentice? - then how come greater cloud formation didn't stop THIS
| warming?
|
Small ferns are green, Fernbach, or should I say diminutive green Johnny?
bach [lleied; llai; lleiaf]
(adj.) little, small, minute, petty
http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/LexiconForms.html
| I'm not a professional meteorologist, just an interested amateur who
| follows this stuff.
And likes to bleat when the rest of the sheep say "baaa", right?
| But it looks to me as if your theory regarding
| clouds and cooling fails to account for the observable facts. However,
| I know that Richard Lindzen of MIT, who is a smart man and a fairly
| well respected climate scientist, is stubborning holding to your cloud
| hypothesis.
|
| So I don't think
You don't need to tell anyone you don't think, it's an observable fact.
| it's crazy for you to be stating it here -- not crazy,
| but not very plausible, either.
It's an observable fact that cloud makes shade and temperatures
drop in shadow. What does "plausible" have to do with observable fact?
| If we've already seen a climb in
| temperatures of 1.6 F over the past century, then it would seem that
| your cloud cooling mechanism just isn't functioning as advertised.
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
| As for your point about the total amount of carbon in the system being
| "constant" -- LOL!
|
| I mean, sure, it is -- IF you count the billions or trillions of tons
| of carbon that were buried underground by the end of the Jurassic, some
| 65 million years ago, and that have remained underground morphing into
| fossil fuels until only recently, when human beings began extracting
| them and burning them for energy.
LOL, it's an observable fact, you mean, sure it is, LOL.
Your argument passed the laugh test quite easily.
|
| Perhaps the major point in contention in the debate over GCC is what
| the effect on the atmosphere, the oceans and the global climate will be
| of reinjecting this huge slug of carbon into the normal carbon cycle
| again.
And you have all the answers, so tell a baby-kissing politician you want
to be taxed more to prevent you causing more CO2.
| But yeah, if you want to say that the total quantify of carbon on
| planet earth has not changed sinced the planet was formed several
| billion years ago - well, sure, you're probably correct. You're just
| citing a piece of self-evident trivia that has almost nothing to do
| with the climate.
Ok, so CO2 emissions are self-evident trivia and observable fact.
It sure helps the plants grow, though, tree-hugger. The more oil
and coal we dig up and burn, the greener the Earth will be. Why
would you want to pay more taxes to prevent that?
|
| But I'm not sure you guys on the GW denialist side are will planning to
| win any of your debates.
It's an observable fact that you are not sure.
|
| Investigative reporters who've looked into funding for the GW denialist
| lobby by the big energy companies have stated that the policy goal at
| this point is to keep just enough appearance of scientific uncertainty
| going, concerning this issue, that the politicians are kept from
| enacting regulatory laws or economic subsidies or whatever for
| addressing the threat posed by climate change.
Is that a rant or an observable fact? Politicians are kept from enacting
regulatory taxes, too.
|
| So long as you can keep people like me fielding sometimes meaningless
| or absurd questions, I suppose, you can try to convey to the public
| that the science on climate change is still too open-ended to justify
| any major programs to bring greenhouse gas emissions down.
|
I want a green Earth, let's get the Sahara back and "terraform" Antarctica.
All that ice piled up and sand dunes looks unsightly, I want trees
everywhere.
| I join with a lot of other people in this group in considering this an
| evil and criminal enterprise, basically. I think y'all ought to know
| better, and that the smartest of you really do know better, and out of
| greed or misplaced ideological zeal, you're doing your best to
| perpetuate various industrial practices that are likely to cause the
| deaths or the geographical and social displacement of tens of millions
| of people, during our lifetimes.
|
"misplaced ideological zeal" -- that's a good communist phrase.
How about "Be reasonable, see it my way"?
| In a just universe, you would go to hell to suffer there in eternity
| for this behavior, I think.
I don't give a shit what you rant.
| But on the other hand, most of you seem to be defending the profits if
| not the conitinued existence of several large, powerful, wealthy, and
| extremely threatened industries.
Yeah, so? I'm not a communist, go to North Korea if you like it so much/
|
| If the people of the United States wake up to the climate threat and
| push the government to take effective action on CO2 controls, I think
| the people you probably work for would lose incredible sums of money.
I'm retired, I don't work for anyone. The people you work for tried
communism and it failed. How is the Kremlin these days? Any more
five-year plans?
| Naturally, then, they're fighting against the scientific handwriting on
| the wall -- and they're fighting hard, for their profits and the very
| survival of their corporations. Naturally they're going to lie and
| cheat and misrepresent the science whenever they feel a need to.
Of course you are going to lie. The people you work for demand it.
| So your utterly bogus point about the total amount of carbon in the
| planetary system being "constant" is pretty expectable, I think. And I
| imagine that when you spread disgusting and laughable misinformation
| like this, you're probably only doing yuor job.
|
| Whatever they're paying you, though - well, sure, youi may win big by
| investing it in fossil fuels in the SHORT run. But I wouldn't let them
| pay me off in oil company or coal company stock or auto company
| options. In the long term, Sorcerer's Apprenctice, you'll probably
| take a bath on those..
Nice rant, disgusting bogus diminutive green Johnny. Very "observable fact".
Now fuck off, communist bastard.
Androcles.
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>> Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>>>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>>>In article <NG78h.68671$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>>>>>Listen CollyWobbles, when the "professionals" (the AGW Muftis) make
>>>>>claims like different latitudes of Earth rotates at different RPM, then
>>>>>your "professionals" aren't worth spitting on!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Come on, Ore_ate_er, could it be that you are confused by the Coriolis
>>>>Effect? Do give us a reference, oh it one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What part of "RPM" didn't you understand? It stand for "Revolutions Per
>>>Minute". I kid you not, that was actually claimed as "factual" by an AGW
>>>Mufti!!
>>
>>
>> What part of "Do give us a reference" doesn't IT understand? Troll, let me
>> remind it again that this is a science group and posting claims such as it
did
>> above must be supported by evidence. Else, it's only mindless troll babble.
>
>Listen wanker, you are well aware of the text as you have seen it
>yourself. It isn't that old (Nov 12 2006) in this group!
So, you want to give usenet posts as a reference? What a fool!
[cut]
>See:
>http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.environment/msg/70fdc898e308f5bb
>"All other parallel lines to the equator are smaller, therefore rotate
>at lower RPMs."
Delete ad hominem puke.
>Maybe that is you posting that sort of insane material so don't go
>creaming your pants over this latest spanking you had!
No, sockhead, that was from the Sockhead of Many Names, aka, the Palace Troll.
One troll quoting another troll. This group is better than the Comedy Channel.
Phil Hays
> No, sockhead, that was from the Sockhead of Many Names, aka, the Palace
> Troll. One troll quoting another troll. This group is better than the
> Comedy Channel.
Wait... This isn't the Comedy Channel??
--
Phil Hays
person
john fernbach wrote:
> kdth -- To use a technical term, I think you're lying your fool head
> off.
>
> Look - there have been questions about global warming theory over the
> years -- but NOT about the effects of CO2 concentrations on heat
> absorption by the atmosphere. If you'd concentrate on some of the
> legitimate debates and uncertainties, you might make a somewhat logical
> case that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 until -- to my mind -- we
> have really screwed up the planet and wrecked the lives of several
> hundred million people who will be starved, drowned, flooded out etc.
> by the effects of climate change. I
>
> But if you're trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you're
> either fibbing or you're delusional. You're contributing mental
> pollution to the cybersphere.
>
> Perhaps the most respectable nay-sayer on global climate issues these
> days is Richard Lindzen of MIT, who predicts that any slight increase
> in average global temperatures caused by greenhouse gas will simply
> cause more cloud formation. To the extent that the right sorts of
> clouds are formed, Lindzen argues, they will then reflect more sunlight
> back into space, thus providing a negative feedback loop -- a
> moderating effect -- on the temperature rise.
But net radiation losses occur AT NIGHT. So reflection is not an
issue.
> Over the years, other skeptics about global warming have speculated
> that the oceans will absorb most of the increased CO2s, or that more
> CO2 in the air will trigger more plant growth, which somehow will slow
> down climate change. Recent research on climate change has discredited
> most of these theories, I believe.
>
> Some defenders of the fossil fuel biz and business as usual have argued
> that hey, global climate change will be a GOOD THING -- which actually
> is what Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrehenius also believed when he
> researched the question of greenhouse warming and CO2 emissions in the
> 1890s. Coming from Sweden, Arrehenius looked forward to a warming
> climate; he probably thought it would make his homeland a bit more
> livable, and also he believed it would be good for agriculture.
>
> The idea that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, though, is bullshit. Its
> effect in blocking infrared radiation has been known since the
> mid-1800s. As for the heat-trapping effects of CO2 in the atmosphere of
> Venus, I think I saw references to this in some of my elementary school
> science textbooks in the 1950s. That's one reason why when fantasies
> about space travel began to blossom after the launching of Sputnik in
> the 1957, the focus was on going to Moon or Mars or the asteroid belt
> -- not Venus, because Venus was likely to be an oven.
No, because Mars is much closer !
But those old theories were proven to be wrong by probes to Venus.
In fact Venus has little CO2, it has a methane atmosphere, and there is
a large change in temperatures. The cloud are cloud of methane which
FREEZE at night. We can't see that from the earth.
foolsrushin
<http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2006/11/fossiles-indicate-global-warming.html>
for a balanced alternative view. I have added wrekc.org.mensa to the
list.
--
'foolsrushin'
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> john fernbach wrote:
> > > Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > > > How little mention was made of it prior to 1990,
> > >
> Also there's no mention of it in chemistry. You'd think in all the
> research by chemists both academic and industrial, some mention of
> these unique properties of CO2 would appear. Of course the hoax
> experiment of CO2 in glass was around from the 19th century but any
> chemist with half of a mind would see that if CO2 has different
> temperature change in a concrete vessel, the glass and it's rate of
> letting heat out of the CO2 gas is more responsible for temperature
> difference in the hoax experiment and never give it another thought.
>
> Probes to venus only discovered the high temperature of venus in the
> 1960's. Venus also has a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Some
> theoretical nut needed a thesis, so the explanation of the high
> temperature was attributed to CO2. Of course direct science cannot be
> done to confirm this. From this, the speculation on man's input of CO2
> into the atmosphere developed into the superstition that it is today.
> Any data on warming must be from another cause other than carbon
> dioxide.
>
> KD
news.cogeco.ca
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote
> What part of "RPM" didn't you understand? It stand for "Revolutions Per
> Minute". I kid you not, that was actually claimed as "factual" by an AGW
> Mufti!!
And they do, you stupid twit.
news.cogeco.ca
"person" <dsew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> But those old theories were proven to be wrong by probes to Venus.
> In fact Venus has little CO2, it has a methane atmosphere, and there is
> a large change in temperatures. The cloud are cloud of methane which
> FREEZE at night. We can't see that from the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere
Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon
dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface
is about 90 times that at Earth's surface-a pressure equivalent to that at a
depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich
atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface
temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's,
even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only
25% of the solar irradiance.
Orator
You have finally earned the reward!
- PLONK -
Eric Swanson
Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>You have finally earned the reward!
>
>- PLONK -
I'm so flattered. I suppose that means you can't stand the criticism. Sad
CobblyWorlds
The great thing about physical processes is that they continue
regardless of what people think.
In a court of law or in the media facts can be twisted and
misrepresented by interested parties. And that can then mean that the
ideas forward after a successful misrepresentation perpetuate and may
even begin to seem real. This can even have real physical effects.
But a physical process like the enhanced greenhouse effect doesn't give
a flying fox what we think of it. It just is. An implacable physical
reality.
Here's a little game for you.
Take a look at the GISS temperature
series.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif
You're in 1980, the temperature's going up. But by 1982 it starts to go
down - is that the end of the upward trend? No.
You're in 1989, the temperature's going up. But by 1991 it's going down
- is that the end of the upward trend? No.
When will this upward trend go down? And don't claim it's the Sun,
there's no trend in GCR, since 1950, and no trend at all in TSI since
1978.
You could play the same game with the CRU data set:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif arguably more
exciting as it seems to be leveling right now! Ohh look everybody the
warming is over, the 'warmers' were wrong, hang out the bunting, crack
open the cans....
I ask about when it'll start to go down as a rhetorical question, i.e.
no answer needed.
I'm happy to let the physical reality answer your concerns.
Regards
CobblyWorlds.
Sorcerer
"CobblyWorlds" <Cobbly...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:1164306334....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Hello Sorcerer,
|
| The great thing about physical processes is that they continue
| regardless of what people think.
You've got that right.
|
| In a court of law or in the media facts can be twisted and
| misrepresented by interested parties. And that can then mean that the
| ideas forward after a successful misrepresentation perpetuate and may
| even begin to seem real. This can even have real physical effects.
|
| But a physical process like the enhanced greenhouse effect doesn't give
| a flying fox what we think of it. It just is. An implacable physical
| reality.
|
What enhanced greenhouse effect would that be?
| Here's a little game for you.
Oh, you want to play games. Ok, what the game rules?
| Take a look at the GISS temperature
| series. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif
|
| You're in 1980, the temperature's going up. But by 1982 it starts to go
| down - is that the end of the upward trend? No.
|
| You're in 1989, the temperature's going up. But by 1991 it's going down
| - is that the end of the upward trend? No.
|
| When will this upward trend go down? And don't claim it's the Sun,
| there's no trend in GCR, since 1950, and no trend at all in TSI since
| 1978.
It looks to me that the temperature has been steadily rising
since the eruption of Krakatoa, and that red "anomoly" near the North
pole is shown on a Mercator map to make it look much larger that it really is.
Red is a good colour, too. It means danger.
|
| You could play the same game with the CRU data set:
| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif arguably more
| exciting as it seems to be leveling right now! Ohh look everybody the
| warming is over, the 'warmers' were wrong, hang out the bunting, crack
| open the cans....
We should, the 1850 ANOMOLY has been corrected.
One entry found for anomaly.
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: &-'nä-m&-lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : IRREGULARITY
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified
The Earth was too cold, now it's gotten warmer for a while.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
|
| I ask about when it'll start to go down as a rhetorical question, i.e.
| no answer needed.
|
| I'm happy to let the physical reality answer your concerns.
|
| Regards
|
| CobblyWorlds.
|
Of course you have all the answers, that's not surprising. After all,
you like sci-fi.
In a court of law or in the media facts can be twisted and
misrepresented by interested parties, as you've now demonstrated
by the careful selection of Mercator maps.
Here's some more sci-fi for you:
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html
Jonathan Kirwan
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>In article <uLc9h.70532$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>Ora...@trolls.bridge.net says...
>>
>>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>>You have finally earned the reward!
>>
>>- PLONK -
>
>I'm so flattered. I suppose that means you can't stand the criticism. Sad
Worries me, though. This plonking bit, if time shows it to be likely
fact, disputes the idea that Orator is a _paid_ troll. Which means he
may have to be taken on his own terms.
Jon
Orator
> Nice rant, Sorcerer, and it's good to get your point of view.
>
> Some of it is even plausible and debatable; the rest, however, doesn't
> pass the laugh test.
>
> On clouds, you're half right, I believe. Clouds close to the ground
> have a net cooling effect, I believe. Clouds high in the atmosphere
> have a net warming effect.
Are you sure! It really is the opposite to common understanding.
Remember that ice crystals are very good at reflecting incoming
radiation. For that reason alone your hypothesis is wrong.
> Whether greater formation of clouds due to
> CO2 induced warming will serve as a positive feedback or a negative
> feedback is therefore unclear: it depends a great deal on the sorts of
> clouds that are formed.
No. CO2 (in the atmospheric concentrations) has no effect on clouds at all.
While it is true that warmer air can hold more water vapour, it is but
infrequently that it ever holds the maximum it can hold - ie just before
it rains.
>
> So far the IPCC scientists are reporting a net increase of about 1.6
> degrees F in average global temperatures over the past century,
Please do not refer to IPCC staff as "scientists". IPCC does not employ
any scientists. These are public servants/political empire builders
who's mission statement requires promoting "Global warming" as an
established fact. It is the very foundation stone of their empire after all!
Orator
Try this:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html
"This massive blanket of carbon dioxide is also responsible for a
runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet's surface to an average
temperature of 467°C (872°F) – hot enough to melt lead. "
"Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide"
Interestingly enough 95+% CO2 in the MARS atmosphere does not have the
"runaway greenhouse effect" claimed to be caused by CO2!
person
[What happens when you depend on memory]
Surely the dense clouds of sulphuric acid would have an effect ?
It is only _below_ the cloud layer that uniform temperatures occur
(under 95km), there are wide variations above the clouds (but still
plenty of CO2 atmosphere to go).
In any case, CO2 makes up less than 1% of the earth's atmosphere (can
improper nouns have possession ?), and at a vastly lower pressure.
Sorcerer
"person" <dsew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1164328718....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
In any case?
In any case man has no control over the atmosphere of planet
"Ocean", 70% water, the plankton do that.
Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!
>
> In any csae
>
> In any csae man has no cntrool over the atosphmree of palent
> "Ocena" 70% wtear the palnkton do that
KOCH OIL Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and
Liberty = $212,500
KOCH OIL Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research = $50,000
KOCH OIL Funding American Legislative Exchange Council = $393,000
KOCH OIL Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Aspen Institute = $1,115,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation = $68,500
KOCH OIL Funding Brookings Institution = $829,400
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
KOCH OIL Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$12,906,712
KOCH OIL Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute = $666,420
KOCH OIL Funding Consumer Alert = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $55,000
KOCH OIL Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies = $1,262,200
KOCH OIL Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and the
Environment (FREE) = $1,205,500
KOCH OIL Funding Fraser Institute = $23,221
KOCH OIL Funding Free Enterprise Education Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University = $4,753,754
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc. =
$19,194,643
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane
Studies = $3,111,457
KOCH OIL Funding Heartland Institute = $77,578
KOCH OIL Funding Heritage Foundation = $1,952,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace =
$5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $32,650
KOCH OIL Funding Independent Institute = $160,000
KOCH OIL Funding Institute for Energy Research = $62,000
KOCH OIL Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research = $575,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Institute = $80,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Research Center = $975
KOCH OIL Funding Mercatus Center, George Mason University = $427,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $517,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Environmental Policy Institute = $12,500
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy =
$1,070,800
KOCH OIL Funding Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) =
$135,000
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Foundation = $2,231,212
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Public Policy Institute = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Tech Central Science Foundation = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Justice Foundation = $40,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Public Policy Foundation = $110,874
KOCH OIL Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $602,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research = $7,022,124
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Legislative Exchange
Council = $215,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Americans for Tax Reform
Foundation = $525,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlas Economic Research
Foundation = $5,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Brookings Institution =
$1,217,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation =
$150,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Media and Public
Affairs = $730,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Security Policy =
$261,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Strategic and
International Studies = $2,112,318
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation = $1,375,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Competitive Enterprise
Institute = $230,300
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Consumer Alert = $28,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Federalist Society for Law and
Public Policy Studies = $4,008,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding for ASCH = $865,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Foundation for Research on
Economics and the Environment (FREE) = $484,250
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Fraser Institute = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute =
$350,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University =
$6,665,824
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University
Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heritage Foundation =
$8,320,835
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace = $5,015,660
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. =
$3,034,840
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Independent Institute =
$65,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding John Locke Institute = $15,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation =
$320,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research = $4,899,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Media Institute = $148,750
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Policy
Analysis = $1,069,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Public
Policy Research, Inc = $100,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Wilderness Institute
=$25,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation =
$75,200
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation =
$665,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Research Institute for
Public Policy = $735,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Property and Environment
Research Center (PERC) = $640,775
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Reason Foundation = $276,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation
= $145,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation =
$2,460,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Weidenbaum Center = $94,650
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Media Research Center = $495,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason
University = $80,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Accuracy in Media, Inc. = $4,075,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion
and Liberty = $565,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Council on Science and Health =
$205,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research = $6,251,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Legislative Exchange Council =
$1,545,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation =
$700,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation =
$2,325,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Media and Public Affairs =
$1,272,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Security Policy = $4,001,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Strategic and International
Studies = $8,443,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change = $100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$2,335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow =
$1,020,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute =
$1,800,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $1,265,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies = $,980,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and
the Environment (FREE) = $1,405,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Fraser Institute = $275,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $2,827,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heritage Foundation = $22,296,640
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace = $9,768,900
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $3,329,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research =
$3,813,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Institute = $645,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Research Center = $1,652,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis =
$2,010,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Public Policy
Research = $925,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public
Policy = $2,472,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Property and Environment Research Center
(PERC) = $2,292,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Reason Foundation = $2,043,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
Sorcerer
"Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!" <Net_P...@h2-pv.us> wrote in message news:1164350419....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer
"Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!" <Net_P...@h2-pv.us> wrote in message news:1164350419....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*plonk*
Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!
Now that you have put it on permanent archives with your IP address
embedded you can no longer plead "you didn't know" in court.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Net_P...@h2-pv.us>
wrote
on 23 Nov 2006 23:41:12 -0800
<1164354072.2...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!" <Net_P...@h2-pv.us> wrote in message news:1164350419....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> | Sorcerer wrote:
>> *plonk*
>
> Now that you have put it on permanent archives with your IP address
> embedded you can no longer plead "you didn't know" in court.
Just as a word of information: he also believes that Special Relativity
is a big con job and that he can handle mathematics. :-)
[numbers snipped for brevity]
Hmm. Interesting. One wonders how many studies are really "fair and
balanced" these days.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Lloyd Parker
Because it's thin, as we tell you.
If you had 1 molecule of CO2 on the moon, its atmosphere would be 100% CO2.
Do you think that would mean the moon would warm? Really?
hanson
> If you had 1 molecule of CO2 on the moon, its atmosphere would be 100%
> CO2.
> Do you think that would mean the moon would warm? Really?
>
ahahahaha... but Parki-pooh, THAT is essentially what you green
shits argue for terrestrial GW and/or AWG... /_\ 150 ppm in air... so
Do you think that would mean the earth would warm? Really?
ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ek7ekp$r6e$3...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
kdt...@yahoo.com
john fernbach wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Kent - You are the first person in the world I have ever heard of
> making this particular claim.
> And since I'm not a professional scientist, I can't rule out the almost
> invisibly tiny possibility that you could be right, while practically
> the entire scientific community is wrong. But I really doubt it. I
> think you're inhabiting an alternative universe, at least in your own
> mind.
>
> By the way, I've repeatedly pointed out something that's obvious to
> many economists -- which is that simply wasting vast amounts of money
> on large government projects, useful or useless, is not necessarily bad
> for economic prosperity. Nor is what many people would call the
> totally wasteful expenditure of vast sums of money on various luxury
> goods, frivolities and fashionable trends in the private market.
>
> Whatever else it is, capitalism is a fabulously productive system
> compared to all previous economic systems that have preceded it in
> history. It repeatedly encounters business slumps and downturns NOT
> only because of its running into resource shortages, but rather more
> frequently because of "surplus production" -- because it has more than
> enough factory capacity and other economic capacity to provide what the
> market wants.
>
> Accordingly, large expenditures on seemingly frivolous luxury goods and
> on government programs -- usually military programs -- has been
> essential to periods of capitalist prosperity for several centuries
> now. Often enough, the creation of some new "need" that has never
> existed before, and was never particularly missed, has proved to be
> critical in generating economic gooms in Western capitalist markets.
> The boom in sugar, silk and tea exports in 18th century England, the
> building of a vast railway network and a vast fleet of steam-powered,
> iron-clad, ocean going ships in England in the 19th century, and the
> burgeoning of the American automobile industry in the 20th century
> (with its vast requirements for iron and steel, chemicals, rubber,
> petroleum supplies, and paved roads on which cars can operate) have
> been among the major generators of wealth for the capitalist world.
>
> In the late 20th century, of course, the creation of an entirely new
> consumer electronics industry, coupled with the invention of the PC and
> the emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web on which PC users
> could operate, proved really important in generating a new burst of
> economic growth in the United States, even as US manufacturing
> industries such as steel production, auto production and chemical
> production were fleeing overseas or shutting down capacity.
>
> If we want to see continued prosperity in the United States over the
> next century, therefore, we're going to need to see NEW INDUSTRIES and
> new OUTLETS FOR INVESTMENT CAPITAL, new sources of demand for what
> basic American industries can produce. And clearly, a national
> initiative to build a climate-friendly, energy efficient economy could
> provide the new industries, new investment outlets and new sources of
> demand that are required.
>
> The argument that building a new energy-efficient, renewably powered
> energy economy would be too costly, therefore, is total nonsense.
> This is exactly the opposite of what's really at stake.
Imposing legal controls on CO2 emmisions will devastate the economy. As
soon as carbon dioxide is legally classified as 'pollution', the nuts
that think the world is coming to an end and the corrupt assholes will
begin to sue anyone that produces CO2. Like in California where the
froggy little attorney general filed suit against the auto makers for
damages done to his state from warming caused by the CO2 which their
cars produce.
This and the restrictions placed upon industry, (especially the stupid
credit system some genius devised which punishes industries with
valuable products and makes them pay unproductive industries the for
the right to manufacture), will bring the economy to a standstill. From
what I see there is no amount of CO2 too small so you better watch out
when you're exhaling this illegal gas. Of course the people that will
suffer will be the working class and middle class. One should remember
the great depression. It's very difficult to get an economy going when
it has been brought to a standstill. If the controls on CO2 are imposed
it will be impossible. There will not be the money for renovating the
economy.
If you notice, I repeatedly state that in no valid scientific analyses
are the properties that are attributed to CO2 validated. This is a fact
and no one can give scientific data otherwise. The experiment where CO2
is encased at constant pressure in supposed 'transparent' material is a
hoax. This only shows various rates of heat loss. It does not show
inordinant absorption of infrared radiation by CO2. Very careful
analyses of CO2 does not show any evidence of this without the specific
materials that inhibit loss of heat differently. Notice no one will
repeat laboratory data here to show this to be wrong. The presumptions
of grenhouse theory ore invalid. The idea that CO2 absorbs heat and
warms the atmosphere any differently than O2 and N2 is a flat lie and
can be proved to be in the laboratory.
The attempt to perpetrate this fraud upon our society is a crime. You
should look at this objectively and have some interest in the welfare
of the innocent people that will suffer if this bullshit gains legal
status.
If you academics think society will need all your higher education in a
failed economy, you should recalculate. You are awfully accustomed to
that regular and guaranteed salary. You could be standing in the soup
line with the rest of us.
Kent Deatherage
> What would be really, really dangerous to the future of American
> capitalism would be the invention of some new energy technology that
> would be too CHEAP - one that would make only a minimal demand on the
> country's supplies of capital, labor and natural resources, so that the
> country could easily install the new technology and still leave
> businessmen with shrinking markets and still leave many working people
> unemployed.
Orator
Please be aware you are not the spokes person for others so there is no
"we" as that is a lie in any case. I doubt others approve of you lying
in their name! Distance is what has been cited.
But, you are onto something here just the same! Mars' atmosphere is
about 0.7% of earth's atmosphere. Yes it is "thin", but then so is the
CO2 occurrence on Earth! It makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere.
Therefore Mars atmosphere has some 23 times more CO2 that earth!
Now consider that Mars has much more CO2 than earth, then why isn't it
much hotter than it is *IF* the CO2 is "the cause" as you claim!
Let's see your "scientific" explanation for that!
T Wake
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote in message
news:qDL9h.71270$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <%kq9h.70756$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Orator <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide"
>>>
>>>Interestingly enough 95+% CO2 in the MARS atmosphere does not have the
>>>"runaway greenhouse effect" claimed to be caused by CO2!
>>
>>
>> Because it's thin, as we tell you.
>
> Please be aware you are not the spokes person for others so there is no
> "we" as that is a lie in any case. I doubt others approve of you lying in
> their name!
Get off your cranky high horse. For all you know Lloyd Parker may have been
talking about the person in the room with him at the time.
Anyway, your two sentences are not logically joined in the manner you seem
to think.
> Distance is what has been cited.
>
> But, you are onto something here just the same! Mars' atmosphere is about
> 0.7% of earth's atmosphere. Yes it is "thin", but then so is the CO2
> occurrence on Earth! It makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere. Therefore
> Mars atmosphere has some 23 times more CO2 that earth!
>
> Now consider that Mars has much more CO2 than earth, then why isn't it
> much hotter than it is *IF* the CO2 is "the cause" as you claim!
>
> Let's see your "scientific" explanation for that!
Blimey, you are a real live one aren't you? How many molecules of CO2 are
there in Mars' atmosphere? What is the density of CO2 this gives the
atmosphere?
Don't let your misunderstanding of percentages blind you to the answer.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Orator <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote:
>
> Please be aware you are not the spokes person for others so there is no
> "we" as that is a lie in any case. I doubt others approve of you lying
> in their name! Distance is what has been cited.
>
> But, you are onto something here just the same! Mars' atmosphere is
> about 0.7% of earth's atmosphere. Yes it is "thin", but then so is the
> CO2 occurrence on Earth! It makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere.
> Therefore Mars atmosphere has some 23 times more CO2 that earth!
>
> Now consider that Mars has much more CO2 than earth, then why isn't it
> much hotter than it is *IF* the CO2 is "the cause" as you claim!
>
> Let's see your "scientific" explanation for that!
1) Water vapour - another greenhouse gas. IR astronomy from earth is
ruined because of it.
2) Much further from the sun, a quick calculation of the flux from Mars
orbit compared to Earth.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
Phil.
On Nov 24, 6:55 pm, Orator <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <%kq9h.70756$rP1.29...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >>temperature of 467°C (872°F) - hot enough to melt lead. "
>
> >>"Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide"
>
> >>Interestingly enough 95+% CO2 in the MARS atmosphere does not have the
> >>"runaway greenhouse effect" claimed to be caused by CO2!
>
> > Because it's thin, as we tell you.Please be aware you are not the spokes person for others so there is no
> "we" as that is a lie in any case. I doubt others approve of you lying
> in their name! Distance is what has been cited.
>
> But, you are onto something here just the same! Mars' atmosphere is
> about 0.7% of earth's atmosphere. Yes it is "thin", but then so is the
> CO2 occurrence on Earth! It makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere.
> Therefore Mars atmosphere has some 23 times more CO2 that earth!
>
> Now consider that Mars has much more CO2 than earth, then why isn't it
> much hotter than it is *IF* the CO2 is "the cause" as you claim!
>
> Let's see your "scientific" explanation for that!
The Martian atmosphere is about as thick as the Earth's atmosphere is
at about 30+km at which point there is no greenhouse heating.
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> "Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide"
> Interestingly enough 95+% CO2 in the MARS atmosphere does not have the
> "runaway greenhouse effect" claimed to be caused by CO2
Carbon dioxide has no capability to increase temperature of the
atmosphere. The hoax experiment which has fascinated the superstitious
into the dementia of their obsession to stop economic function, does
not show absorption of infrared frequencies by the CO2. It shows mainly
the effect of the solid substance to retard radiation in which CO2
radiates well.
First of all, the glass is not transparent to these thermal
frequencies. This means the frequencies do not pass unabsorbed except
by the CO2 as claimed. In any direct laboratory analyses, CO2 has no
capability to retain heat. Also careful analyses shows the glass or
solid substance radiates also in a continous spectra. It is not
transparent to the thermal frequencies much beyond the very near
infrared at about 1 micron.
Secondly, CO2 is a larger and heavier molecule. According to the
kinetic theory of gases and experiment, this does not matter in it's
absorption of energy into kinetic motion, which is the heat capacity or
absorption of energy from the environment in increasing temperature.
Inert elements, or monatomic gases, weigh very different but have
EXACTLY the same heat capacity. At low pressures, diameter of molecules
has negligible effect. At greater pressures, difference in diameter
becomes apparent. Besides the striking differences of abnormal gases,
the effect of different diameters is the only difference in gases. At
low pressures, all gases behave exactly the same. The confinement of
the gases at constant volume in the hoax experiment means that with
increasing temperature, the pressure increases. This is not the
condition of the atmosphere. Heat capacity of gases is about a third
greater in the condition in which they can expand instead of increasing
pressure.
Thirdly, the greater temperature of the CO2 in the hoax experiment is
from the combined effect of the bands of low emmision of the CO2 and
solid material. The retention of heat is because of the solid material.
This same experiment can be conducted with materials in which
absolutely no difference in temperature can be recorded for different
concentrations of CO2. This PROVES that the slower rate of heat loss in
the hoax experiment IS NOT a fundamental property of the CO2. In fact,
in any experiment with a normal room at normal temperatures and
pressures, no capability of CO2 to cause higher temperatures can be
recorded. If CO2 were blocking radiation that normally travels
uninhibited through the O2 and N2, it could be detected.
Planck's Radiation Law stipulates a distribution of frequencies for a
particular temperature of the perfect theoretical case. If the energy
of all these frequencies is calculated by Planck's Law, it gives
exactly the Boltzman-Stefan equation for density of radiated energy.
What are refered to as 'absorption' bands in CO2 are bands of low
emmision in it's continous spectra. This does not affect the final
temperature of a sample of CO2, and in any experiment CO2 will reach
the same temperature as any normal gas. The actual distribution of the
frequencies of it's continous spectra will vary according to the darker
bands. If it is lacking in energy at some frequencies, it radiates
greater at other frequencies. The fact is that this does not affect
overall energy of it's radiation, of absorption of any thermal
frequencies, or any temperatures of CO2 or various concentrations of
CO2 to air. O2 and N2 also absorb the frequencies which are refered to
as the 'absorption' bands of CO2. They howerever, radiate well at these
frequencies.
In order not to be labeled insane and your intent to disrupt or control
economic function criminal, you grenhouse nuts must present laboratory
data that shows that your claims of heat absorption of carbon dioxide
to be true. It is clearly fraud to claim that IR frequencies pass
through the glass and O2 and N2 gases without being absorbed, but are
absorbed by CO2, as is claimed in the hoax experiment. More elaborate
tests clearly reveal this fraud.
Kent Deatherage
news.cogeco.ca
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote
> In any case man has no control over the atmosphere of planet
> "Ocean", 70% water, the plankton do that.
In any case the ocean is so big that man could never possibly overfish it.
Meanwhile 90% of all large ocean fisheries have crashed.
news.cogeco.ca
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Just as a word of information: he also believes that Special Relativity
> is a big con job and that he can handle mathematics. :-)
How about General? I wonder what the flake thinks of QM.
news.cogeco.ca
"Orator" <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote
> Now consider that Mars has much more CO2 than earth, then why isn't it
> much hotter than it is *IF* the CO2 is "the cause" as you claim!
>
> Let's see your "scientific" explanation for that!
Quite simply, it is warmer as a result. If the CO2 wasn't there the
surface temp would never rise above the freezing point of CO2. Currently at
times the surface temperature during the day is above the freezing point of
water.
Stupid... Stupid... Orator....
news.cogeco.ca
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Carbon dioxide has no capability to increase temperature of the
> atmosphere.
Get lost you moron....
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>The hoax experiment which has fascinated the superstitious
> onto the dementia of their obsession to stop economic function, does
> not show absorption of infrared frequencies by the CO2.
You have been provided with spectra showing that it does.
So now you are not only a moron, but a liar.
bz
news:1164438641.1...@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> Subject: Re: You know what is odd about global warming theory?
> From: "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu>
> Newsgroups: sci.environment
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 6:55 pm, Orator <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote:
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <%kq9h.70756$rP1.29...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> > Orator <Ora...@trolls.bridge.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>person wrote:
>>
>> >>>john fernbach wrote:
>>
>> >>>>kdth -- To use a technical term, I think you're lying your fool
>> >>>>head off.
>>
....
>> >>>>science textbooks in the 1950s. That's one reason why when
>> >>>>fantasies about space travel began to blossom after the launching
>> >>>>of Sputnik in the 1957, the focus was on going to Moon or Mars or
>> >>>>the asteroid belt -- not Venus, because Venus was likely to be an
>> >>>>oven.
>> >>>No, because Mars is much closer !
When is the earth-mars distance of 35 million miles (min) 'much closer'
than the earth-venus distance of 25 million miles(min)?
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/venus/statistics.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/statistics.html
When is 10 million more miles 'much closer'?
Perhaps you mean in terms of orbital velocity?
venus 35.0 km/s
earth 29.8 km/s
mars 24.1 km/s
nope, because
delta v, earth venus 5.2 km/s
delta v, earth mars 5.7 km/s
so by both standards, venus is closer to earth than mars.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/soldata2.html
If you are wrong about these, easy to check, facts, how likely is it that
you are right in your thinking about global warming?
>> >>>But those old theories were proven to be wrong by probes to Venus.
>> >>>In fact Venus has little CO2, it has a methane atmosphere, and
>> >>>there is a large change in temperatures. The cloud are cloud of
>> >>>methane which FREEZE at night. We can't see that from the earth.
>> >>Try this:
>> >>http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html
>> >>"This massive blanket of carbon dioxide is also responsible for a
>> >>runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet's surface to an
>> >>average temperature of 467øC (872øF) - hot enough to melt lead. "
>> >>"Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide"
>> >>Interestingly enough 95+% CO2 in the MARS atmosphere does not have
>> >>the "runaway greenhouse effect" claimed to be caused by CO2!
>> > Because it's thin, as we tell you.Please be aware you are not the
>> > spokes person for others so there is no "we" as that is a lie in any
>> > case. I doubt others approve of you lying in their name! Distance is
>> > what has been cited.
Distance from the sun AND overall Albedo determine the mean temperature of
each planet.
Venus's albedo in the visible light range is 0.65, Earth's is 0.39, Mar's
is 0.15
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/soldata2.html
The most important point, however is that only a very small change is
required to produce a large effect when things are in balance.
For example, an equal arm balance has pans that weigh much more than the
minimum weight change that can be detected. The arms and pans of the
balance may weight hundreds of grams, but a few micrograms of extra mass
added to one of the pans is sufficient to cause that pan to 'bottom out'.
The surface of the earth in the sun-earth system has been in thermal
balance. Heat from the molten core of the earth plus heat from the sun has
been in radiative balance with the heat radiated into space.
ANY CHANGE in atmospheric composition or surface texture or composition
causes shifts in the balance of this system.
Man has clearly changed the composition of the atmosphere and the texture
of the earth's surface.
The effects of these changes are already clear on both local and regional
basis. The effects are becoming clear on a global basis.
What will future generations think of those who insisted that smoking
doesn't cause cancer or that emissions from burning fossil fuels doesn't
cause global warming?
What do you think of those that were responsible for the extinction of the
dodo bird, the passenger pidgin, the mastodon, and thousands of other
species? What was their motivation, short term gain or long term benifits
to the human race? Do you find them admirable?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
The Ghost In The Machine
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:31:14 -0500
<CFW9h.17792$tP.1...@read2.cgocable.net>:
General is even more "math magic" to him, presumably;
dunno regarding his opinions of quantum mechanics.
I'm not hopeful, though; there's a lot of "magic" in
QM (particle interchangeability, the single-electron
dual-slit experiment showing interference, and the
still-being-investigated photon entanglement come to mind),
and I don't think he likes "magic".
I'll point you at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
which has a reasonably good collection of "intreme extelligence". :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
news.cogeco.ca
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> which has a reasonably good collection of "intreme extelligence". :-)
An amazing collection of public ignorance on your site there. Sad that
the authors don't even know enough to know how spectacularly ignorant they
are.
Life is crewel isn't it?
news.cogeco.ca
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Imposing legal controls on CO2 emmisions will devastate the economy.
Ya, Chicken Little said the same thing about the CFC ban. According to
know nothing cowards like you the CFC ban was going to kill 1/6th of the
worlds population and destroy civilization.
Didn't happen did it?
Why should anyone fall for your lies the second time?
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> As soon as carbon dioxide is legally classified as 'pollution', the nuts
> that think the world is coming to an end and the corrupt assholes will
> begin to sue anyone that produces CO2.
The only nuts that think the world is coming to an end are Christian
Zealots who think the biblical battle of armagedo is just around the corner.
You know, the type, Right Wing Whack jobs that support the (God speaks to
me) president and perpetual fuckup George Bushie.
Your hero.
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Like in California where the
> froggy little attorney general filed suit against the auto makers for
> damages done to his state from warming caused by the CO2 which their
> cars produce.
How dare people defend their rights in court. It's.. It's... It's just
something that must be abolished... Right?
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> This and the restrictions placed upon industry, (especially the stupid
> credit system some genius devised which punishes industries with
> valuable products and makes them pay unproductive industries the for
> the right to manufacture), will bring the economy to a standstill.
Yup, it's the end of the world all right. Praise God....
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> From
> what I see there is no amount of CO2 too small so you better watch out
> when you're exhaling this illegal gas.
And exhailing it too.
Rant on ignorant Chicken Shit.... Rant on...
The Ghost In The Machine
<wL6ah.3649$J32....@read1.cgocable.net>:
Very. However, to be fair it's not mine; it's Dirk van de Moortel's.
(I do have my own site but it's not quite as relevant here. :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
kdt...@yahoo.com
So I see you enjoy talking philosophy. Anyway you slice it, global
warming by CO2 is a fraud. Real science can prove this to be a fact.
Anyway you slice it, the theoretical idiots that wish to affect our
lives in anyway are guilty of criminal fraud. But since you are so
accustomed to your own dishonesty, you take this awfully lightly. It's
cool to repeat the false claims of CO2Phobia. It's cool to sit around
and tell everyone that global temperatures will just skyrocket unless
we quit the normal process of our life. And a little pampered dishonest
idiot like you who has never suffered hunger or the need to work
everyday to earn a living, can imagine impositions on our economy that
should be installed due to your false science and superstition.
Anyway you slice it chump, this case will make it into the courtroom.
Your flaky science is designed for, and passes by, those uneducated in
physics. People even believe your continual claim that all credible
scientists agree with the unsupported conclusion of global warming by
CO2.
But you assholes will be held liable, either before or after you
destroy our economy, which is your true intent. False evidence and
deliberate attempts to decieve will be prosecutable offenses. In your
college world, you all often fudge data and results, and know that if
you just kiss the ass of the reigning charlatan theory, your personal
bullshit will be overlooked in the cumulative, collective bullshit. And
then you draw that steady public paycheck without any consideration of
your collective fraud being criminal.
So like I said, chump. Take that little CO2 experiment into court. I
know the CO2 detectors are built around the refinement of the combined
properties of CO2 and glass. Any temperature differences are caused by
different rates of heat loss through the materials. This can be proved
by scientific experiment. When you say that this demonstrates that CO2
is absorbing IR that is not absorbed otherwise, you are telling a
direct lie with the intent to commit criminal fraud. Direct experiments
with CO2 prove it does not absorb IR and create higher temperature.
Your refusal to discuss these facts is also part of your criminal
fraud.
Whatever the impact this may have on economic affairs, your fraud and
hoax is criminal. But telling direct lies never bothered you before,
huh?
Kent Deatherage
Eric Swanson
kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>news.cogeco.ca wrote:
>> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > From
>> > what I see there is no amount of CO2 too small so you better watch out
>> > when you're exhaling this illegal gas.
>>
>> And exhailing it too.
>>
>> Rant on ignorant Chicken Shit.... Rant on...
>
>So I see you enjoy talking philosophy. Anyway you slice it, global
>warming by CO2 is a fraud. Real science can prove this to be a fact.
[cut]
>So like I said, chump. Take that little CO2 experiment into court. I
>know the CO2 detectors are built around the refinement of the combined
>properties of CO2 and glass. Any temperature differences are caused by
>different rates of heat loss through the materials. This can be proved
>by scientific experiment. When you say that this demonstrates that CO2
>is absorbing IR that is not absorbed otherwise, you are telling a
>direct lie with the intent to commit criminal fraud. Direct experiments
>with CO2 prove it does not absorb IR and create higher temperature.
>Your refusal to discuss these facts is also part of your criminal
>fraud.
Sorry, I've not been following your rants. Which CO2 experiments do you
refer to? The glass bottle one? Got an actual published science reference?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
kdt...@yahoo.com
Eric Swanson wrote:
> In article <1164547026....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> kdt...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >news.cogeco.ca wrote:
> >> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>
> >> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> > From
> >> > what I see there is no amount of CO2 too small so you better watch out
> >> > when you're exhaling this illegal gas.
> >>
> >> And exhailing it too.
> >>
> >> Rant on ignorant Chicken Shit.... Rant on...
> >
> >So I see you enjoy talking philosophy. Anyway you slice it, global
> >warming by CO2 is a fraud. Real science can prove this to be a fact.
>
> [cut]
>
> >So like I said, chump. Take that little CO2 experiment into court. I
> >know the CO2 detectors are built around the refinement of the combined
> >properties of CO2 and glass. Any temperature differences are caused by
> >different rates of heat loss through the materials. This can be proved
> >by scientific experiment. When you say that this demonstrates that CO2
> >is absorbing IR that is not absorbed otherwise, you are telling a
> >direct lie with the intent to commit criminal fraud. Direct experiments
> >with CO2 prove it does not absorb IR and create higher temperature.
> >Your refusal to discuss these facts is also part of your criminal
> >fraud.
> Sorry, I've not been following your rants. Which CO2 experiments do you
> refer to? The glass bottle one? Got an actual published science reference?
>
O2 and N2, is on the proponents of the theory of gobal warming by CO2.
This claim is made repeatedly. CO2 detectors utilize the slower rate of
heat loss through glass conditioned to inhibit the transfer of specific
thermal frequencies. It is stated falsley that this shows absorption of
thermal frequencies by CO2. This is the only laboratory evidence that
grenhouse nuts have. It is false and a hoax.
Otherwise, there is absolutely no scientific basis to support the claim
that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause higher
temperatures. This claim is based upon theoretical surmise and is no
more than a superstition derived by piss poor scientists.
If you do not agree with these statements, you have here ample
opportunity to present laboratory references that show any property of
CO2 to retain thermal frequencies and cause higher temperature,
especially at the conditions of the atmosphere. There is no such data.
No ability of CO2 to cause higher temperatures by absorption of thermal
frequencies that can be detected whatsoever.
Global warming by CO2 is no more than a superstition, created and
believed in by self infatuated college dwellers that are extremely
lacking in personal honesty.
KD
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>> kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>> >news.cogeco.ca wrote:
>> >> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> Sorry, I've not been following your rants. Which CO2 experiments do you
>> refer to? The glass bottle one? Got an actual published science reference?
>>
>The burden of proof that CO2 absorbs infrared frequencies greater than
>O2 and N2, is on the proponents of the theory of gobal warming by CO2.
>This claim is made repeatedly. CO2 detectors utilize the slower rate of
>heat loss through glass conditioned to inhibit the transfer of specific
>thermal frequencies. It is stated falsley that this shows absorption of
>thermal frequencies by CO2. This is the only laboratory evidence that
>grenhouse nuts have. It is false and a hoax.
What do you mean by "CO2 detectors"? What about spectroscopy?
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+spectroscopy
Have you seen this reference?
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended_abs/varanasi_p.pdf
>Otherwise, there is absolutely no scientific basis to support the claim
>that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause higher
>temperatures. This claim is based upon theoretical surmise and is no
>more than a superstition derived by piss poor scientists.
You mean that CO2 lasers don't work?
>If you do not agree with these statements, you have here ample
>opportunity to present laboratory references that show any property of
>CO2 to retain thermal frequencies and cause higher temperature,
>especially at the conditions of the atmosphere. There is no such data.
>No ability of CO2 to cause higher temperatures by absorption of thermal
>frequencies that can be detected whatsoever.
But the Earth is warming!! And the upper atmosphere is also changing in
a way which is consistent with AGW. This just posted:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/
See the new report in SCIENCE:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5803/1253