Global Warming
Anthony Stephen Szopa
I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
from the inner earth reaching the surface. These variations may be
the dominant factor that determines the surface and atmospheric
temperatures, in other words, this variation in the earth's heat
dissipation originating from the core and mantle may be the true
reason why there are ice ages and global warming. The human factor
may be negligible although the global data may correlate well with
current geologic and atmospheric trends.
She said that was a very good idea and that she would write a paper
on it.
As far as any of you know, has such a hypothesis been presented
before?
yvind Seland
> Global Warming
>
> I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
>
> I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
>
> This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
> from the inner earth reaching the surface.
These variations has to be more than slight though since
the heat transport from the inner earth to the surface
is quite small.
In the litterature, in this case Wallace and Hobbs, Atmospheric
Science, an Introductory Survey, the total heat transport
is given as 0.06 W / m2, and is comparable a direct heating rate
from burning of fossil fuel and nuclear fussion of 0.02 W/m2
The increase in CO2 from 1765 to 1990 is estimated to give a
1.5 W/m2 increase in the radiative forcing.
Ųyvind Seland
Mark Folsom
surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
internal heat production in the earth?
Mark Folsom
Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> wrote in message
news:38233EE2...@ciphile.com...
> Global Warming
>
> I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
>
> I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
>
> This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
Harold Lindaberry
Mark Folsom wrote:
> Since most of the heat produced inside the earth is very far from the
> surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
> transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
> surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
> internal heat production in the earth?
It depends on where you are located - in some areas of Texas you drill a
water well and come up with hot water that has to be cooled before it's cool
enough to drink but it's great on the heating bills if you're got the right set
up.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Irv Chidsey
>Date: Sun, 07 November 1999 10:27 AM EST
>Message-id: <382599E7...@epix.net>
>
Quite a while ago I read some articles about the effects of the yearly
temperature cycle on permafrost. Temperature cycle effects are very rapidly
attenuated with depth. In fact all temperature changes are rapidly attenuated
with depth. My guess would be that if the heat flow thru the core-mantle
boundary were to stop, the effect would not be noticed at the surface untill at
least a glacial cycle later. Doubling the flow would take as long to be
noticed.
Irv
Irv @ Webster
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My e-mail address will work better if you un-despam it.
That is, remove "don'tspam".
Anthony Stephen Szopa
> Since most of the heat produced inside the earth is very far from the
> surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
> transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
> surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
> internal heat production in the earth?
>
> Mark Folsom
>
> Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> wrote in message
> news:38233EE2...@ciphile.com...
> > Global Warming
> >
> > I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> > head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> > they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
> >
> > I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> > global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
> >
> > This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> > suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> > constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
> > from the inner earth reaching the surface. These variations may be
> > the dominant factor that determines the surface and atmospheric
> > temperatures, in other words, this variation in the earth's heat
> > dissipation originating from the core and mantle may be the true
> > reason why there are ice ages and global warming. The human factor
> > may be negligible although the global data may correlate well with
> > current geologic and atmospheric trends.
> >
> > She said that was a very good idea and that she would write a paper
> > on it.
> >
> > As far as any of you know, has such a hypothesis been presented
> > before?
I am not talking about heat "production." I am talking about heat
dissipation. I believe we do not need "really huge" fluctuations
in heat dissipation to cause global effects. We are talking about
a very large global weather system that can be significantly
effected over time by a small external change of input heat to the
system.
Harold Lindaberry
Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:
I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as the
earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the ice ages
have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to the
billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance. in the
over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but that is
just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.
Shlomo Bronstein
Harold Lindaberry כתב בהודעה <3826B801...@epix.net>...
>
> I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as
the
>earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the
ice ages
>have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to
the
>billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance.
in the
>over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink
causing
>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and
volcanic
>eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but
that is
>just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.
>
Geothermal has an effect on the ice ages (that the last one was in the
middle ages). Both geothermal and sunlight warms the atlantic ocean and
causes a flow of warm water that warms parts of Europe. It is known by
analysis of the polar ice and some ponds of mud that the surface temperature
of some parts of the earth is quite sudden and the average temperature can
drop very dramatically in months. It was known to happen.
We are currently in a warm period. This warm period have been stable for the
last a few hundred years. Global warming may have some very different
results from what we might first think. The warming can infact cause another
iceage.
Irv Chidsey
>Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 06:07 PM EST
>Message-id: <807ks4$mo$1...@news.netvision.net.il>
>
on what
>
>Harold Lindaberry כתב בהודעה wrote:
<3826B801...@epix.net>...
>>
>> I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as
>the
>>earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the
>ice ages
>>have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to
>the
>>billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance.
>in the
>>over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink
>causing
>>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and
>volcanic
>>eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but
>that is
>>just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.
>>
>
>
>Geothermal has an effect on the ice ages (that the last one was in the
>middle ages). Both geothermal and sunlight warms the atlantic ocean and
>causes a flow of warm water that warms parts of Europe. It is known by
>analysis of the polar ice and some ponds of mud that the surface temperature
>of some parts of the earth is quite sudden and the average temperature can
>drop very dramatically in months. It was known to happen.
>We are currently in a warm period. This warm period have been stable for the
>last a few hundred years. Global warming may have some very different
>results from what we might first think. The warming can infact cause another
>iceage.
>
1) I believe the "little ice age", so called, is not considered to be a leal
ice age, it was much too minor.
2) The sudden temperature changes of the last ice age cycle have all been
coincident with sudden changes in the oceanic circulation regime and are
generally believed to have been caused by those circulation changes. The
circulation changes in turn seem to have been coincident with changes in the
temperature and salinity of the surface water. If the surface water gets to be
too warm or too fresh it ceases to sink and so the deep circulation stops and
the warm water no longer flows north to take the place of the arctic water.
Some of this was covered in Nature last spring.
Marty Bonit
>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
>eruptions.
Cool?
Wow!
> I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field
Thanks god.
John McCarthy
Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
quakes and volcanic eruptions.
When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains
were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
radioactivity.
I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
earth changing.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
chris michael
Marty Bonit wrote:
> >Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
> >the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
> >eruptions.
>
chris michael
chris michael
Uncle Al
chris michael wrote:
>
> What else causes the earth to heat up?
Radioactive decay. From where do you think all the helium and
argon-40 originate?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Doug Huffman
--
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong! Doug Huffman<dhuf...@awod.com>
chris michael <gem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3842CA32...@hotmail.com...
Joshua Halpern
: Harold Lindaberry includes
:
: Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
: the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
: quakes and volcanic eruptions.
: When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains
: were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
: tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
: accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
: crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
: earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
: relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
: currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
: radioactivity.
:
: I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
: earth changing.
Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy. It
should be interesting. I wonder if the thing expands and shrinks
on an annual basis as we near and receed from the Sun
josh halpern
Uncle Al
Doug Huffman wrote:
>
> Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
last hundred years or so. No change.
Michael Kagalenko
]
]
]Doug Huffman wrote:
]>
]> Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
]
]Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
]thermometer.
No, it isn't. Duh !
] Underground caverns average surface temp.
No, they don't. Double Duh !
] You simply
Ian St. John
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3843312B...@hate.spam.net...
>
>
> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
Double negatives.. and probably not what you meant to say. "presence
is disproven" or "absense is proven"?
> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.
Driven by the third power of the delta temp ( .5 degrees C) ( i.e.
very very weak and slow ). It takes *tens of thousand* of years for
the major changes in temperature produced by ice ages to propagate to
the bottom of icecaps and glaciers ( measured temperatures from ice
cores ). Global warming has only been ( barely) measurable above the
instrument noise for a few decades. Hardly enough to have *started*
though tens or hundreds of meters of rock. Plus the temperature of
cave systems would be *much, much*, more affected by air currents and
evaporative cooling than by heat transfer from the surface. This would
tend to dampen any change that did occur.
Al. I find most of your answers on chemical and materials informative
and complete. However, you have just proven that you should stick to
what you know. On politics and the environment, you are in a close tie
with the village idiot. ;-)
Raymond W Jensen
A couple of years back, I watched an episode of "Frontline" (PBS) in which
the matter of discussion was whether or not electromagnetic fields cause
cancer. The centerpiece was some Swedish(?) study, where the researchers
monitored cancer rates of individuals who lived near high-voltage lines as
opposed to the rest of the population. They found that there was a higher
cancer rate in the former group, i.e. those that lived near high-voltage
lines. A later study (done, I think by some researchers at Illinois Inst.
of Technology) could not reproduce these results. It was later found that
in the former study, the researchers took only the data which showed a
higher cancer rate near power lines relative to the rest of the population,
and published those. They ignored the data which showed, that in some areas,
people who lived near power lines had cancer rates less than the overall
population. Had they published the latter data, the overall effect of power
lines on cancer rates would have been null, and in concurrence with the
later study.
Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done with global
temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is there a
sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this manner?"
Ray Jensen
Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 30-Nov-99 Re: Global Warming by "Ian
St. John"@spamcop.n
(optional)
wrote:
>chris michael wrote:
>>
>> What else causes the earth to heat up?
>
1.
>Radioactive decay. From where do you think all the helium and
>argon-40 originate?
Uranium decays slowly.
2.
Heat of crystalisation is also important.
(Probably most important)
The outer core is liquid, and the inner core
is solid. A lot of heat is given up in making
that phase change (liq to solid).
3.
Tidal forces
These don't only affect bodies of water,
They also flex the planet (contributing
to the flattening at the poles and bulgeing
at the equator).
4.
It may be that the Eaths' magnetic field
is maintained by a "self exciting dynamo"
effect. This would require circulating
electric currents, and electric currents
cause heating.
(I squared R losses)
--
Sleepalot aa #1385 For email, cut the string.
Will Howard
science into these debates often makes the crazies even crazier, but
there have been a number of studies of borehole temperatures, both into
rock, and glacial ice, and they appear to confirm Late 20th Century
global warming. Argue all you want about the *CAUSE(S)* of the warming,
but it's happening. See:
1) Science 1998 Oct 9;282(5387):279-81
Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: A global perspective.
Pollack HN, Huang S, Shen PY
H. N. Pollack and S. Huang, Department of Geological Sciences,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063, USA. P.-Y. Shen,
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada.
Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in
eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia
indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of
Earth has increased by about 0.5 degreesC and that the 20th century has
been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures
also indicate that Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by
about 1.0 degreesC over the past five centuries. The geothermal data
offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of
20th-century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies.
2) Science 1998 Oct 9;282(5387):268-71
Past temperatures directly from the greenland ice sheet.
Dahl-Jensen D, Mosegaard K, Gundestrup N, Clow GD, Johnsen SJ, Hansen
AW, Balling N
D. Dahl-Jensen, K. Mosegaard, N. Gundestrup, S. J. Johnsen, A. W.
Hansen, Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Physics and Geophysics,
Department of Geophysics, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen OE,
Denmark. G. D. Clow, USGS-Climate Program,
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles
measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at
the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865
kilometers farther south. The result is a 50, 000-year-long temperature
history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial
Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age,
and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction
with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and
+0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP
history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher
climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density
from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Ian St. John
Raymond W Jensen <jen...@CMU.EDU> wrote in message
news:ksF0Zj600...@andrew.cmu.edu...
<snip>
> Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done
with global
> temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is
there a
> sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this
manner?"
Data from a single researcher or study might be skewed, although I
can't think of a motive. The interlocking results of many different
but related studies are much harder to dismiss.
Graeme Greenup
Uncle Al wrote:
> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.
Very interesting, could you cite your references please?
Graeme
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Raymond W Jensen <jen...@CMU.EDU> wrote in message
>news:ksF0Zj600...@andrew.cmu.edu...
><snip>
>> Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done
>with global
>> temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is
>there a
>> sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this
>manner?"
>
>Data from a single researcher or study might be skewed, although I
>can't think of a motive.
Funding is a motive and a pretty powerful one. Much easier to
generate funding asserting a presence of a risk than asserting its
absence. No, I'm not trying to say that all reports of risks are
necessarily faulty. Only, that a powerful bias with a well specified
direction exists.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Phil Hays
> Funding is a motive and a pretty powerful one. Much easier to
> generate funding asserting a presence of a risk than asserting its
> absence.
Perhaps for some things. However, global climate change is a rather different
subject. Notice that a lot of money changes hands in the carbon energy
business. And a lot of money would go in different directions if the USA
started to switch to non-carbon energy, such as nuclear and/or solar. Follow
the money.
> Only, that a powerful bias with a well specified direction exists.
I agree. Follow the money and see the bias. Do also notice that in the USA,
the money is winning. The USA is not going to make any noticeable action on
global climate change.
Of course, there is a reasonable change that statements like this:
"Positive environmental externalities from more CO2 in the air swamp any
conceivable negatives,."
(Source http://www.westernfuels.org/news/102199.htm )
Will be remembered when proven wrong by events. Regardless of funding. Or
perhaps more so because of funding.
--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principle." Carl Sagan
Jed Checketts
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
"Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
........same sentence as....
Global Warming is Proven...
(and it requires less large words)
Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Jed Checketts
>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
> http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amos Keppler
>
> In article <3843312B...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug Huffman wrote:
> > >
> > > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> "Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
> ........same sentence as....
> Global Warming is Proven...
>
> (and it requires less large words)
>
> Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
> temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
> this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
> made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
> more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
> ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
> the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
> increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
what's happening all over the world.
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
Amos
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< My virtual, wilderness community address is: >
< http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/ >
< My address at midnight: >
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/firewind.html
«We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well
that Death will tremble to take us»!
Charles Bukowski
John Prussing
>In article <3843312B...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Doug Huffman wrote:
>> >
>> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>"Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
>........same sentence as....
>Global Warming is Proven...
>(and it requires less large words)
>Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
>temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
>this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
>made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
>more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
>ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
>the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
>increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>Jed Checketts
>>
>> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
>> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
>> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
>> last hundred years or so. No change.
>>
>> --
>> Uncle Al
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
>> http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>>
Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
on the cause.
What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
years ago? Is all the additional heat being radiated out into space?
How would one test that? Measurements of ocean temperatures and ice
cores seems very reasonable. Measurements of temperatures in caves (even
if true, which we have no hard evidence of in this newsgroup) seem more
indicative of constant geothermal activity than what's happening on the
surface of the earth, without the benefit of a thermal insulator.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John E. Prussing
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Aladar
prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing) wrote:
> Jed Checketts <jch...@powerball.net> writes:
>
<...>
The model consists of two elements: atmospheric absorption with
greenhouse retention and surface reflection of heat.
The fossil record indicates that an intense, large amount of vegetation
was present prior the glaciation periods. Therefore the rate of
depletion of carbon dioxide by the vegetation from the atmosphere also
was high. The atmospheric composition change reduced the greenhouse
retention and the atmospheric absorption of heat. As a result the
precipitation in form of snow started to cover larger areas, increasing
the surface reflection. The overall heat retained by the Earth now
decreased not only by the increased radiation through the atmosphere
due to the changes of the composition of it, but by the increased
reflection of the heat, reaching us from the Sun by the snow covered
parts of the surface. It resulted in further increase of the snow
covered areas, until it reached and covered parts of vegetation and
the reduction in the vegetation resulted in a stop of heat reduction
due to build-up of carbon dioxide concentration.
The overall process therefore shows a primary equilibrium at large
biosphere and a consecutive equilibrium with a greatly limited area of
vegetation. The trigger mechanism is the reduction of carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere. The accelerator is the reflection of
heat by snow covered areas.
The extended periods of glaciation could gradually turn back on the
volcanically released carbon dioxide.
This model fits to the observed evidence and identifies two key
processes.
[If we understand the opposite process we will understand the so called
global warming. I believe that to talk about the warming is already
diverting the attantion from the real issue! The real issue is the
atmospheric composition OUT OF OBSERVED DURING THE HUMAN CIVILIZATION
RANGE!]
--
Ali
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
Amos Keppler
>
> In article <829tbc$457$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing) writes:
>
> >But the evidence that it is happening is real.
>
One proof and many:
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
Joe Fischer
: Global Warning is already a reality. You can see the same almost
: anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
: compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
: what's happening all over the world.
:
: http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
What happens in one small area, or even in
many small areas, does not reflect that total or
average temperature information.
For instance, where I live, it was very warm the
entire month of November, but this November was only the
5th warmest November in recorded history, which only goes
back 150 years or so.
This is not to say that global warming isn't going
on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
Earth, and in both air and water.
As far as sea rise goes, it is very interesting,
and seems to have been going on at least a couple of
thousand of years before man ever started burning coal,
oil or gas. Cleopatra's Palace was just found in the
last 20 years, it is under 30 feet of water, but hopefully
at least part of that is due to local land falling rather
than the sea rising.
Apparently it is known that Venice _is_ sinking
faster than the sea is rising, and some areas may have
land rising, or volcanic magma building, such as in
Alaska 30 or 40 years ago, several cubic miles of valley
was filled in.
More study is needed, and many different processes
are going on, but it is important to not let local
variations cause panic, unless there is real danger, as
there has been in Central America, the Carribean, and
a few other places.
The English Channel could be crossed walking
2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
sea is rising, and man did not start burning coal in
any great amount until about 1500 AD, and didn't
discover oil or natural gas in quantity until the
mid 1800s.
So nature is apparently doing better, or worse,
than man.
Joe Fischer
Leonard Evens
>
> In article <384919...@hl.telia.no>, Amos Keppler <aste...@hl.telia.no> writes:
>
> > Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
>
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [Delete "nospam." to email me]
Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the meaning of
the evidence for global warming. But a belief that human
activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution has
affected climate does not indicate an authoritarian frame of
mind. Presumably natural forces don't conform to our
ideological biases. So it is at least conceivable that
our species might have to change some of the things it is
doing because of their effect on all of us. If one believes
in minimal insterference with individual freedom, the problem
would be to figure out how to accomplish such ends in the least
intrusive way.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Irv Chidsey
>Date: Sat, 04 December 1999 11:45 AM EST
>Message-id: <38494539...@math.nwu.edu>
But reasonable people discuss evidence, causes, consequences, possible
solutions; they don't argue by name calling.
Irv
Irv @ Webster
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My e-mail address will work better if you un-despam it.
That is, remove "don'tspam".
Irv Chidsey
>Date: Sat, 04 December 1999 10:10 AM EST
>Message-id: <3849...@news.iglou.com>
>
Big bunch snipped.
> The English Channel could be crossed walking
>2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
>sea is rising,
This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago Caisar's armies
couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
Irv
More snipped.
>
>Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
: (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > The English Channel could be crossed walking
: >sea is rising,
:
: This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
It certainly wasn't a power of 10, unless you want it
to mean dry land all the way.
It hasn't been all that long since Ohio was covered
with ice.
Joe Fischer
Andrew Russell
>
>What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
>being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
>years ago?
The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
temperatures.
Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
years. This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
measuring.
See John Daly's excellent and informative web site at
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/index.htm.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The earth needs to be saved not so much from global warming,
ozone depletion and rain-forest destruction as from the hordes
of sanctimonious, self-appointed saviors who merchandise
environmental panic..."
- Rolling Stone June 28th, 1990 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Russell
>
If one visits Mr. Keppler's website they will find nothing but a political
polemic. No scientific documentation, no numbers, no real facts. Just an
assertion that unnamed islands have disappeared from sea level rises due to
global warming.
In order to claim there have been (or will be) significant sea level rises
from global warming (whether natural or man-made), you are going to have to
explain away the hard evidence that there has been *no* sea level rise for
the last 150 years, as shown by the mean sea level marker carved in rock at
Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841. This direct evidence that Mr. Keppler is
quite wrong can be found at John Daly's excellent web site at:
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ross1841.htm
But then Mr. Keppler also indicates on his website he believes that
computers and the ability to communicate are going to disappear, which he
thinks is 'good news'.
from his website:
"Well, anyway, we're going to continue to document it
all on this page, as long as there are computers and
means for them to communicate, which I gather, will
not be too long now...
Good news to be sure!"
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring
that about?"
Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Lindaberry
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : Harold Lindaberry includes
> :
> : Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
> : the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
> : quakes and volcanic eruptions.
> :
> : When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains
> : were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
> : tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
> : accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
> : crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
> : earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
> : relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
> : currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
> : radioactivity.
> :
> : I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
> : earth changing.
>
> Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
> soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
> should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy.
If so - that should give one data point then over the next several
thousand to 100,000 years or so we might get an indication perhaps even
a few million years for statistical significance suspect in that time
frame the original question will not be remembered
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Joe Rongen
> >
> > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
> > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
> > or a hundred years ago?
Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
nuclear testing idiots*.
They may have blown huge holes right through all layers
protecting our atmosphere more than once....
The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.
-------
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>> John Prussing wrote:
>> >
>> > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
>> > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
>> > or a hundred years ago?
>
>Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
>releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
>nuclear testing idiots*.
Huge quantities of what? CO2?
>They may have blown huge holes right through all layers
>protecting our atmosphere more than once....
There is nothing protecting the atmosphere other than the atmosphere.
>
>The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
>a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
>they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.
Ahh, I see, you're back to your usual trolling. Has been a while.
Aladar
Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
> John Prussing wrote:
> >
> >What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
CO2 are
> >being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a
hundred
> >years ago?
>
The intentional diversion is working. Everybody forget about the real,
measurable and correctable situation with the atmospheric composition,
just talk about an arguable consequence - which is irrelevant in a
global sense.
Let's go through it again: the biosphere during it's existence
collected, removed from the atmosphere large amounts of carbon.
Deposited into the coal, oil and natural gas deposits. In the last
hundred years we, the people release the collected during millions of
years from the atmosphere carbon back into the atmosphere several
hundred time higher rate and ever increasing rate than it was removed
by the vegetation prior the first man's birth.
The seeweed must be more intelligent then we are, because it already
reacted to correct the problem, what we are causing.
The correctable fact is that the atmospheric composition is different
from any prior composition during the man's life on the Earth. Is it
alarming? Yes! What will happen if we don't do anything to return into
the range of our ancestor's life? Nobody knows!
There is a simple possibility to get back into the range of normal life
with the atmospheric composition, and it could achieve two noble goals:
start an intense nuclear power plant building program, rework all the
nuclear warheads into powerplant fuel. The other major environmental
danger, the nuclear explosions could be avoided at the mean time.
Joe Rongen
message news:82dko4$5...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
> >The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
> >a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
> >they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.
>
> And people ask why I don't believe the GW loons....
Maybe because you fit in the above?
-------
Joshua Halpern
: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: > : Harold Lindaberry includes
: > : earth changing.
: > Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
: > soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
: > should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy.
:
: If so - that should give one data point then over the next several
: thousand to 100,000 years or so we might get an indication perhaps even
: a few million years for statistical significance suspect in that time
: frame the original question will not be remembered
These things are scarily accurate. You should be able to see
interseasonal changes easily. You won't have to wait nearly
that long to have enough data to figure back.
Josh Halpern
Joe Rongen
message news:82e9rc$6...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...
> Tell me, is that tinfoil hat uncomfortable?
I wouldn't know...I do not live in England.
Here in Canada we all wear hockey helmets. :-)
-------
Harold Lindaberry
Joshua Halpern wrote:
Time will tell - as long as there isn't too much number massaging to make
a preconceived point.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> Josh Halpern
Harold Lindaberry
Joe Rongen wrote:
Yea and you have a corner on all the zamboni technology too ;-)
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> -------
Phil Hays
> The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
> temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
> completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
> temperatures.
This is true over a short enough time period.
On a year to year basis, it is very true that human climate change is smaller
than natural variability. The expected climate change is on the order of 0.01 C
per year, and the natural variability is on the order of 0.4 C per year. There
is little hope of seeing such a tiny signal in all that noise.
On a decade to decade basis, it's getting closer. Somewhere around a twenty
interval the size of the natural variability and the human change become about
the same in size.
Over more than a century that station based records have been kept, the human
changes are larger than the natural variability.
> Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
> have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
> measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
> years.
Important if true. But perhaps the reader might check the facts:
ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t2lt/t2ltglhmam.d
Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per decade.
While this is half of the expected trend, it clearly isn't "no global warming at
all".
> This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
> warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
> and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
> measuring.
Newton's laws are demonstrably wrong, but were good enough to get astronauts to
the Moon and back. The important question isn't "are the global climate models
exactly correct", it is "are the global climate models good enough to understand
some of the probable impacts of human changes to the atmosphere on the climate?"
Amok Keppler
>
> Amos Keppler (asterdi...@hl.telia.no) wrote:
> : Global Warning is already a reality. You can see the same almost
> : anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
> : compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
> : what's happening all over the world.
> :
> : http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
>
> What happens in one small area, or even in
> many small areas, does not reflect that total or
> average temperature information.
> For instance, where I live, it was very warm the
> entire month of November, but this November was only the
> 5th warmest November in recorded history, which only goes
> back 150 years or so.
>
> This is not to say that global warming isn't going
> on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
> temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
> taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
> Earth, and in both air and water.
>
When reality is confirming findings *all over the world* it doesn't
really leave much doubt, ig the *Human Created* global warming.
"South Pacific Regional Environment Program"
http://www.sprep.org.ws/PressRelease/1999/pr9914_.htm
sp...@sprep.org.ws
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/10/ice.core.warming.ap/
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/09/marine.life.reut/
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/03/warming.enn/
http://www.itn.co.uk/Britain/brit19990126/012603.htm
http://epn.org/prospect/31/31gelbfs.html
http://www.seanet.com/~camw/Ishmael/Classics/impactof.htm
http://www.igc.org/globalpolicy/socecon/envronmt/kahn.htm
During an ice age the levels of CO2 is/was 180 ppm (parts per million).
during normal warming periods, they are on the higher 280 levels.
The current (and rising) CO2 levels, are 360 ppm.
Corresponding number for Methane are even more revealing.
320/350 ppb (parts per billion) - 650/770 - and current levels
1700 ppb.
Amos
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Add Ons and Reinvention 1999-12-05
Amok Keppler
>
> Amos Keppler wrote:
> > One proof and many:
> >
> > http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
> >
> > Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
> >
> > Amos
>
> If one visits Mr. Keppler's website they will find nothing but a political
> polemic. No scientific documentation, no numbers, no real facts. Just an
> assertion that unnamed islands have disappeared from sea level rises due to
> global warming.
>
Joe Rongen
message news:384AE66B...@epix.net...
>
>
> Joe Rongen wrote:
>
> > Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in
> > message news:82e9rc$6...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > > Tell me, is that tinfoil hat uncomfortable?
> >
> > I wouldn't know...I do not live in England.
> > Here in Canada we all wear hockey helmets. :-)
>
> Yea and you have a corner on all the zamboni technology too ;-)
Hmm..I seem to recall that 'it' got gobbled up rather quickly
in Britain...after it was renamed by your top lab people as VAT. ;-)
-------
Richard Herring
> Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
> : (Joe Fischer) claimed:
> : > The English Channel could be crossed walking
> : >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
> : >sea is rising,
> :
> : This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
> : Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
> It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
Wadable? How far do you think the level has risen in the last
2000 years, then?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Robert Grumbine
>
> This is not to say that global warming isn't going
>on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
>temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
>taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
>Earth, and in both air and water.
Nicer to have more data points rather than fewer, but your
statement sounds fairly extreme. In measurement/sampling/observing
systems the frequency (time and space) has some correspondance
to the time and space variability of the quantity being measured.
Are you contending, then, that the time and space variability of
temperature is so high that the thermometers must be space every
few km, and be recording every few minutes?
On the face of it, this sounds quite peculiar, in that my casual
observation of temperature indicates that deviations from the
mean tend to persist for time scales of days, and space scales of
hundreds of km. That is, as a rule if we're much warmer than usual
today, it is very likely that we will be again tomorrow and the next
day. Similarly, if we're much warmer today, it's also likely that the
next couple hundred km will also be warmer.
If you'll provide a citation to a peer-reviewed scientific journal
that demonstrates the space and time scales of variability are minutes
and km, I'd appreciate it.
Followup to sci.environment
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Jim Carr
... reduced followups ...
In article <GHj24.242$Dw....@198.235.216.4>,
"Joe Rongen" <joer...@whisp.com> writes:
}
} > John Prussing wrote:
} > > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
} > > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
} > > or a hundred years ago?
}
} Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
} releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
} nuclear testing idiots*.
In article <ORj24.46$M4.1167@uchinews>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Huge quantities of what? CO2?
Some part of this thread attributes "global warming" to the release
of _heat_ energy from combustion, rather than greenhouse gases or
some other mechanism. The answer to the "far fetched guess" above
is to calculate the amount of heat released by nuclear explosions
and how much it would raise the global temperature.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
J.R. Pelmont
> (snip)
> The English Channel could be crossed walking
> 2000 years ago, ....(snip)
No exageration ? Do you mean rather 20,000 ?
Irv Chidsey
>Date: Mon, 06 December 1999 04:35 PM EST
>Message-id: <1999120622...@grenoble-10-126.abo.wanadoo.fr>
I tend to agree with you, my Glacial & quarternary geology text indicates that
the land bridge slipped under about 8,000 years ago.
Irv
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
: > Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
: > : (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > : >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
: > : >sea is rising,
: > :
: > : This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: > : Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
: >
: > It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
:
: Wadable? How far do you think the level has risen in the last
: 2000 years, then?
Ok, I'll look for references. As I said, Venice
and other places appear to suffer from the land sinking,
so the depth of the English Channel does not have to be
a result of a general rise of that much in the ocean.
Some of the rise in sea level must result from
factors other than ice melting, the Mississippi Delta
had to raise sea level, underwater volcanos do, and
magma flowing into the sea must.
How much this amounts to, or any other factors,
such as the spreading of cracks and crevices in the
sea floor, has to be considered in any study.
The fact that Cleopatra's Palace was "lost",
and found under 20 or 30 feet of water shows that
either seal level rose that much in 2000 years, or
some land masses sink quite a bit.
Joe Fischer
Jim Carr
Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
:
: (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > The English Channel could be crossed walking
: >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
: >sea is rising,
:
: This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
In article <3849...@news.iglou.com>
joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) writes:
>
> It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
>It certainly wasn't a power of 10, unless you want it
>to mean dry land all the way.
> It hasn't been all that long since Ohio was covered
>with ice.
Do you mean last winter or last ice age.
IIRC, during the last ice age the bottom of Wakulla Springs (over
a hundred feet down) was dry.
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
PH> Important if true. But perhaps the reader might check the facts:
Ph> ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t2lt/t2ltglhmam.d
PH> Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per
decade.
Typo alert! That should be 0.047 C per decade.
PH> While this is half of the expected trend, it clearly isn't "no global
warming at
PH> all".
....
> You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant. And
> more, the ten warmest years ever measured is also recorded the last 20
> years. Your claim do sounds so strange that I must doubt your sincerity.
Perhaps you misunderstood my points.
A day or year or a decade can prove nothing: the "signal" of human caused
climate change is almost surely smaller than the "noise" of natural variations.
Twenty years might be long enough. The measured change was smaller than
expected, but some of the reasons for this are known: the largest volcanic
eruption in 100 years for one. Yet I don't think that the twenty year MSU data
is convincing, for several reasons.
The hundred plus years of station records, on the other hand, is convincing.
And the geologic records even more so.
Amok Keppler
>
> Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> > The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
> > temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
> > completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
> > temperatures.
>
> This is true over a short enough time period.
>
> On a year to year basis, it is very true that human climate change is smaller
> than natural variability. The expected climate change is on the order of 0.01 C
> per year, and the natural variability is on the order of 0.4 C per year. There
> is little hope of seeing such a tiny signal in all that noise.
>
> On a decade to decade basis, it's getting closer. Somewhere around a twenty
> interval the size of the natural variability and the human change become about
> the same in size.
>
> Over more than a century that station based records have been kept, the human
> changes are larger than the natural variability.
>
> > Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
> > have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
> > measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
> > years.
>
>
>
> Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per decade.
>
> > This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
> > warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
> > and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
> > measuring.
>
> Newton's laws are demonstrably wrong, but were good enough to get astronauts to
> the Moon and back. The important question isn't "are the global climate models
> exactly correct", it is "are the global climate models good enough to understand
> some of the probable impacts of human changes to the atmosphere on the climate?"
You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant. And
more, the ten warmest years ever measured is also recorded the last 20
years. Your claim do sounds so strange that I must doubt your sincerity.
And more:
Amok Keppler
of the warming.
Amok Keppler
>
> Amok Keppler wrote:
> > Phil Hays wrote:
>
>
> Ph> ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t2lt/t2ltglhmam.d
>
> PH> Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per
> decade.
>
>
> warming at
> PH> all".
>
> ....
>
> > You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant. And
> > more, the ten warmest years ever measured is also recorded the last 20
> > years. Your claim do sounds so strange that I must doubt your sincerity.
>
>
> A day or year or a decade can prove nothing: the "signal" of human caused
> climate change is almost surely smaller than the "noise" of natural variations.
>
> Twenty years might be long enough. The measured change was smaller than
> expected, but some of the reasons for this are known: the largest volcanic
> eruption in 100 years for one. Yet I don't think that the twenty year MSU data
> is convincing, for several reasons.
>
> The hundred plus years of station records, on the other hand, is convincing.
> And the geologic records even more so.
>
When temperature is at the top of all natural variation scales,
everywhere, you betcha.
When observation made by "ordinary" people and scientists match, there
isn't really no doubt left.
Kym HORSELL
>John Prussing wrote:
>>
>>What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
>>being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
>>years ago?
>The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
>temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
>completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
>temperatures.
>Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
>have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
>measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
>years. This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
...
Goodness... talking about "deceit and dishonesty", the satellite
study you're referring to was amended a year or so back after it
was pointed out there had been a systematic error in the data
analysis. This *HAS* been mentioned a few times on these news groups...
a pitty "some" may have missed it.
Both the "rough calc" done by the objectors to the satellite study,
and even a "better calc" done by the original experiemnters both
showed after the bias had been taken into account there was
a statitisically significant rise in measured temps over the short
period of the study.
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU K...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~khorsell http://cs.binghamton.edu/~kym
Kym HORSELL
>Amos Keppler wrote:
>> One proof and many:
>>
>> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
>>
>> Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
>>
>> Amos
>If one visits Mr. Keppler's website they will find nothing but a political
>polemic. No scientific documentation, no numbers, no real facts. Just an
>assertion that unnamed islands have disappeared from sea level rises due to
>global warming.
>In order to claim there have been (or will be) significant sea level rises
>from global warming (whether natural or man-made), you are going to have to
>explain away the hard evidence that there has been *no* sea level rise for
>the last 150 years, as shown by the mean sea level marker carved in rock at
>Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841. This direct evidence that Mr. Keppler is
>quite wrong can be found at John Daly's excellent web site at:
...
Of course claims that the sea level hasn't risen in Tasmania since 1841
seem to be refuted by the 100+ year records available from several
sites and reproduced at
http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/rqds.html .
According to a time series analysis of each of the longer datasets
(some of which do record tital waves and movement of the measuring
apparatus) show consistently at least a 15 cm -per -century rise in
sealevels (San Francisco and San Diego show more than 20 cm per C rises).
See (e.g.) http://kryten.cs.mu.oz.au:8080/ecology/sea-level-data .
Kym HORSELL
...
>Indeed not, but many of those espousing global warming, particularly
>those on Usenet, and *particularly* loons like Keppler, are indeed motivated
>by authoritarianism.
...
Apparently-unambiguously "understanding" the motivations of others --
particularly when un-accompanied by any reproduced data -- is
sometimes taken to be the operation of that old
standin-for-objective-reality, projection.
(From a modern handbook of clinical psychiatry:)
"Projection:
Unacceptable inner impulses and their derivatives are perceived and
reacted to as though they were outside the self. On a psychotic
level, it takes the form of frank delusions about external reality,
usually persecutory, and includes both perception of one's own
feelings in another and subsequent acting on the perception
(psychotic paranoid delusions). The impulses may derive from the id or
the superego (hallucination recriminations) but may undergo
transformation in the process. Thus, according to Freud's analysis of
paranoid projections, homosexual libidinal impulses are transformed
into hatred and then projected onto the object of the unacceptable
homosexual impulse [this example also has elements of displacement]".
(Adorno et al c1950:)
"Projection:
This ranks as the 2nd most important defence mechanism
in Freudian theory. It involves the process whereby
the subject attributes their own unacceptable thoughts,
feelings, and behaviours to other people or to the environment.
Projection thus enables a person to blame something
or someone else for their own unconsciously-acknowledged shortcomings.
The golf player that muffs a shot and looks critically at
their golf-club is engaging in a primitive form of projection.
The young woman who is unaware of her own lustful impulses
may see every man she dates as attempting to seduce her. The student
who doesn't prepare for an exam and then attributes their failing
to an "unfair test", the cheating of others, or a professor
that didn't explain the material. Projection has also been used
as an explanation of wider social prejudices and scapegoating,
since ethnic and racial stereotypes provide a convenient target
for the attribution of one's own negative personal characteristics."
Joe Fischer
: When temperature is at the top of all natural variation scales,
: everywhere, you betcha.
And 3 years ago we had the record coldest day ever
in the Ohio River Valley. This November was only the 4th
warmest, 1930 was the warmest Nov.
In 1950, it was so hot in August, brick streets
were blowing upward where the curbs didn't allow expansion.
Data taken at widely separated points is inconclusive.
: When observation made by "ordinary" people and scientists match, there
: isn't really no doubt left.
The scientists can't do it alone? When data is
taken precisely at every 10 mile grid all over the globe,
including all oceans, seas and lakes in addition to the
dry land stations, then the data will mean something, as
it is, each local reading is just one point on a big Earth.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
: According to a time series analysis of each of the longer datasets
: (some of which do record tital waves and movement of the measuring
: apparatus) show consistently at least a 15 cm -per -century rise in
: sealevels (San Francisco and San Diego show more than 20 cm per C rises).
:
: See (e.g.) http://kryten.cs.mu.oz.au:8080/ecology/sea-level-data .
Are there oil wells near San Diego? Long Beach
(Los Angeles) was sinking because of oil pumped out, and
they had to inject seawater to stop it. It was about
10 or 15 feet drop (I think) before they tried to correct
for it.
Joe Fischer
Steve McGee
> Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per decade.
> While this is half of the expected trend, it clearly isn't "no global warming at
> all".
For the record, "Decadal trend is +0.047°C" and not 0.47 °C.
And of course one of the most striking features of the MSU data is
the rise in temperature with last years' El Nino. Through this event
global temperatures have risen and now fallen by about 1°C over
a two year period.
The difference between the surface temperature measurements and
the MSU data and the convergence of the MSU and RAOB data certainly
are consistent with the problem being LOCAL warming and not global.
Pardon the reference to popular media, but NPR had a story recently
about concerted efforts by U.S. cities to reduce the urban heat island
effect by planting trees and covering rooftops with shrubbery.
If local warming is the problem and not global warming, then let's
focus on the real problems of over population, urban sprawl,
and particulate pollution and not waste time with CO2, a benign
gas that is beneficial to plant growth.
> > This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
> > warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
> > and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
> > measuring.
>
> Newton's laws are demonstrably wrong, but were good enough to get astronauts to
> the Moon and back. The important question isn't "are the global climate models
> exactly correct", it is "are the global climate models good enough to understand
> some of the probable impacts of human changes to the atmosphere on the climate?"
>
Harold
wrote:
[edited]
>
>Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
>philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
>happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
>other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
>believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
>But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
>on the cause.
>
I find your post very amusing. You claim immediately that one group
believes something based on political orientation. Then you claim
that the evidence is real, and we must just go on from there.
I usually ignore these threads, because the posters have made up their
minds. But this time I will answer.
Global warming is eco-hype. There was, at last count, some 19,000
scientists who did not agree that global warming, if any has occurred,
is even due to human action. These are the scientists who signed the
so-called Oregon Petition.
Me, I don't know. It will be hard getting to the truth, since both
sides are highly politicized.
>What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
>being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
>years ago?
You need to understand that human beings are very small compared to
the world. Our contribution to heat is completely insignificant
compared to the sun, and our contribution to greenhouse gases is
exceedingly minor, when you realize that atmospheric moisture (water)
is by far the most significant greenhouse gas. Don't piss, it will
add more greenhouse gas than breathing.
>Is all the additional heat being radiated out into space?
>How would one test that? Measurements of ocean temperatures and ice
>cores seems very reasonable. Measurements of temperatures in caves (even
>if true, which we have no hard evidence of in this newsgroup) seem more
>indicative of constant geothermal activity than what's happening on the
>surface of the earth, without the benefit of a thermal insulator.
We are in the process of making these measurements you want right now,
or devising methods to do that. I believe that a decade will see some
degree of certainty emerge.
Regards, Harold
------
Rachel Carson's legacy of death; as of December 7, 1999, 339 million people
have been afflicted by malaria this year. Of these, 2.5 million have died. That's one
needless premature death every 10.5 seconds. 2.2 million were pregnant
women, or children under the age of five.
karl malbrain
Harold <haroldb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qrtq4s0hr5o0574ah...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Dec 1999 02:13:00 GMT, prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing)
> wrote:
>
> [edited]
> >
> >Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
> >philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
> >happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
> >other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
> >believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
> >But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
> >on the cause.
> >
> Global warming is eco-hype. There was, at last count, some 19,000
> scientists who did not agree that global warming, if any has occurred,
> is even due to human action. These are the scientists who signed the
> so-called Oregon Petition.
>
> Me, I don't know. It will be hard getting to the truth, since both
> sides are highly politicized.
Why do you believe that discovering the truth is any easier in your
IDEALIZED world without politics? POLITICS in science is mostly a measure
of who is paying, and for what. Certainly, usenet is no beacon of
illumination when it comes to finding truth in controversial SUBJECTS, and
everyone here volunteers. Karl M
Jim Carr
... note reduced followups to the sci.groups ...
prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing) wrote:
}
>[edited]
}
} Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
} philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
} happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
} other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
} believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
} But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
} on the cause.
In article <qrtq4s0hr5o0574ah...@4ax.com>
Harold <haroldb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>I find your post very amusing. You claim immediately that one group
>believes something based on political orientation. Then you claim
>that the evidence is real, and we must just go on from there.
Those apparently contradictory statements of his are about two
different things that are often (always?) conflated in media
stories and discussions of "Global Warming".
One concerns the measurements of temperature and CO2, the other
concerns whether and to what extent there is a causal connection
between the two. A classic example of this is in some of the
data from the ice ages -- was the change in CO2 back then a
cause or an effect? If it was a cause, what turned it around?
>Global warming is eco-hype. There was, at last count, some 19,000
>scientists who did not agree that global warming, if any has occurred,
>is even due to human action. These are the scientists who signed the
>so-called Oregon Petition.
That is an example where the cause is the primary point of dispute.
What is unclear is if the "background" baseline should be flat,
increasing (naturally as a result of coming out of the last ice
age, for reasons not fully understood), or even decreasing (as a
result of entering a mini-ice age last century), and from that
point on it is politics that dominates data.
>Me, I don't know. It will be hard getting to the truth, since both
>sides are highly politicized.
Right. I thought that was also Prussing's point.
>We are in the process of making these measurements you want right now,
>or devising methods to do that. I believe that a decade will see some
>degree of certainty emerge.
Which either makes people happy or terrified depending on their
political views of the matter.
Clyde Spencer
peruse the following URL:
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/peterson.htm
In particular, you should definitely look at the rebuttal to Wentz' work at
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
It disagrees with your claim that the original investigators found a
"statistically significant rise in measured temps over the short period of
the study." Since the report by Dr. Spencer was August 1998, I don't think
that you have been keeping current.
Clyde Spencer
Kym HORSELL wrote in message <82ie4a$lnl$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>...
>Goodness... talking about "deceit and dishonesty", the satellite
>study you're referring to was amended a year or so back after it
>was pointed out there had been a systematic error in the data
>analysis. This *HAS* been mentioned a few times on these news groups...
>a pitty "some" may have missed it.
>
>Both the "rough calc" done by the objectors to the satellite study,
>and even a "better calc" done by the original experiemnters both
>showed after the bias had been taken into account there was
>a statitisically significant rise in measured temps over the short
>period of the study.
>
Phil Hays
> The difference between the surface temperature measurements and
> the MSU data and the convergence of the MSU and RAOB data certainly
> are consistent with the problem being LOCAL warming and not global.
Why do you think that the station records are consistent with only local
warming?
There are other records of climate, including but not limited to: ice cores,
glacier terminals, coral cores, tree rings, noble gas concentrations in ground
water and the diffusion of heat into the surface. These also show warming.
And then there is the "outside of the blanket" issue. If the atmosphere is
becoming a better "blanket", then the top of the atmosphere should be cooling.
And it is:
ftp://gus.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/climate/angell_anoms/temperature/layer-mean/
L100-30.txt
> If local warming is the problem and not global warming, then let's
> focus on the real problems of over population, urban sprawl,
> and particulate pollution and not waste time with CO2, a benign
> gas that is beneficial to plant growth.
If global warming is the problem, then focusing on local issues will end up with
palm trees in Nome, Alaska.
Aladar
Amok Keppler <asterdi...@hl.telia.no> wrote:
<...>
> During an ice age the levels of CO2 is/was 180 ppm (parts per
million).
> during normal warming periods, they are on the higher 280 levels.
> The current (and rising) CO2 levels, are 360 ppm.
> Corresponding number for Methane are even more revealing.
> 320/350 ppb (parts per billion) - 650/770 - and current levels
> 1700 ppb.
>
>
> --
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Add Ons and Reinvention 1999-12-05
> < My virtual, wilderness community address is: >
> < http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/ >
> < My address at midnight: >
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> Feel the heat of Firewind
> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/firewind.html
>
> «We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well
> that Death will tremble to take us»!
> Charles Bukowski
>
with the atmospheric composition, and it could achieve two noble goals:
start an intense nuclear power plant building program, rework all the
nuclear warheads into powerplant fuel. The other major environmental
danger, the nuclear explosions could be avoided at the mean time.
--
Ali
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amos Keppler
And you would increase the risk from one of the most lethal group of
poisons and poison plants on Earth.
Bad idea!
Aladar
At present time the possibility of "poisoning" is several orders higher
from the very existence of the stockpiles of nuclear warheads. So the
first step: eliminate the possibility of explosion by reducing the
concentration of fission materials, reworking the warheads into fuel.
(If there is a weapon, it will be used! We should not kid ourself! Do
you know that 1% of the warheads stored is enough to end the life on
the Earth? That much could go off by accident, and the majority is in
Russia!)
That is the major argument, but the radioactivity could be detected, so
a public control of the nuclear power plants could be instituted and
the environment could be protected from anything above the natural
level, or different from the natural.
The third argument - we are already in the red with atmospheric carbon
concentration, that's the only available way to correct it!
Harold
wrote:
>
>Harold <haroldb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:qrtq4s0hr5o0574ah...@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Dec 1999 02:13:00 GMT, prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing)
>> wrote:
>>
>> [edited]
>> >
>> >Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
>> >philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
>> >happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
>> >other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
>> >believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
>> >But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
>> >on the cause.
>> >
>(...)
>> Global warming is eco-hype. There was, at last count, some 19,000
>> scientists who did not agree that global warming, if any has occurred,
>> is even due to human action. These are the scientists who signed the
>> so-called Oregon Petition.
>>
>> Me, I don't know. It will be hard getting to the truth, since both
>> sides are highly politicized.
>
>Why do you believe that discovering the truth is any easier in your
>IDEALIZED world without politics?
I have an idealized world? Where, pray tell, have I left it, that I
could find it again? For I am sure it is better that the world we
have now.
>POLITICS in science is mostly a measure
>of who is paying, and for what.
There are as many scientists who are corruptible as there is in any
other profession, I am afraid. It is not 100% however.
In addition, unlike your current president, most scientists are
embarrassed when caught in a lie, and strive to avoid that.
>Certainly, usenet is no beacon of
>illumination when it comes to finding truth in controversial SUBJECTS, and
>everyone here volunteers. Karl M
And most here are ignorant.
Jim Scanlon
> Richard Herring (r...@gmrc.gecm.com) wrote:
> : Joe Fischer wrote:
> : > Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
> : > : (Joe Fischer) claimed:
> : > : > The English Channel could be crossed walking
> : > : >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
> : > : >sea is rising,
> : > :
> : > : This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
> : > : Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
> : >
> : > It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
> :
> : Wadable? How far do you think the level has risen in the last
> : 2000 years, then?
>
> Ok, I'll look for references. As I said, Venice
> and other places appear to suffer from the land sinking,
> so the depth of the English Channel does not have to be
> a result of a general rise of that much in the ocean.
> Some of the rise in sea level must result from
> factors other than ice melting, the Mississippi Delta
> had to raise sea level, underwater volcanos do, and
> magma flowing into the sea must.
> How much this amounts to, or any other factors,
> such as the spreading of cracks and crevices in the
> sea floor, has to be considered in any study.
> The fact that Cleopatra's Palace was "lost",
> and found under 20 or 30 feet of water shows that
> either seal level rose that much in 2000 years, or
> some land masses sink quite a bit.
Sea level is rising. Some parts of earth's land mass are rising, still
rebounding from the removal of glacial ice and some parts are sinking for
various reasons such as erosion, removal of oil and water and non renewal
of silt because of dams on rivers.
Jim Scanlon
Andrew Russell
>
>Newton's laws are demonstrably wrong, but were good enough to get
>astronauts to the Moon and back. The important question isn't "are
>the global >climate models exactly correct", it is "are the global
>climate models good enough to understand some of the probable
>impacts of human changes to the atmosphere on the climate?"
And the answer to that question is clearly no. They are not good enough.
If you want to impose draconian policies like Kyoto, you had better have a
lot better evidence than computer models that can't even come close to
modeling the atmosphere accurately enough to match the real data from the
satellites.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
> You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant.
No, Mr. Keppler, you are the one who is quitee wrong. The satellites show
there has been no significant global warming over the last twenty years.
See the data at
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
Dr. Roy Spencer's excellent web site on the global satellite data.
But I suspect you aren't interested in facts and science that do not
conform to politically correct thinking.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>Typo alert! That should be 0.047 C per decade.
Dang! You caught yourself before I could rise up on my high horse and go AH HA!
Your number closely approximates the 1998 20 year average of +.04 deg C,
but that was driven by the El Nino, and odd are good the 21 year average
will have dropped.
And that is still nowhere near what the computer models predicted, much
less your 'half' of what they predicted.
>The hundred plus years of station records, on the other hand, is convincing.
>And the geologic records even more so.
Those records are grossly incomplete and tainted. John Daly has a good
disertation on the serious problems with these 'station records'. Anyone
who relys upon these for precise numbers and political policy decisions is
foolish at best.
And the geologic records show that increases in CO2 *follow* rises in
temperature. Where's the cause and effect?
Are you willing to impose the huge costs that Kyoto will require on the
basis of 'station records' and geologic proxy studies?
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>The linksprovided are also showing visible, provable, conclusive signs
>of the warming.
>
> "South Pacific Regional Environment Program"
> http://www.sprep.org.ws/PressRelease/1999/pr9914_.htm
> sp...@sprep.org.ws
>
> http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/10/ice.core.warming.ap/
> http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/09/marine.life.reut/
> http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/03/warming.enn/
> http://www.itn.co.uk/Britain/brit19990126/012603.htm
> http://epn.org/prospect/31/31gelbfs.html
> http://www.seanet.com/~camw/Ishmael/Classics/impactof.htm
> http://www.igc.org/globalpolicy/socecon/envronmt/kahn.htm
Mr Keppler may claim anything he wants from these links, but since most of
them are broken, we have no way of validating his claims for ourselves.
I would still like Mr. Keppler to explain away the hard evidence that there
has been zero sea level rise (from whatever reason) in the last century and
a half. Per John Daly's discovery of an 1841 mean sea level marker that
shows this.
One can see this for themselves at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ross1841.htm
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>Goodness... talking about "deceit and dishonesty", the satellite
>study you're referring to was amended a year or so back after it
>was pointed out there had been a systematic error in the data
>analysis. This *HAS* been mentioned a few times on these news groups...
>a pitty "some" may have missed it.
And it's a pity that some couldn't be bothered to stay with the story, or
is it politically incorrect to deal in facts?
The corrections to the satellite data turned out to be completely minor,
and did not change the numbers in any way that is significant. The
computer models remain demonstrably wrong.
See for yourself, if facts matter to you, at:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>Both the "rough calc" done by the objectors to the satellite study,
>and even a "better calc" done by the original experiemnters both
>showed after the bias had been taken into account there was
>a statitisically significant rise in measured temps over the short
>period of the study.
Who says it is statistically significant? You? That certainly doesn't
come from Christy or Spencer. They say there is no warming trend
One can see for themselves at
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
or
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
Here's what Roy Spencer has to say about the computer models and the
satellite data from that website:
"The adjusted satellite trends are still not near the expected value of
global warming predicted by computer climate models. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 estimate of average global warming at
the surface until the year 2100 is +0.18 deg.C/decade. Climate models
suggest that the deep layer measured by the satellite and weather balloons
should be warming about 30% faster than the surface (+0.23 deg. C/decade).
None of the satellite or weather balloon estimates are near this value."
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>Of course claims that the sea level hasn't risen in Tasmania since 1841
>seem to be refuted by the 100+ year records available from several
>sites and reproduced at
>http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/rqds.html .
There is no record in your citation that exceeds a hundred years in age.
Only two sites in that list go back anywhere near a hundred years - San
Diego and San Francisco, two highly unstable (geologically) areas. There
is no correction in the data sets for the land sinking or rising. The
vast majority of this citation is for data from the 1970's and later.
Your other cited link
http://kryten.cs.mu.oz.au:8080/ecology/sea-level-data, only got me an
'Error 403 - forbidden'. Hmmm.
Nice try, but very weak, especially compared to John Daly's research on the
1841 Tasmanian mean level marker.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Kym HORSELL
Possible fallacy of exception.
Since a variety of places show an increase in directly recorded sea-level
depth, and this is consistent with (say) ice cores and other indirect data
(e.g. such increase being consistent with therman expansion of water
given a small increase in avg global temps over the past C), we look for
*common* explanations ("the simplest hypothesis that explains most of
the data" kinda thing), not propose a miasma of different and possibly
fanciful (I haven't heard of a vague geographic region sinking
several metres because of oil drilling, let alone can assume those people
taking sea-level measurements would be so unaware of it they wouldn't
have corrected for it when they clearly correct for things less
obvious) explanations for each data point.
Kym HORSELL
>In article <82ieor$lvn$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, k...@cs.mu.oz.au (Kym HORSELL) writes:
>Well, nothing, really.
It's certainly nothing after you delete it all.
>Drop dead, edu-head.
Tsk, tsk. Better not to touch it if it's a sore spot?
Kym HORSELL
>If you haven't already seen the website, you might find it interesting to
>peruse the following URL:
>http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/peterson.htm
Sorry, don't credit anything that starts with whines about "political attacks".
>In particular, you should definitely look at the rebuttal to Wentz' work at
>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
>It disagrees with your claim that the original investigators found a
>"statistically significant rise in measured temps over the short period of
>the study." Since the report by Dr. Spencer was August 1998, I don't think
>that you have been keeping current.
>Clyde Spencer
The last time I looked (April this y) at what you claim is a "rebuttal" by the
original researchers they *had* confirmed a statistically significant rise
(rather than a decline, as first reported) in their sat data,
but objected it was not consistent with the
larger magnitude they would have expected from the change in ground (and ocean) level temps as recorded at c 3000 sites over
the past 100+ years (i.e. the so-called Hansen data).
I quote (as I have quoted from similar ones in the recent past ;-)
from your second reference:
"The adjusted satellite trends are still not near the expected value of
*****************************************
global warming predicted by computer climate models. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 estimate of
average global warming at the surface until the year 2100 is +0.18 deg.
C/decade. Climate models suggest that the deep layer measured by the
satellite and weather balloons should be warming about 30% faster than
the surface (+0.23 deg. C/decade). None of the satellite or weather
balloon estimates are near this value. "
I.e. the authors are conceding their adjusted data shows an increased
temperature trend. Over the past 20 y for whatever parts of the atm
they are actually measuring they seem to concur that now their data
shows a rise, but still argue it is not big enough to be consistent
with (specifically) predictions made by COMPUTER MODELLING of "global warming"
(as opposed to other direct measurements ;-).
Moreover, it tends to re-confirm my previous characterisation
that the original work may have found a (widely publicised) negative trend, but
the original authors have had to backtrack somewhat after a
systematic error was pointed out and corrected for.
Characterising this, as some do, as a "no finding" or as an "inconsistent
finding" or (worse still) "refuting global warming" is at the very best,
misleading. It is one data point. I may have pointed in the opposite
direction of other data at one time, it no longer appears to.
Kym HORSELL
>Amok Keppler wrote:
>> You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant.
>No, Mr. Keppler, you are the one who is quitee wrong. The satellites show
>there has been no significant global warming over the last twenty years.
So we just forget the other data, right?
Sure, that's how things should *logically* work. Someone takes measurements
at ground level for 100 years and shows some trend; someone else takes
measurements of some other place over 20 years and gets a diffeernt
answer.
It *must* be the "other" measureemnts are all just wrong. They
got the "wrong answer", after all. ;-)
Ground-level temps *can't* be increasing, sea water *cant* be expanding,
ice cores *cant* be showing sea temps have increased and
tree rings *cant* be showing growing seasons seem to be getting warmer
and wetter.
Stick with "global warming is not caused by human agency". At least
admit it appears there is evidence it's happening. You'll appear
reasonable that way.
Kym HORSELL
>Kym HORSELL wrote:
>>Both the "rough calc" done by the objectors to the satellite study,
>>and even a "better calc" done by the original experiemnters both
>>showed after the bias had been taken into account there was
>>period of the study.
>Who says it is statistically significant? You? That certainly doesn't
>come from Christy or Spencer. They say there is no warming trend
Then what does this mean?
"998 UPDATE: The last six months of our adjusted satellite record
(February through July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year
record. The updated trend is now +0.04 deg. C/decade ....".
*******************************************
Is it me, you or the authors that read that "+.4 deg per C" as
a negative?
>...
Kym HORSELL
>Kym HORSELL wrote:
>>
>>Goodness... talking about "deceit and dishonesty", the satellite
>>study you're referring to was amended a year or so back after it
>>was pointed out there had been a systematic error in the data
>>analysis. This *HAS* been mentioned a few times on these news groups...
>>a pitty "some" may have missed it.
>And it's a pity that some couldn't be bothered to stay with the story, or
>is it politically incorrect to deal in facts?
...
Why do you and your references keep mentioning politics?
Again quoting from your reference
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm:
"1998 UPDATE: The last six months of our adjusted satellite record
(February through July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year
record. The updated trend is now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still
only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected warming rate). The current demise of
El Nino, and the possibility of a La Nina forming, will likely cause
significant cooling in the coming months. "
Noticed the "updated trend" as of 1998 is said to be POSITIVE and
the adjusted data is said to show "the warmest [in the 20 year data] record".
Kym HORSELL
>Kym HORSELL wrote:
>>seem to be refuted by the 100+ year records available from several
>>sites and reproduced at
>>http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/rqds.html .
I conceded those datasets start around 1901.
>There is no record in your citation that exceeds a hundred years in age.
>Only two sites in that list go back anywhere near a hundred years - San
>Diego and San Francisco, two highly unstable (geologically) areas. There
...
You seem to be in the habit of dismissing the majority of the data
in favour of selected datasets.
You are now apparently claiming that those observers that take such
measurements don't adjust for such things as reputed "geological instability"?
How then (for one thing) does one explain the relative consistency of
the conclusions drawn from the different datasets (excluding, apparently,
Tasmania)?
According to the covering material, several references are
used to check the measured depth.
I quote from the material:
"Refernce Levl: All heights have been referred to the station tide
staff zero which is linked to fixed bench marks.
Data prior to 5 Jan 1926 were adjusted by -107 mm
to tie the original site to the new site.
An obvious level jump was adjusted by -120 mm
(08Z) 01 Jan to (18Z) 19 Jan 1973.
While standard mechanical or ADR instrument was the
primary gauge, leveling calibration factors were
applied monthly based on tide staff comparison".
Pretty strange these all apparently point
to the same conclusion at each of the measuring stations.
Are we to gather that when ONE dataset (say Tasmania) seems to
disagree with (say) SEVERAL others, then it must unambiguously be "all the
others" that are subject to various problems, and NOT the Tasmanian data?
Kym HORSELL
......
For those interested, the location of the measuring station --
allegedly amongst the first put into practice (and what that
will say about its accuracy or comparableness with other measuring
stations, I'll leave to the gentle reader's undoubted discretion ;-) --
is NOT on the ocean.
Complaining about the irregularity of measurements in the local *river* (sic),
the investigators sought to make use of
""The `Isle of the Dead' is a small islet of only 2 acres in size, situated
within the harbour of Port Arthur in southeastern Tasmania, an island
state 200 miles south of mainland Australia, deep in southern latitudes.
This large and undeveloped harbour opens out directly to the Southern Ocean."
Despite the apparently-careful selection of the site, it has one very
unusual feature that should immediately rule it as "the odd man out"
an any head-to-head comparison with (say) other sea-level measurements of the
late 19th and 20th C.
The investigators note it has an unusually small tidal variation --
of only 2 ft 1 in.
The harbour of Pt Arthur then seems to be more affected by the flow
of water from local waterways than from sea tides.
In addition, tidal measurements were not (then) taken against modern time
standards, and can be assumed to vary widely from actual times
of high- and low-tides across whatever dataset has been recovered
(which apparently has not yet been published). While some mention is
made about the historic setting up of the "measuring marks" (grooves cut into
a rockface), there is no mention made of offsetting these against
other reference points to allow for -- e.g. -- any uncontrolled
movement that may be taking place over the harbour island.
(The island, if of course, a burial place. Don't think of it as
a solid granite outcrop ;-).
Finally, the site was set up to measure the MEAN TIDAL POSITION rather
than a variation in the heigh of sea levels. I.e. it's fine for
taking a bunch of measurements, taking their average, and deducing the
average depth of the local harbour. How the depth of the local harbour
is related to sea-level depths is, of course, somewhat difficult to
guage.
Trying to talk it up into a refutation of sea level rise is, to put
it bluntly, beyond the scope of the cited material
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ross1841.htm .
He does say:
"[the] tidal data has been subjected to intense analysis, the results and
details of which have not yet been made public.
However, the CSIRO confirms privately that the data accurately matches
hindcasting estimates of the tides in 1841, thus validating Lempriere's
measurements. In addition, Lempriere's data indicates that the height of
water in the tide guage on 1st July 1841 was 3 ft. 10 in. at low tide
(11.30 a.m.), and 6 ft. 4 in. at high tide (6.00 p.m.) so that 6 ft 1 in.
at 4.44 p.m. as reported by Mason's observation of the plaque in 1888 is
more consistent with this newly found data".
Which doesn't seem to speak to me that anyone but Andrew Russell and
perhaps the author of this web page is claiming the data
shows anything more remarkable than an average tidal position in 1841
and that the harbour is rather sheltered from the influence of the sea.
All very amusing, and fairly characteristic of alleged "contrary data" held out
in rebuttal of some apparently-developing consensus position. ;-)
Still, if there *is* an actual dataset to look at, I'd be pleased to
run it through a TS package and leave it on my web pages.
Thomas Palm
> And it's a pity that some couldn't be bothered to stay with the story, or
> is it politically incorrect to deal in facts?
>
> The corrections to the satellite data turned out to be completely minor,
> and did not change the numbers in any way that is significant. The
> computer models remain demonstrably wrong.
The correction made involved not only correcting the mistake pointed out
to them but also involved correcting _another_ error Spencer and Christy
discovered at this point. As it happened these errors nearly canceled
giving a small adjustment of the final trend.
One then has to consider the credibility of the result given the number
of errors in it. I am fairly convinced that had the measured warming
trend
been larger Russel et. al. would have been jumping on these errors as
proof
that this satallite data was completely untrustworthy.
There is also the issue with the analysis by Prabhakara using the same
data showing a warming much more consistent with ground based
measurements.
It is impressive that any kind of trend can be derived using instruments
not at all designed for the purpose, but let's not overstate the
importance,
it but one datapoint among many.
--
Thomas Palm
Joe Fischer
: Since a variety of places show an increase in directly recorded sea-level
I don't see how there can _not_ be an increase in sea level,
land erosion and volcanic activity would seem to require it.
: (e.g. such increase being consistent with therman expansion of water
: given a small increase in avg global temps over the past C),
But I think even thinking about expansion of sea water
due to global warming is grasping for straws.
A meaningful check on reality could be to simply
calculate the amount of heat needed to raise total sea water
temperature 1 degree Farhenheit (that would be BTU per pound
times total pounds), and compare that to the total heat energy
release by man.
: we look for
: *common* explanations ("the simplest hypothesis that explains most of
: the data" kinda thing),
You don't have enough data points, and my TV meteorologist
is trying to explain what effect the _current_ la Nina will have.
: not propose a miasma of different and possibly
: fanciful (I haven't heard of a vague geographic region sinking
: several metres because of oil drilling, let alone can assume those people
: taking sea-level measurements would be so unaware of it they wouldn't
: have corrected for it when they clearly correct for things less
: obvious) explanations for each data point.
I suspect sea level is rising, and possibly even
faster than _DATA_ shows, because most dams were built
within the last two centuries, and those storage amounts
have to be added to any data collected.
Do I thing investigations of global warming and
sea level trends are seriously faulty?
Yes.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
: I would still like Mr. Keppler to explain away the hard evidence that there
: has been zero sea level rise (from whatever reason) in the last century and
: a half. Per John Daly's discovery of an 1841 mean sea level marker that
: shows this.
The last 150 years should be a glitch because of
the water stored during that time behind dams. But that
era would seem to be approaching an end.
Joe Fischer
Harold Lindaberry
Joe Fischer wrote:
Hmm storage of water behind dams affecting ocean levels - what a unique
concept since most of the earths water is salt and there is 10 times as much in
the atmosphere as in all of the rivers streams and lakes combined - with by far
the greatest amount in is in the ice caps mostly the antarctic Excluding the
polar ice caps about 2% - the rest fresh water is less than 1% that includes
underground water and in the air.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> Joe Fischer
Phil Hays
> And that is still nowhere near what the computer models predicted, much
> less your 'half' of what they predicted.
Eh? Just what do you think the computer models predict? The forcing at this
point is on the order of 0.65 W/M^2, which should be causing a warming on the
order of 0.1 C per decade. (J.Geophysic.Res. 102, 25679-25720.) A measured
trend of 0.047 C per decade is half of that, close enough.
I have seen misleading statements quoting a linear slope to an IPCC value for
2100 (!!) as the amount of warming we should be getting now, by people who
really should know better. Don't bother quoting such garbage.
> Those records are grossly incomplete and tainted. John Daly has a good
> disertation on the serious problems with these 'station records'. Anyone
> who relys upon these for precise numbers and political policy decisions is
> foolish at best.
I look at Daly's stuff every few years. I am not impressed.
> And the geologic records show that increases in CO2 *follow* rises in
> temperature. Where's the cause and effect?
Wtf? Over.
> Are you willing to impose the huge costs that Kyoto will require on the
> basis of 'station records' and geologic proxy studies?
The USA will do nothing about climate change for the foreseeable future. The
Democrats need the Labor Union cash, and the Republicans need Fat Cat cash to
compete for office. Both Labor Unions and Fat Cats don't want any change in
energy policy, for rather different reasons.
Climate is interesting for its own sake. Like the teeth of a shark. Have to
ignore the fact that it is about to bite. But other than that, it's
interesting.
Kym HORSELL
>Kym HORSELL (k...@cs.mu.oz.au) wrote:
>: Since a variety of places show an increase in directly recorded sea-level
>: depth, and this is consistent with (say) ice cores and other indirect data
> I don't see how there can _not_ be an increase in sea level,
>land erosion and volcanic activity would seem to require it.
>: (e.g. such increase being consistent with therman expansion of water
>: given a small increase in avg global temps over the past C),
> But I think even thinking about expansion of sea water
>due to global warming is grasping for straws.
> A meaningful check on reality could be to simply
>calculate the amount of heat needed to raise total sea water
>temperature 1 degree Farhenheit (that would be BTU per pound
>times total pounds), and compare that to the total heat energy
>release by man.
>...
Eh? Why pick on "one degree"? Thermal expansion of a (say)
1 km column of water resulting in a (say) 20 cm change would
seemingly involve a lot less than a 1 degree change.
One would imagine a more pertinent calculation would be
the temp change needed to expand (say) equatorial ocean depths by
around 20 cm, and then compare that with the Hansen index data.
Additionally, to see whether the reputed sea level rises
as observed seem related to longitude (i.e. related to the
equatorial ocean bulge).
As a sanity check, you might then try to determine how much energy
the earth has absorbed from the sun over the period of (say) 1 century,
take a tiny fraction of that, and see whether (say) exa-Watt-hrs of
energy are enough to heat the relevant volume of water by that kind
of fraction of a deg.
These are the kinds of things that HAVE been done since at least
Hoffert et al in the late 70s. Such calculations would suggest for
average ocean depths of 2 km only a change of .05 deg C is enough
to explain observed or even greater changes (most of the expansion
comming from the deep ocean, and not the top layers of water that
may change by as much as 1 deg C).
Thinking about atm or ocean heating should be adjusted to Kelvin temps.
A change of even as much as 1 deg C represents less than .005 change in
"retained heat" for atm or ocean. How hard is it to accept this can happen
in a timescale of one or two centuries, despite the "lots and lots"
of heating power it represents? And surely, such changes are consistent
with the geological record ANYWAY?
Your other point: what has "heat released by man" got to do with the price
of eggs in the first place?
Who is seriously saying "global warming" is due to directly the
result of (say) waste heat released from domestic or industrial processes?
Obviously the energy released in switching a light switch on and off
has nothing whatever to do with the amount of energy consumed (or heat
produced ;-) by the lighting in the room concerned.
Analagously, the magnitude of human activities have logically little to do
with the potential size of its effects.
Releasing some amount of (say) geo stored CO2 can computationally have an
effect on atm heating quite unrelated to the emount of energy used to
(re)release it.
>...