Monthly review of Global Warming evidence
Roger Coppock
misconception that global warming is not happening. This
little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
1) That the surface of the earth has warmed over the last several
decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
A map of global temperature trends shows warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2006&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1880&year2=2006&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
The global ground weather station network shows warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The balloon record shows this same warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
that the air near the surface is warming too:
The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
The record of sea ice melting:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
The glacier retreat record:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
The bore hole record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Rising sea level:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
2) Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of the
Sun's output has shown no long term growth large enough to
explain the warming of the Earth:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
the fastest. Also, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
One needs to show two very important things:
1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:
A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
anthropogenic.
B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
convincing demonstrations.
Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
this table from the IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.
It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
space looking down are very convincing evidence for
this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.
See:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
There is another way of demonstrating the action of
greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
the tropics.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
(Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
global warming can work quite this way. See the
Widener URL above, and the textbook PDF file here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1172265168.8...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
> misconception that global warming is not happening. This
> little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
> our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
> certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
> Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
> machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
> will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
> below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
But just remember
Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
being a major causation of climate change.
Bawana
<Co2puke turds snipped>
The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
By Marc Sheppard
Of the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most
pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the
conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose
agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to
amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting
contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and
dangerous than in fields of environmental science.
But a more ominous practice has arisen which empowers these special
interests to adapt and summarize already compromised research to
further fit the desired "consensus" before presenting it as fact to an
eager media. This travesty of methodology is brought to you by the
folks at the United Nations.
Back in 2001, the U.N's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) submitted its Summary for Policy Makers as a precursor to its
Third Assessment Report. Based solely on that summary, left wing
environmentalists and their media confederates immediately exhumed
their mankind stinks mantras and declared a victory in the
anthropogenic global warming debate. Some scientists associated with
the report, however, challenged both its bias and the summary's
oblique politically correct representation of its conclusions. It
appeared that rumors of the debate's demise may have been greatly
exaggerated.
Now, nearly 6 years later, it's IPCC report time again and both the
methodology and reaction are following the same predictable course of
the forerunner. As before, the hot Paris debut of the Fourth
Assessment Report policy summary sparked an immediate "case closed"
media frenzy. Also as before, the bearers were less than
dispassionate. In presenting the February 2nd abstract, Achim Steiner,
the head of the UN Environment Program which commissioned the panel,
minced no misrepresentative words:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the 2nd of February 2007, here in Paris
will perhaps one day be remembered as the day where the question mark
was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet."
And, given that the actual report's release was still months away, the
reaction was as preposterous as the proclamation.
French clown-President Jacques Chirac called for an economic and
political "revolution" to save the planet and warned that:
"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible."
South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk
called the report "a wake-up call to the world's largest emitter, the
United States."
And the Bush Administration must have heard the South African's call.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman actually told reporters at a press
conference in Washington that,
"Human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth's climate.
That issue is no longer up for debate.''
Et tu, Bodman? And, of course, U.S newspapers churned out their
predictably joyous headlines:
* Report: Humans to blame for climate
* Case closed: We're causing global warming. Now, what will we do
about it?
* Global warming a human creation, scientists confirm
* Climate report faults humans for warming
Meanwhile, faster than you can say "Milankovitch cycles," TV sets of
various definitions across the warming globe screamed that the world's
leading scientists had reached a "consensus" that human behavior was
directly responsible for global warming. Of course, anytime the MSM
claims unanimous accord by anyone on anything, a well maintained Bravo
Sierra alarm should sound immediately and quite loudly. Truth be
told, once stripped of the hyperbole, version number 4 didn't end the
anthropogenia debate any more than its older brother did. Furthermore,
all of this impassioned reaction was to a summary created by men not
of science, but of strategy.
A Sane Voice in a Crazy Chorus
In an article last summer which focused largely on the tactics of eco-
maniac Al Gore, I explored the depths to which the GW attack machine
will delve to silence its detractors. Gore target and former IPCC
member, Dr. Richard Lindzen said that alarmism dissenters have,
"seen grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves
libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."
Lindzen has been quite vocal about "global-warming alarmists
intimidat[ing] dissenting scientists into silence" and, unlike many of
his brethren, has steadfastly refused to succumb. Not surprisingly,
the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT is now an outspoken
critic of the IPCC.
In fact, it was Lindzen who blew the whistle on irregularities in both
the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year. After
stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning
CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the
pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go
around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that
"motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might
still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally
met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced
to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements."
He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to
the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor
were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.
Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to
further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and
public understanding:
"Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is
restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which
are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business;
the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely
ignored."
Lindzen also questioned the postponement of the full report and cited
numerous factual misrepresentations in the Summary, including one from
a chapter he knew a little about:
'The summary does not reflect the full document (which still has
not been released although it was basically completed last August).
For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter
dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the
response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments
especially with clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized
with the following sentence: "Understanding of climate processes and
their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water
vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport."'
Indeed, there was much speculation regarding the delay in issuing the
final report in 2001. It came neither from the media nor for the last
time.
Pseudo-Science from the Pseudo-Media
Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to
the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He
explained that the best science students generally moved into physics,
math, and computer science -- not climate science. Furthermore, as
with all UN projects, the participation of hundreds of countries (many
with no climate research experience) supersedes any requirements for
best-of-breed contributor selection. This often gains participants
previously unavailable prestige; perhaps leaving them somewhat biased
toward the not-so-tacit goals of the IPCC.
"Thus, speaking of 'thousands' of the world's leading climate
scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science,
most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC
because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive."
That same year, Lindzen also participated in a White House
commissioned National Academy of Sciences panel to review the IPCC
summaries. The media's claim that the NAS report depicted a
"consensus" which supported the Kyoto treaty so misrepresented the
findings of the panel that Lindzen felt compelled to write an article
to set the record straight. According to the Doctor:
"Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and
agreement, the science is by no means settled."
Indeed, these exact words were used in the findings reported to
Congress in June of 2001:
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to
emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the
magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and
subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."
Yet, Michelle Mitchell of CNN best exemplified the media miscoverage
when she declared that the report represented,
"a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting
worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
And in a recent appearance on Larry King Live, Lindzen discredited
media claims that the current IPCC summary was any less compromised
than its predecessor of 6 years, reiterating that its non-scientist
authors write exclusively for their own benefit.
Appearing with Lindzen on the show was Bill Nye (aka TV's "The Science
Guy"), who had suggested that thaw-induced fresh water might shut down
the Gulf Stream. When Lindzen informed the UCS shill that such an
action would require either stopping the Earth's rotation or shutting
down the wind, it was Nye's ridiculous postulate that was shut down.
And so, we have a supposedly unbiased media injecting gross
exaggeration, childishly irresponsible horror stories, and outright
lies. Is it any wonder that we now live in a society where so many
have chosen to accept and preach this speculative pablum?
Singer's Solar Machine
Among the countless other contrarian scientists, Dr. S. Fred Singer's
unique wit and position alongside Dr. Lindzen on Al Gore's hit list
have earned him a similar place here. In a recent article, the
professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia explained that the May release of the complete IPCC document
is deliberately timed. The delay, writes the scientist, allows them
to "adjust" the scientific report in order to be more consistent with
the politically correct summary.
This is an amazing assertion, as it suggests a U.N no longer feeling
the need to hide the fact that science is being modified to support
conclusions, rather than the accepted and expected opposite sequence.
And, as with Dr. Lindzen's questions regarding the similar delay in
2001, the interest this dynamite sparked would hardly light a
firecracker.
Singer then took on the report's typical mistake of confusing cause
and effect. And he did so in his characteristic good humored fashion:
"Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true,
but correlation is never proof of causation. In Europe, the birth rate
is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation
prove that storks bring babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much
of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide
was increasing rapidly."
Singer also dismissed the true value of "consensus," were one to
actually exist on the subject:
"But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused
global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the
majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from
a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing
hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or
Einstein."
The Galileo example is spot on the mark. Although he might have added
that in Galileo's day, the debate had supposedly ended over the
Earth's placement in the heavens. Yet, in 1616, Galileo was forced to
recant his Copernican beliefs that the Earth was not the center of the
universe, but rather revolved around the Sun. Obviously, that debate
was not quite over either.
So, what are Dr. Singer's own GW theories? In his latest book,
Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years, coauthored by Hudson
Institute Senior Fellow Dennis T Avery, physical evidence is outlined
which supports fluctuations in solar energy causing the title. The
book describes how the frequency of the cycle originally emerged from
a 1983 study of ice cores in Greenland. That figure was then verified
by analysis of an ice core from Antarctica's Vostok Glacier - at the
other end of the world, which showed the same 1,500-year cycle through
its 400,000-year length. These 1,500 year cycles analyzed include the
Little Ice Age of 1300-1850 and the modern warming period which
started around 1850 and we experience to this day.
The book, widely dismissed by the eco-maniacs, is must reading for
anyone looking to base opinion on science rather than science on
opinion. Not surprisingly, Sol, the primary source of our Atmospheric
heat, plays a major role in non-alarmist theories only. And, of
course, their sheer numbers refute any reasonable claim of
"consensus."
The Lore of Unintended Consequences
So, we're faced with an organization which not only intimidates its
experts into skewing data, but then forsakes them entirely when
summarizing their results. Then, after feeding those tainted tidbits
to a hungrily awaiting media, they can patiently measure the reaction
of the globe they claim to care so much for. This gives them a few
months to "cleanse" the report to meet the accepted precepts of the
summary. Furthermore, having withheld the contents of the full
report, they can always change both if any part of the summary proves
too hot-to-handle, citing an error or omission in the digestive
process.
Their goal is likely to create a storm of outcry against those nations
not bowing to their beloved Kyoto Accords, with one in mind
particularly. Perhaps they even believe that the anticipated
acquiescence of these enviro-rogue states might just pass stewardship
of all things environmental to their dwindling international
organization.
To meet that objective, they easily fool the media into promoting
laughably nonsensical theories while dismissing or demonizing those of
detached science. And, of course, they depend upon that same foolish
media to dutifully echo their battle-cries of "consensus" and human
guilt where there exists neither.
Unfortunately, they and their ilk have managed to convince their
indoctrinated legions that as was once said of war and generals,
environmental science is too important to be left to scientists. This
is a perilous road, indeed. In 1972, environmentalist thugs
demagogued the insecticide DDT right out of use on unproven charges of
egregious harm to humans and animals. The result may well have been
millions of third-world malaria deaths caused by the failure of the
banned chemical's "enviro-friendlier" replacement to control the
mosquitoes which spread the disease.
The great Mark Twain once quipped,
"Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about
it."
Such, indeed, is as it should be.
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer,
and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to
American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_ipcc_should_leave_science....
at February 08, 2007 - 11:11:38 AM EST
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172265168.8...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
> > misconception that global warming is not happening. This
> > little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
> > our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
> > certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
> > Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
> > machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
> > will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
> > below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
>
> But just remember
> Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
> well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
> others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
> being a major causation of climate change.
All factors need not be named, only significant ones.
One need not add zeros. The professional scientists
at the IPCC have done this. This month they published
a confidence of 90% that the majority cause of the
recent warming is anthropogenic.
>
>
>
> > 1) That the surface of the earth has warmed over the last several
> > decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
>
> > A map of global temperature trends shows warming.
> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2006&m...
> > The global ground weather station network shows warming:
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
> > The balloon record shows this same warming:
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
> > The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
> > that the air near the surface is warming too:
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
> > The record of sea ice melting:
> >http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
> >http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
> > The glacier retreat record:
> >http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
> > The bore hole record:
> >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
> > Rising sea level:
> >http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
>
> > 2) Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of the
> > Sun's output has shown no long term growth large enough to
> > explain the warming of the Earth:
> >http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
> >http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Wea...
>
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> > WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
>
> > There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
> > which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
> > of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
> > The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
> > meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
>
> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
>
> > Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
> > greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
> > causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
> > the fastest. Also, please see:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
>
> >http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>
> >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
> >ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-tot...
raylopez99
> The professional scientists
> at the IPCC have done this. This month they published
> a confidence of 90% that the majority cause of the
> recent warming is anthropogenic.
>
>
What about that 10% Roger? Before we create an economic holocaust,
and another economic ice age with your hare-brained GW reduction
schemes, do the math:
A) Wait and see on GW's effects (with a mild carbon tax): economy
does just fine.
B) GW reduction, as proposed by you and the Extreme Greens: 90%
correct * economy same as "A" above *10% wrong * ZERO (economy as
affected by being wrong, i.e. destroyed by GW abatement) = ZERO.
Conditional probabilities so we multiply the probabilities
In short, as suspected by many who oppose GW abatement, you will allow
another Hitler or Stalin to rule the world because of worldwide
depression if the world foolishly adopts the extreme Greens (ie.
yours) GW abatement schemes.
Like I say, a mild gasoline tax, or like the Stern report said (in the
one part where it was correct) a 1% reduction in world GDP now for
mild carbon abatement, is OK. But no more than that. And certainly
not your crackpot population control schemes.
Go away now.
RL
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> Go away now.
>
> RL
The Exxon Religion is that Old-Time Satanic Religion
The EXXON religion has Exxon born of a virgin birth, no more of that
old satanic heresy that Rockefeller's dad was a sociopath that brought
home his mistress to live under the family roof or peddled fake cancer
cures or a bigamist who actually went and married another woman under
a faked name.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/chernow-titan.html
"Before long, Big Bill roughly disabused Eliza of any high-flown
romantic notions she might have had about matrimony. Far from
renouncing his girlfriend, Nancy Brown, he brought her into the
cramped house as a "housekeeper" and began having children,
alternately, by wife and mistress. In 1838, Eliza gave birth to their
first child, Lucy, followed a few months later by Nancy's first
illegitimate daughter, Clorinda. On the night of July 8, 1839, Bill
and Eliza again summoned the midwife, this time to deliver a boy, who
came into the world in a bare front bedroom measuring eight by ten
feet. This child, born during Martin Van Buren's presidency and
destined to become the country's foremost capitalist, would survive
into the second term of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Like many
other future magnates--Andrew Carnegie (born in 1835), Jay Gould
(1836), and J. Pierpont Morgan (1837)--he was born in the late 1830s
and would therefore come to maturity on the eve of the post-Civil War
industrial boom. Several months after John's birth, Nancy Brown gave
birth to a second daughter, Cornelia, which meant that Bill, lord of
his own harem, managed to sire four children under one roof in just
two years. Thus, the fiercely moralistic John Davison Rockefeller
(appropriately named after Eliza's sober father) was sandwiched
tightly between two illegitimate sisters, born into a situation
steeped in sin."
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-d-rockefeller
Rockefeller ... His father was a traveling salesman of dubious
products, such as "cancer cures." He was also a philanderer and a
bigamist.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the purity of the nobel corporation who only
toils to delive beneficial products, not the satanic heresy of the
polluting corporation that made kerosine before cars were invented so
it had to dump the poisonous gasoline unwanted byproduct in streams
and rivers.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the good citizen corporation, not the satanic
heresy about Rockefeller going to war with Tom Scott of Penn RR that
led to 2,000 people killed in uprisings that burned 2,000 railcars and
engines and many rail stations. The Exxon religion is the good
corporation, not that satanic heresy of the illegal trust that took a
president Roosevelt and a supreme court 11 years to "break up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike
"Pittsburgh, PA became the site of the worst violence. Thomas
Alexander Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad, often considered one of
the first robber barons, suggested that the strikers should be given
"a rifle diet for a few days and see how they like that kind of
bread."[3]
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/wv/roundhouse.pdf
One railroad, the Pennsylvania, suffered the greatest losses of all
the railroads, with its heaviest losses at Pittsburgh. Fortunately for
the company, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court held the company not
liable for freight stolen or destroyed at Pittsburgh. What had
happened to the Pennsylvania Railroad caused its president, Tom Scott,
to sell his empire to John D. Rockefeller in October 1877.
----------------
http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html
A People's History of the United States
... The Standard Oil Trust was dissolved under court order in 1911
creating many smaller regional companies, including Standard Oil of
New Jersey (Exxon), Standard Oil of New York (Mobil), Standard Oil of
California (Chevron), Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), Standard Oil of
Indiana (Amoco), Continental Oil (Conoco), and Atlantic Oil (ARCO). By
1941 Standard Oil of New Jersey was the largest oil company in the
world, controlling 84 percent of the U.S. petroleum market. Its bank
was Chase and its owners were the Rockefellers. ...
... After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard
Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This
investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the
U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years. During the Great Depression,
Germany was viewed as a hot area in which to invest.
A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G.
Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world's largest chemical
company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it
secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to
maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and
factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany's own
territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber,
nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs
such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa
drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G.
Farben's connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz,
the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in
accordance with Hitler's "Final Solution of the Jewish Question".
Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben
built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce
synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity
as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died
during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own
concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of
the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to
march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day.
This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well
as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors.
I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis
simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In
fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force
would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes
that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to
fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had
the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C.
Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G.
Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British
Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and
obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead
which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.
After the war began in Europe, the English became angry about U.S.
shipments of strategic materials to Nazi Germany. Standard Oil
immediately changed the registration of their entire fleet to
Panamanian to avoid British search or seizure. These ships continued
to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled
and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.
This deception was exposed on March 31, 1941 when the U.S. State
Department issued a detailed report on refueling stations in Mexico
and Central and South America that were suspected of furnishing oil to
Italian and German merchant vessels. The report listed Standard Oil of
New Jersey and Standard Oil of California among those fueling enemy
ships, but there is no record of any action being taken as a result of
this discovery. Similar deals between Standard Oil and the Japanese
government for the purchase of tetraethyl lead have also been
uncovered, but no direct action was ever taken against Standard Oil
for its dealings with America's enemies. A brief side note, however,
is that on April 17, l945 the Chase National Bank was placed on trial
in federal court on charges of having violated the Trading With the
Enemy Act by converting German marks into U.S. dollars. Because many
countries refused to accept German currency during the war, the Nazis
used foreign banks like Chase National to change the currency into
money that would be accepted, and thus allowed them to purchase much
need materials to prolong the war. The closer one looks, the more ties
one finds between American business and Nazi Germany, many of which
remained strong well into and beyond the war. ...
http://www.us-highways.com/sohist.htm
ctyguy
ROTFLOL what is a "professioal scientist", one that is afraid to disagree
for fear of his paycheck?
Paul E. Lehmann
> On Feb 23, 1:36 pm, "James"
> <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in
>> message
>> But just remember
>> Until one can name all the factors involved in
>> climate change, (natural as well as human
>> produced), the degree of each factor and it's
>> interaction with others as to climate, there is
>> no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
>> being a major causation of climate change.
>
> All factors need not be named, only significant
> ones.
> One need not add zeros. The professional
> scientists
> at the IPCC have done this. This month they
> published a confidence of 90% that the majority
> cause of the recent warming is anthropogenic.
>
Only significant ones???????
Question, Roger. As I understand it (such
understanding which may indeed be lacking) the
theory goes something like this:
Regenerative feedback causes a "tipping point" in
which there is no return to "normal".
From my reading of fractal geometry and chaos
theory, I am left with the impression of
EXTREMELY small changes cause "Chaos" or the
whole thing (whatever it is one is talking about"
to go bizarro (scientific term ; ) - go into
chaos.
In other words, what appears to be "noise in the
data" or extremely insignificant, can be VERY
significant and indeed THE thing that causes the
"chaos. This is why when someone mentioned in a
thread that nature was virtually impossible to
model, they may have been on to something.
Lloyd
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172265168.8...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
> > misconception that global warming is not happening. This
> > little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
> > our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
> > certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
> > Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
> > machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
> > will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
> > below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
>
> But just remember
> Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
> well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
> others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
> being a major causation of climate change.
>
>
Just think, until one can name all the factors involved in cancer,
there is no point searching for a cure, eh?
>
Lloyd
> On Feb 23, 4:12 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> <Co2puke turds snipped>
>
> The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
> By Marc Sheppard
Aw, what's the matter, Banana Brain, you don't know the IPCC consists
of scientists? Maybe you can get a 4th grader to read it to you.
> Of the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most
> pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the
> conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose
> agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to
> amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting
> contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and
> dangerous than in fields of environmental science.
>
> But a more ominous practice has arisen which empowers these special
> interests to adapt and summarize already compromised research to
> further fit the desired "consensus" before presenting it as fact to an
> eager media. This travesty of methodology is brought to you by the
> folks at the United Nations.
>
> Back in 2001, the U.N's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC) submitted its Summary for Policy Makers as a precursor to its
> Third Assessment Report. Based solely on that summary, left wing
> environmentalists and their media confederates immediately exhumed
> their mankind stinks mantras and declared a victory in the
> anthropogenic global warming debate. Some scientists associated with
> the report, however, challenged both its bias and the summary's
> oblique politically correct representation of its conclusions. It
> appeared that rumors of the debate's demise may have been greatly
> exaggerated.
No they didn't. More right-wing lies.
Of course, he can't cite any evidence.
>
> Lindzen has been quite vocal about "global-warming alarmists
> intimidat[ing] dissenting scientists into silence" and, unlike many of
> his brethren, has steadfastly refused to succumb. Not surprisingly,
> the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of
> Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT is now an outspoken
> critic of the IPCC.
He's a creationist. 98% of scientists agree on AGW. Time for you to
move on.
>
> In fact, it was Lindzen who blew the whistle on irregularities in both
> the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate
> Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year.
He made stuff up.
>After
> stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning
> CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the
> pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.
Yeah, sure.
>
> "...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go
> around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that
> "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might
> still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally
> met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced
> to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements."
>
Yeah, sure.
> He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to
> the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor
> were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.
> Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to
> further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and
> public understanding:
He lied.
>
> "Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is
> restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which
> are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business;
> the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely
> ignored."
>
> Lindzen also questioned the postponement of the full report and cited
> numerous factual misrepresentations in the Summary, including one from
> a chapter he knew a little about:
>
> 'The summary does not reflect the full document (which still has
> not been released although it was basically completed last August).
> For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter
> dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the
> response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments
> especially with clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized
> with the following sentence: "Understanding of climate processes and
> their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water
> vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport."'
>
He lied. If this was true, why haven't the hundreds involved also
complained?
> Indeed, there was much speculation regarding the delay in issuing the
> final report in 2001. It came neither from the media nor for the last
> time.
>
> Pseudo-Science from the Pseudo-Media
>
Exxon? CEI? AEI?
> Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to
> the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He
> explained that the best science students generally moved into physics,
> math, and computer science -- not climate science. Furthermore, as
> with all UN projects, the participation of hundreds of countries (many
> with no climate research experience) supersedes any requirements for
> best-of-breed contributor selection. This often gains participants
> previously unavailable prestige; perhaps leaving them somewhat biased
> toward the not-so-tacit goals of the IPCC.
>
> "Thus, speaking of 'thousands' of the world's leading climate
> scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science,
> most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC
> because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive."
>
> That same year, Lindzen also participated in a White House
> commissioned National Academy of Sciences panel to review the IPCC
> summaries. The media's claim that the NAS report depicted a
> "consensus" which supported the Kyoto treaty so misrepresented the
> findings of the panel that Lindzen felt compelled to write an article
> to set the record straight. According to the Doctor:
I see. He can't get scientists to listen to his cuckoo ideas, so he
has to testify before a Republican congress and write letters.
>
> "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and
> agreement, the science is by no means settled."
>
It is now! 2007, pal!
> Indeed, these exact words were used in the findings reported to
> Congress in June of 2001:
>
> "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
> understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to
> emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the
> magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and
> subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."
Yes, so? Heck, you adjust your driving every day yet you're pretty
certain where you're going.
>
> Yet, Michelle Mitchell of CNN best exemplified the media miscoverage
> when she declared that the report represented,
>
> "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting
> worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
>
That is true now.
> And in a recent appearance on Larry King Live, Lindzen discredited
> media claims that the current IPCC summary was any less compromised
> than its predecessor of 6 years, reiterating that its non-scientist
> authors write exclusively for their own benefit.
>
Lie.
> Appearing with Lindzen on the show was Bill Nye (aka TV's "The Science
> Guy"), who had suggested that thaw-induced fresh water might shut down
> the Gulf Stream. When Lindzen informed the UCS shill that such an
> action would require either stopping the Earth's rotation or shutting
> down the wind, it was Nye's ridiculous postulate that was shut down.
>
Lintzen iss lying.
> And so, we have a supposedly unbiased media injecting gross
> exaggeration, childishly irresponsible horror stories, and outright
> lies. Is it any wonder that we now live in a society where so many
> have chosen ...
>
> read more »
So we have the world's scientists on one side, and crackpots and
prostitutes on the other. And we know what side you've chosen.
Lloyd
> On Feb 23, 1:50 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > The professional scientists
> > at the IPCC have done this. This month they published
> > a confidence of 90% that the majority cause of the
> > recent warming is anthropogenic.
>
> What about that 10% Roger? Before we create an economic holocaust,
> and another economic ice age with your hare-brained GW reduction
> schemes, do the math:
Heck, there's a chance your hand can pass through a wall. QM allows
it. It's just not very probable. Do you worry about that?
>
> A) Wait and see on GW's effects (with a mild carbon tax): economy
> does just fine.
>
> B) GW reduction, as proposed by you and the Extreme Greens: 90%
> correct * economy same as "A" above *10% wrong * ZERO (economy as
> affected by being wrong, i.e. destroyed by GW abatement) = ZERO.
> Conditional probabilities so we multiply the probabilities
>
> In short, as suspected by many who oppose GW abatement, you will allow
> another Hitler or Stalin to rule the world because of worldwide
> depression if the world foolishly adopts the extreme Greens (ie.
> yours) GW abatement schemes.
>
Is that the extreme Col. Green, from Star Trek?
Bawana
> On Feb 23, 4:44 pm, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 4:12 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > <Co2puke turds snipped>
>
> > The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
> > By Marc Sheppard
>
> Aw, what's the matter, Banana Brain,
Nothing at all, lardass.
How about you?
> you don't know the IPCC consists
> of scientists?
That's what your UN sponsored religious cult dogma says, Tturd Packer.
I'm not impressed with your faith or the UN.
------------------------
January 16, 2007
Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock
By James Lewis
As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused
global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate
science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now:
Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like
the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong
when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic
physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were
predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles --- because
they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just
pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct
Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget
that little word "hypothesis.")
OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-
dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the
earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to
climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or
thousands.
All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they
keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding
surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns"
out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than
we can write little models about. How do you extract the human
contribution from a vast number of unknowns?
That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating
to do frontier science properly.
Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in
store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was
wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a
problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong
--- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything
is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's
full of surprises. That's what it's for.
Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand
this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables,
each one less than 100 percent likely to be true.
If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific
number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces
1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by
itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small
very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that
some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in
any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't
obvious.
Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with
less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically
optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99
percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's
optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's
--- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of
cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South
Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning
more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest
"greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes,
the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face
of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae
that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-
smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all
goes into our best math model.
So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know
100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know
what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that
perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself
100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more
than 36.6 percent.
The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of
one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we
going to spend on that chance?
Or should we just blow it at the dog races?
So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real
life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise
on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up,
instead.)
That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact.
Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you
a bill of goods.
Probably.
James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. He blogs at
Dangerous Times.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html
at January 22, 2007 - 02:26:47 PM EST
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 23, 1:36 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>
> All factors need not be named, only significant ones.
> One need not add zeros. The professional scientists
> at the IPCC have done this. This month they published
> a confidence of 90% that the majority cause of the
> recent warming is anthropogenic.
Professional climatologists are not a professional scientists. A
careful evaluation in any court of law can prove this fact. They
demonstrate this already with their refusal to release their
'scientific reports'. What's the matter? Haven't they finished writing
them yet? If they can release their conclusion from the secret domain
of the high religion of AGW, why not the actual science upon which
their burden of proof rests?
I guess one of the factors that need not be named is the fact that
there is evidence that all the planets of the solar system are
warming. Or the fact that you have no valid thermodynamics. What about
all the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth and the
ocean? The temperture of the ocean determines the temperature of the
air.
The fluctuations of temperature of the ocean and earth are of too
great a timescale to fit within the 100 yrs of human involvement.
There were higher temperatures in the medieavel period and in the
Holocene Maximum 7500 to 4000 yrs ago. You have no science with your
records of only 50 yrs and no direct evidence of the property of CO2
to cause higher temperatures to support your 90% confidence of
antropogenic cause of temperature change.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
These facts will come back to haunt the charlatans of AGW. But you can
ignore them for now with the education of your class that teaches that
all your scientific opposition is paid for by corporate greed that
only wishes to profit in the overheating of the earth. If you flunk
this class are you thrown out of climatology?
Deatherage
Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV
Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
> misconception that global warming is not happening. This
> little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
> our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
> certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
> Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
> machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
> will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
> below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
And if you do not repeat and believe what is told to you, you will be
flunked out of climatology. Is there a consensus on this??
There have been a great deal of temperature fluctuations such as the
ice ages in which we are in an interglacial period of the normal
100,000 yr glacial period in the earth's history. Most notalbly the
medieavel period which is deliberatly omitted from AGW rhetoric
because it shows that warming trends are more likely natural and not
caused by humans.
>
> 1) That the surface of the earth has warmed over the last several
> decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
>
> A map of global temperature trends shows warming.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2006&m...
> The global ground weather station network shows warming:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
> The balloon record shows this same warming:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
> The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
> that the air near the surface is warming too:
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> University of Alabama at Huntsville.http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
> The record of sea ice melting:http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.htmlhttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
> The glacier retreat record:http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
> The bore hole record:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
> Rising sea level:http://sealevel.colorado.edu/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
>
> 2) Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of the
> Sun's output has shown no long term growth large enough to
> explain the warming of the Earth:http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstanthttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Wea...
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
>
> There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
> which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
> of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
> The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
> meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
>
> Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
> greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
> causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
> the fastest. Also, please see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>
>
> To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
> One needs to show two very important things:
>
> 1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
> IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
The ice core data and the direct measurements of CO2 from Mauna Loa
do not match. The probable reason is that the CO2 in the ice may not
reflect the actual levels.
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
It may show a good record of the relative concentrations. But the ice
core data actually shows 324ppm in the 1880's. This is adjusted
directly by AGW and the IPCC to 290ppm in order to make it appear that
human effect is increasing CO2 levels and that drastic measures must
be taken affecting all economic systems. This fraud must be exposed
and your fraud at culturing your discusion for the propaganda effects
of AGW is not valid science.
>
> There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:
>
> A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
> for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
> organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
> Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
> anthropogenic.
>
l> B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
l> the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
l> convincing demonstrations.
l> Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
l> that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
l> fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
l> its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
l> Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
l> trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:
l> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
l> or:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
This is false. If you look at the ice core data, there is a
fluctuation in CO2 levels that follows
the warming trends. What could be the cause of this? This quantity of
CO2 change in the air
can only be caused by the change in the exchange rate of CO2 between
the ocean and atmosphere.
The ocean naturally absorbs CO2. Greater rates of evaporation from the
ocean causes a change in this exchange rate, Much of the carbon in the
ocean is old carbon which has been there for many years and thus would
have the lower concentrations of C!4 which has a half life of 5760
yrs.
This is utterlly ridiculous and direct fraud to say that out of the
440 billion tons of CO2 that plants recycle evergy year naturally and
human influx to this system is about 25 billion tons, the CO2 that
remains in the air is the human CO2. Very petulant rational by the
charlatans of AGW.
> C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
> is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
> this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
> Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
> this table from the IPCC:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
>
> 2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
>
> There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
> heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
> infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.
>
> It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
> in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
> or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
> the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
> spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
> space looking down are very convincing evidence for
> this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.
You may find it in text books written after the 1960's. This theory as
you point out is from classical physics which believed that light and
heat were waves through the ether. All the mathematics of the 19Th
century were to this ideal, including all of the brillliant work of
Maxwell. There was complete failure of 19th century physics to
quantify heat and light energy according to their wave theories.
Planck and Einstein demolished the academic theory of classical
physics. Einsteins postulate of 'the light quantum hypothessis', in
which he used the photoelectric effect to demonstrate that light is
particulate and is composed of photons that have energy hv, entirely
modified theoretical physics. The quantum mechanics of today has not
improved on Planck's radiation law or Einsteins theory of
electromagntic radiation.
Max Born, 'Atomic Physics', is a book easily available from Barnes and
Noble. Born was Heisenbergs mentor out of college and saw the complete
development of QM, as he also saw the development of Planck's work and
Heisenberg's work. He was one of the top physicists of his day. In
this book he acurately describes Planck's radiation law and it's
development from the work of Kirchoff, Stefan, Boltzman, and Wien.
The accurate Kirchoff's theorem is described in this book.
Nowhere in this book from this most noted physicist and his diligent
recording of the history of atomic physics does he give any validation
to your claim of the theory that different gases cause different
temperatures according to their absorption of infrared radiation
differently, or 'GRENHOUSE GAS THEORY'.
Planck's law is based on the equipartion deleoped from Boltzman and
all the diligent experimentation of German physics. This gives the
value mean kinetic energy as kT, and frequency of highest intensity
4.96kT, as a function of the temperature and not the substance in
proper accord with Kirchoffs theorem. (pg 205, 'Atomic Physics').
The theory of grenhouse gases, including the false thermodynamics
which gives a rating that the temperature of the earth should be 255K
according to incident raditation from the sun is entirely false
physics. That you refer to the classical physics of the 19th century
for your substance is even indicative of this.
This superstition was reborn in the 1960's by poorly educated
academics. Your claims of a valid theoretical base are nothing but
conjured propaganda that will become more of a criminal enterprise as
AGW further pursues it's goals.
Your reference to science of the grenhouse effect omits the important
quanlification that would give this theoretical popstulate
credibility. It lacks direct laboratory demonstration of this property
of CO2. YOu refer to analyses of the atmosphere that shows CO2 causing
warming. Impossible. The best evidence is of .3 to .6 C increase in
the past 150 yrs. [Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987; Jones et al., 1997;
Nicholls et al., 1996].
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
There is no valid claim that you are measuring this change in
atmospheric temperture. These instruments may record effects of CO2 on
specific frequencies. This does not prove effect on overall
transference of energy.
In direct laboratory tests with CO2, it cannot be shown that any
concentration of CO2 retains heat to cause higher final temperature.
Therefore your theoretical conclusion that affects on specific
frequencies is causing affect on overall transmission of energy is not
supported by direct science.
> See:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contentshttp://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
>
> There is another way of demonstrating the action of
> greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
> of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
What about the ice core data? CO2 rises with increasing temperature in
this data. And generally as the temperature goes down, CO2 levels
decrease also. But the temperature falls are in no way following the
concentrations of CO2. In fact the temperature falls occur regardless
of CO2 levels. The temperature is not being affected by CO2 at all. It
is a false presumption that existing CO2 affects temperature, and this
can easily be proved by daytime temperatures at the equator. You
contention here is more false theoretical science. Warming may be
occuring. But this is not from CO2 or gases in the atmosphere. This
warming would affect the lower temperatures. The higher temperatures
go above the average temperatures in the day. The point that nightime
temperatures fall is determined by the heat of the earth and ocean. If
one digs down only a couple of meters, the ground temperature is near
the overall average temperature of the surface above it. This
temperature below ground is determined by the incident solar radiation
on the surface more than the temperature of the air. The temperatures
of the air at the surface are more determined by the heat escaping the
earth when not recieving radiation. This can be quantified by rate of
temperature drop at the surface and rate of temperature drop of the
air. Proper accounting of this energy shows that the atmosphere is not
transferring to the surface the 324Wm-2 of your theory/
>
> 1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
>
> 2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
>
> 3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
> the tropics.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
>
> These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
> (Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
> Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
> Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
> tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
> global warming can work quite this way. See the
> Widener URL above, and the textbook PDF file here:http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/
Again, presumption and conclusion falsly arrived. If a band is
saturated, it is no problem for the energy to be radiated at other
frequencies. There is no overall reduction in transference of energy
as all laboratory data shows. Also the bands that could be affected by
CO2 are already saturated by water vapor meaning adding CO2 is
meaningless You only have theoretical calculations of what you presume
temperature affect should be. No laboratory corroboration at all for
your presumptions of your theory. Therefore a careful laboratory study
can prove your fraud.
Deatherage
Hydrogen TRUTH
> 100,000 yr glacial period in the earth's history. Most notalbly the
> medieavel period which is deliberatly omitted from AGW rhetoric
> and your fraud at culturing your discusion for the propaganda effects
> century were to this ideal, including all of the brillliant work of
> physics. Einsteins postulate of 'the light quantum hypothessis', in
> electromagntic radiation.
>
> differently, or 'GRENHOUSE GAS THEORY'.
>
> Planck's law is based on the equipartion deleoped from Boltzman and
> The theory of grenhouse gases, including the false thermodynamics
> according to incident raditation from the sun is entirely false
> Your reference to science of the grenhouse effect omits the important
> quanlification that would give this theoretical popstulate
> of CO2. YOu refer to analyses of the atmosphere that shows CO2 causing
> atmospheric temperture. These instruments may record effects of CO2 on
> occuring. But this is not from CO2 or gases in the atmosphere. This
> earth when not recieving radiation. This can be quantified by rate of
> Again, presumption and conclusion falsly arrived. If a band is
>
> Deatherage
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
William Asher
news:1172409632....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
>
Wow. That sounded really erudite. You must have some training in
physics or something. The article you cited is good, but it kind of
refutes all of the points you made above, except for the semi-dellusional
stuff about the Stefan-Boltzman relation being wrong and there being no
laboratory studies showing CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation (have
you ever heard of the planet Venus, by the way?). For example, you keep
harping on the paleo record, but here's what the article you quote has to
say:
"This interactive relationship between CO2 and climate implies that the
geologic record is not likely to reveal analogs of simple climate forcing
by anthropogenic CO2 emissions [Crowley, 1997; Hay et al., 1997;
Sundquist, 1986]. There is no known geologic precedent for large
increases of atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other
components of the carbon cycle and climate system."
There's lots more contradictions to what you say is correct in the
article, even though you are citing it as supporting your claims. (That
piece is also nearly ten years out of date and there have been advances
in the state of understanding since then (e.g., a paper in 2004 resolved
a lot of the discrepency between CO2 and temperature in the paleo record,
not that it really matters since most people who understand climate,
though who I will admit likely aren't as smart as you, don't think the
paleo record provides much guidance to what is theorized to be happening
today (see quote above).) Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than the
scientists on the IPCC. Can you direct me to some of your peer-reviewed
publications on climate so I can read some correct science that has a
higher truthiness factor than what is being used by the IPCC? After all,
they probably all learned the stuff they know out of textbooks written
after 1960.
--
Bill Asher
kdt...@yahoo.com
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote innews:1172409632....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Wow. That sounded really erudite. You must have some training in
> physics or something. The article you cited is good, but it kind of
> refutes all of the points you made above, except for the semi-dellusional
> stuff about the Stefan-Boltzman relation being wrong and there being no
I said nothing that Stefan Boltzman is wrong, dishonest little prick.
This is the same means you do science. Twisting the truth for the
effect you enjoy more. It is grenhouse theory which does not respect
Boltzman Stefan. This equation specifies a quantity of energy that
passes through the plane of a sq centimeter in 1 sec. Your use of this
in a simple means of denoting and influx of energy to area of
radiative area is absolutely false.
This equation stipulates a rate of energy that a particular surface
recieves. This surface will be absorbing energy and increasing
temperature until it reaches the equivelent temperature of the
intensity of radiation. Then, it will remain at this temperature and
witll go no higher as it is radiating equivelent to the energy it is
recieving. This is demonstrated on the moon which is in the same solar
constant of the earth. The moon with the sun at zenith, is 123C. This
is in accordance with Boltzman Stefan which stipulates a temperature
of 121C at 1370Wm-2.
> laboratory studies showing CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation (have
> you ever heard of the planet Venus, by the way
Venus is warmed by the gravitational effects of the earth and sun.
There is direct evidence of this sort of warming with the moon of
Jupiter, IO. Venus would be in sycronized rotation with the sun,
except for the effect of the earth at it passes.
Is Venus a laboratory where you can demonstrate cause and effect? You
must think you have skirted this issue and fact. You are able to
repeat the phrase 'CO2 absorbs infrared radiation', without any
meaning as the normal little schoolboys do as they puff up from that
self infatuation of their own intelligence at being able to repeat
this phrase which someone told them.
But the statement I made is still unrefuted and correct. In direct
laboratory analyses, no effect on final temperature can be
demonstrated from any concentration of CO2. Therefore the actual
direct science to show CO2 has this property does not exists and it is
piss poor theoretical science.
Please do not refer the hoax experiment with CO2 encased in glass or
similar material and irradiated with high energy frequencies of
sunlight. Neutral materials can be found which shows that the property
attributed to CO2 does not exist.
This does not show CO2 retaining the 15um band which is proper
grenhouse theory. And this is not a full analyses of the situation or
CO2.
Deatherage
I only refer to the article for specific data.
William Asher
news:1172447053.3...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> Venus is warmed by the gravitational effects of the earth and sun.
> There is direct evidence of this sort of warming with the moon of
> Jupiter, IO. Venus would be in sycronized rotation with the sun,
> except for the effect of the earth at it passes.
Oh great potty-mouthed guru, could you point me to a NASA or other
reputable astronomy website that will back this claim up? I suspect it
is nonsense and could direct you to any number of reputable websites
(e.g., Britannica.com) that will claim Venus is as hot as it is because
of a runaway "greenhouse effect" due to the huge amount of CO2 in its
atmosphere, not due to tidal friction. But clearly you have a better
grip on this science stuff than I do and I'll believe anything I read if
it comes from a reputable source, so tell me where to look instead of
hurling insults and a powerful ally you'll have.
--
Bill Asher
p.s. I don't mean to nitpick but it's Io, after the god, not IO after
the computer acronym.
William Asher
> But the statement I made is still unrefuted and correct. In direct
> laboratory analyses, no effect on final temperature can be
> demonstrated from any concentration of CO2. Therefore the actual
> direct science to show CO2 has this property does not exists and it is
> piss poor theoretical science.
>
> Please do not refer the hoax experiment with CO2 encased in glass or
> similar material and irradiated with high energy frequencies of
> sunlight. Neutral materials can be found which shows that the property
> attributed to CO2 does not exist.
Before I agree you're correct could you clear up one little point for me?
How do you do a laboratory experiment on the radiative transfer
properties of a gas if you can't enclose it in glass or acrylic or
germanium plates or something? Anyway, the point remains, if people have
done these experiments demonstrating that CO2 doesn't not absorb longwave
IR radiation, they must have published the results and you obviuosly know
about them. Can you provide references for those studies. They will be
of the form:
Deatherage and Asher, "On the radiative transfer properties of CO2 in
unconfined laboratory experiments," J. Appl. Spectroscopy, 50, 432-444,
2004.
Note that I am not seriously saying you could would publish a paper with
me, I'm not worthy to clean the erasers on your blackboard. That's just
an example of scholarly citations I've seen, not that I know what any of
that stuff means, or anything.
--
Bill Asher
Exxon Liars & Thieves
raylopez99
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote innews:1172447053.3...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deatherage and Asher, "On the radiative transfer properties of CO2 in
> unconfined laboratory experiments," J. Appl. Spectroscopy, 50, 432-444,
> 2004.
>
> Note that I am not seriously saying you could would publish a paper with
> me, I'm not worthy to clean the erasers on your blackboard. That's just
> an example of scholarly citations I've seen, not that I know what any of
> that stuff means, or anything.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Aside from the educational value of debating somebody, keep in mind
you will never convince everybody of anything. In any population
exceeding 30 people, statistically there's a good chance that at least
one is 2 standard deviations beyond the mean--meaning there's at least
one weirdo in every group. This is also the basis for those games
where in a room full of people, greater than 23, more likely than not
two people share the same birthday: http://www.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbrown/stat/birthday.htm
Add in the fact that half the people here (including myself) don't
necessarily believe everything they type (playing Devil's Advocate),
coupled with Internet anonymity (a good thing BTW), and you get the
chaos and nonsense that is this board. And that includes the self-
proclaimed experts who seem to know what they are talking about.
RL
Lloyd
> On Feb 24, 2:01 pm, "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 4:44 pm, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 4:12 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > <Co2puke turds snipped>
>
> > > The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
> > > By Marc Sheppard
>
> > Aw, what's the matter, Banana Brain,
>
> Nothing at all, lardass.
> How about you?
>
> > you don't know the IPCC consists
> > of scientists?
>
> That's what your UN sponsored religious cult dogma says, Tturd Packer.
> I'm not impressed with your faith or the UN.
> ------------------------
> January 16, 2007
> Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock
> By James Lewis
> As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused
> global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate
> science becomes mature.
Yeah, like the earth going around the sun is just a hypothesis.
>(Climate science is very immature right now:
> Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like
> the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong
> when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics."
Gee, NASA over a shill.
>Basic
> physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were
> predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles --- because
> they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just
> pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct
> Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget
> that little word "hypothesis.")
>
> OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-
> dependent.
Lie.
>We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the
> earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to
> climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or
> thousands.
Like those tiny things called "atoms." Can't see 'em, so they don't
exist.
That AGW is real is not the result of a model but data, you doofus.
> So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know
> 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know
> what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that
> perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself
> 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more
> than 36.6 percent.
>
> The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of
> one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we
> going to spend on that chance?
>
> Or should we just blow it at the dog races?
>
> So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real
> life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise
> on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up,
> instead.)
>
> That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact.
> Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you
> a bill of goods.
>
> Probably.
>
> James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. He blogs at
So he's a coward and we can't check his credentials. Your type of
person.
> Dangerous Times.
> Page Printed from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably...
William Asher
> Add in the fact that half the people here (including myself) don't
> necessarily believe everything they type (playing Devil's Advocate),
> coupled with Internet anonymity (a good thing BTW), and you get the
> chaos and nonsense that is this board. And that includes the self-
> proclaimed experts who seem to know what they are talking about.
There is a difference between playing devil's advocate, which mainly
consists of posting the same old tired arguments that have been debunked in
the scientific literature, and posting nutbar-type rantings on how modern
textbooks on radiative transfer have the fundamental physics wrong.
Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to figure out
where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g., everyone harps on
the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of something, yet there was no
globally synchronous warm period during that period, parts of the globe
warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval Warm Period was fairly different from
what is going on now, where there is a dramatic global warming). But
nutbar stuff is internet goofiness and I feel like I can have fun with
them.
--
Bill Asher
raylopez99
> raylopez99 wrote:
> There is a difference between playing devil's advocate, which mainly
> consists of posting the same old tired arguments that have been debunked in
> the scientific literature, and posting nutbar-type rantings on how modern
> textbooks on radiative transfer have the fundamental physics wrong.
"Mainly consists" is right, but I have made original contributions to
the GW Sceptics/Deniars debate, which include, inter alia: (1) CO2
and/or heat is being transfered from ocean to air (weak coupling is
stronger than consensus thinks, and occurs during ENSO events; CO2 can
be 'recent' (fossil) CO2 from the time of the Industrial Revolution,
so Suess effect is not violated); (2) shifting ocean currents
responsible for Greenland ice sheet melting (I have no proof of this
or any other assertion, just speculation); (3) UHI is responsible for
GW since Parker et al study re UHI and windy days flawed (see my other
thread); (4) Nyquist sampling violations in urbanized temperature
measuring stations responsible for rise in most weather stations
("rush hour heat plume from man made structures"); (5) CO2
measurements flawed since equipment not calibrated worldwide to
measure a baseline (even Keeling had problems with Hawaii site due to
volcano there--no such thing as a perfect 'world mixing bowl'-CO2
'urban island' effect?); (6) no research done on effect of CO2 trapped
in air bubbles under 1000s of tonnes of ice pressure (relevant for
proxy data on prehistoric CO2 from ice cores)--does it leach out?
Phase change absorption?).
And all this from the privacy and comfort of my armchair--and I don't
even work in the field. Imagine if I got paid to dream up this stuff--
I could outdo Prof. Lindzen!
> Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to figure out
> where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g., everyone harps on
> the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of something, yet there was no
> globally synchronous warm period during that period, parts of the globe
> warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval Warm Period was fairly different from
> what is going on now, where there is a dramatic global warming).
Just thought of another one: (7) Medieval Warm Period proxy data not
reliable--too sparse.
There's at least one climatelogy Nobel in this thread, if it can be
proven.
Can you imagine the headlines? AGW proved hoax! A modern Piltdown
man!
RL
William Asher
None of your contributions would pass scientific muster in terms of
involving realistic physics and chemistry. You're not the first to propose
any of those things, but the experimental evidence is simply not there to
support any of the things you say might be true.
For example, your first point, aside from the fact that ENSO isn't an
event, but a process involving two separate states (el Nino, la Nina), you
must be suggesting something along the lines that during la Nina the ocean
releases post-industrial CO2 and heat, which leads to the increase in CO2
and atmospheric warming (it has to be la Nina since it is known that atm.
CO2 decreases during el Nino). If you think this is true, you need to
postulate some physical mechanisms and source regions where this is going
on. Then, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what the regional
fluxes from those source regions would have to be, and back out the implied
air-sea exchange coefficients for both heat and CO2. That exercise, which
has been done many times before you, shows it is simply not realistic,
there isn't enough wind or delta-pCO2 to drive the fluxes you would need.
Plus you don't see the quasi-periodic increases in the atm. CO2 trend to
support the notion that something like la Nina is driving the increase (the
increase in CO2 is fairly steady). yadda yadda yadda
Point 6 has also been studied, there is a wide body of literature on the
stability of gas concentrations in bubbles. If you want to open that up
for debate, you need to bring some heavy duty ammunition in terms of
published studies showing the effects you postulate are important are in
fact important. The people doing this have thought of these things, tested
them, and found them to be unimportant. You might be smarter than they
are, but just claiming you are doesn't prove it. Most big game hunters
don't just claim they have a big rifle in their bag, so to speak, they
actually bring it out once in a while.
Your MWP statement reaffirms the point I made. You cannot assume it was a
global warming based simply on what went on in the N. Atlantic. There is
no evidence for a global scale warming in that time period. Period.
Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try writing some
of your "musings" up and submitting them for publication. I know that's a
scary thought at first, but if you're as smart as you think you are, you'll
kick ass in the peer review process. You could be Dietz and Hess all
rolled into one.
--
Bill Asher
raylopez99
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 9:50 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> raylopez99 wrote:
>
> > "Mainly consists" is right, but I have made original contributions to
> > the GW Sceptics/Deniars debate, which include, inter alia: (1) CO2
> > and/or heat is being transfered from ocean to air (weak coupling is
> > stronger than consensus thinks, and occurs during ENSO events; CO2 can
> > be 'recent' (fossil) CO2 from the time of the Industrial Revolution,
> > so Suess effect is not violated); (2) shifting ocean currents
> > responsible for Greenland ice sheet melting (I have no proof of this
> > or any other assertion, just speculation); (3) UHI is responsible for
> > GW since Parker et al study re UHI and windy days flawed (see my other
> > thread); (4) Nyquist sampling violations in urbanized temperature
> > measuring stations responsible for rise in most weather stations
> > ("rush hour heat plume from man made structures"); (5) CO2
> > measurements flawed since equipment not calibrated worldwide to
> > measure a baseline (even Keeling had problems with Hawaii site due to
> > volcano there--no such thing as a perfect 'world mixing bowl'-CO2
> > 'urban island' effect?); (6) no research done on effect of CO2 trapped
> > in air bubbles under 1000s of tonnes of ice pressure (relevant for
> > proxy data on prehistoric CO2 from ice cores)--does it leach out?
> > Phase change absorption?).
>
> >> Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to
> >> figure out where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g.,
> >> everyone harps on the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of
> >> something, yet there was no globally synchronous warm period during
> >> that period, parts of the globe warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval
> >> Warm Period was fairly different from what is going on now, where
> >> there is a dramatic global warming).
>
> > Just thought of another one: (7) Medieval Warm Period proxy data not
> > reliable--too sparse.
>
> > There's at least one climatelogy Nobel in this thread, if it can be
> > proven.
>
> > Can you imagine the headlines? AGW proved hoax! A modern Piltdown
> > man!
>
> None of your contributions would pass scientific muster in terms of
> involving realistic physics and chemistry.
None? But you contradict yourself below Bill--you say some of my
points have been discussed before.
> You're not the first to propose
> any of those things, but the experimental evidence is simply not there to
> support any of the things you say might be true.
>
Because perhaps it has not been studied?
> For example, your first point, aside from the fact that ENSO isn't an
> event, but a process involving two separate states (el Nino, la Nina), you
> must be suggesting something along the lines that during la Nina the ocean
> releases post-industrial CO2 and heat, which leads to the increase in CO2
> and atmospheric warming (it has to be la Nina since it is known that atm.
> CO2 decreases during el Nino). If you think this is true, you need to
> postulate some physical mechanisms and source regions where this is going
> on.
Easy--physics are understood (cold air rises and released CO2 when
warmed). Area is South Pacific.
> Then, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what the regional
> fluxes from those source regions would have to be, and back out the implied
> air-sea exchange coefficients for both heat and CO2. That exercise, which
> has been done many times before you, shows it is simply not realistic,
> there isn't enough wind or delta-pCO2 to drive the fluxes you would need.
Wind--sounds like hot air. You fit the facts to the hypothesis, until
the facts squeal and can't take it anymore, then your modify the
hypothesis and start again. If you've done original science before,
you know that.
> Plus you don't see the quasi-periodic increases in the atm. CO2 trend to
> support the notion that something like la Nina is driving the increase (the
> increase in CO2 is fairly steady). yadda yadda yadda
Yadda yadda indeed, but the devil is in the details. Seems like you
favor the orthodox "back of the envelope" explanation for GW, the
Arrhenius equation (as modified). Fair enough, but that's like
arguing since oil depletion is a bell-shaped curve, and it's a fact
oil is decreasing, ergo we will soon run out of oil. Fair enough
point, except the curve is not a smooth bell shape, and "soon" may be
50 years or 300 years. Which is it? Likewise GW maybe two inches
mean sea level rise over the next century (nearly trivial pace for
polar bears) or 2 feet--which is it?
>
> Point 6 has also been studied,
Points 2-5 are ignored? I take it you conceed these points in my
favor. LOL.
>there is a wide body of literature on the
> stability of gas concentrations in bubbles.
Really? Learn something new everyday--and I thought the subject was
ignored.
> If you want to open that up
> for debate, you need to bring some heavy duty ammunition in terms of
> published studies showing the effects you postulate are important are in
> fact important. The people doing this have thought of these things, tested
> them, and found them to be unimportant.
>
> Your MWP statement reaffirms the point I made. You cannot assume it was a
> global warming based simply on what went on in the N. Atlantic. There is
> no evidence for a global scale warming in that time period. Period.
Perhaps because there's no good set of proxy data in fossilized or
otherwise trees! If the tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it,
does it make a sound? Does it even exist? The issue is not settled
but inconclusive.
>
> Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
> patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try writing some
> of your "musings" up and submitting them for publication. I know that's a
> scary thought at first, but if you're as smart as you think you are, you'll
> kick ass in the peer review process. You could be Dietz and Hess all
> rolled into one.
>
Yeah right, you're a real comedian. As if anybody would listen to me
in science, since I don't have a PhD (but I do have a doctorate, go
figure).
Truth is, the policy of GW will be decided by economics IMO--the
economics of scarcity--when oil starts running out, when electricity
becomes dear (brownouts in Texas--since they lack power and the Greens
are stoping them from building coal plants--and California--also a
market where it's hard to import power), then the population will
clamour for more energy--and get it in the form of nuclear, possibly
fusion if the government ever gets serious about both rewarding
inventors for their inventions and spending real R&D on science (this
year's budget for science was not expanded by Bush, yet the war in
Iraq costs $600k + and counting, further worthless posturing with a
missle shield on Russia's Eastern Europe border continues; Pentagon
seems to be begging for another war or restarting of the Cold War).
Bye,
RL
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Every so often new members of this forum arrive with the
> misconception that global warming is not happening. This
> little post will serve as a reading for Global Warming 101,
> our introductory course on the subject. The list is here is
> certainly not all inclusive, some more esoteric topics like
> Paleoclimatology, the structure of the industry financed lie
> machine, and Biosociopathy: its causes and treatments
> will be covered in upper division courses. Read the list
> below carefully, you will be tested over this material.
>
> decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
>
> A map of global temperature trends shows warming.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2006&m...
> The global ground weather station network shows warming:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
> The balloon record shows this same warming:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
> The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
> that the air near the surface is warming too:
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> University of Alabama at Huntsville.http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
> The record of sea ice melting:http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.htmlhttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
> The glacier retreat record:http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
> The bore hole record:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
> Rising sea level:http://sealevel.colorado.edu/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
>
> 2) Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of the
> Sun's output has shown no long term growth large enough to
> explain the warming of the Earth:http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstanthttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Wea...
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
>
> There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
> which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
> of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
> The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
> meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
And here is your Watts per square meter analyses
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A scientist of climatology should know that temperature fluctuations
are known to have occured before the industrial era.
At this point, Roger, you prove conclusively your failure as a
scientist in the field of climatology. In climatology, the long term
temperature fluctuations are studied. You here state the conclusion
that you have eliminated the other possible causes of temperature
fluctuation. In the earth's history, by many means of analyses,
temperature fluctuations can be documented to have occured. It is not
possible to explain the ice ages according to CO2.
Your conclusion that there is no other possible cause for any
temperature fluctuation is in contradiction to the basic fact of
climatology in that temperature fluctuations do occur. The earth is
now in an interglacial warm period. It is normal to reach above 2C
above the mean in these interglacial periods, which we are much below
now. This began 18,000 yrs ago. Before this was the 100,000 yr glacial
period. This 100.000 yr glaciation cycle with the warm interglacial
periods is a very basic of the science of climatology.
The best estimates of temperature change is: 0.3 and 0.6° C during the
last 150 years [Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987; Jones et al., 1997;
Nicholls et al., 1996].
The fluctuations around this 'mean' increase are much greater than
this.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
If your worried about CO2 and global warming, dial the AGW Anxiety
Hotline,
BR549, ask for Junior,,,
He'll be glad to listen to all your moanin and groanin and lamentin
about how CO2 and cow farts are just screwing up your world.
Doom, despair, and agony on me,
Deep dark depression, excessive misery,
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all,
Doom, despair and agony on me
(Junior Sales)
Deatherage
Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:36 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > All factors need not be named, only significant ones.
> > One need not add zeros. The professional scientists
> > at the IPCC have done this. This month they published
> > a confidence of 90% that the majority cause of the
> > recent warming is anthropogenic.
>
> Professional climatologists are not a professional scientists. A
> careful evaluation in any court of law can prove this fact. They
> demonstrate this already with their refusal to release their
> 'scientific reports'. What's the matter? Haven't they finished writing
> them yet? If they can release their conclusion from the secret domain
> of the high religion of AGW, why not the actual science upon which
> their burden of proof rests?
>
> I guess one of the factors that need not be named is the fact that
> there is evidence that all the planets of the solar system are
> warming.
And you know that because you used your very own precision rectal
thermometer and personally inserted it up the ass of every planet.
You know, SKEPTIC FRED SINGER thinks mars is heating up because of
something to do with the alien's moonbase in the hollow moon...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Fred+Singer+Mars+Hollow+Moon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Results 1 - 100 of about 156,000 for Fred Singer Mars Hollow Moon.
http://www.presidentialufo.com/eisenhow5.htm
"Mars May have Orbiting Space Base, says White House Advisor
March 1960: The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial
body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an
advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special
advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was
made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.
In his published opinion, Dr. Singer backed a claim first made by the
Soviet astrophysicist Shklovsky. The Russian scientist's announcement
that Phobos was a hollow, artificial satellite, proving the existence
of a Martian civilization, set off heated arguments among astronomers.
Shklovsky based his decision on a long study of Phobos' peculiar
orbit, which other astronomers have noted. The Russian claim has
calculations and those of earlier astronomers prove Phobos cannot
possibly be an ordinary moon.
Though Dr. Singer said the figures still had to be proved, his Phobos
statement in the February Astronautics, rejected other astronomers'
objections.
"I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid," said the
white House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then
Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he
said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars'
atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space
base, both for Martians and earthlings."
> Deatherage
William Asher
news:1172538672.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>> Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
>> patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try
>> writing some of your "musings" up and submitting them for
>> publication. I know that's a scary thought at first, but if you're
>> as smart as you think you are, you'll kick ass in the peer review
>> process. You could be Dietz and Hess all rolled into one.
>>
>
> Yeah right, you're a real comedian. As if anybody would listen to me
> in science, since I don't have a PhD (but I do have a doctorate, go
> figure).
Global temperatures aren't a big topic for me. Christy seems to be
convinced there has been a global warming and if even he isn't squawking
anymore, I consider temperature a dead issue scientifically. I doubt you
have enough insight to make any meaningful contributions. I base that
assumption on your lack of insight into CO2, which I think reflects your
overall lack of scholarship in this issue in general. It's like I said,
there are a lot of smart people working on this and if you want to say
they're wrong you better bring the jizz to back your claims. I don't see
that in anything I've ever read of yours. It's superficial analysis with
no credible scientific basis.
Anyway, back to a subject I know a little more about than global
temperature measurement, did you really mean to write that cold air
releases CO2 as it rises? If you did then you don't have any idea what I
am talking about relative to CO2 and air-sea fluxes. Giving you the
benefit of doubt and assuming you meant to say that as cold water rises
it releases CO2, that statement is not strictly true (the statement that
cold air releases CO2 is laughable, and that is being charitable).
Here's why: if you want to calculate the flux of CO2 from the ocean to
the atmosphere it's really simple, the flux F (moles of CO2 per square
meter per second) is given by:
F = k * deltaC
where k is the transfer velocity and deltaC is the air-water
concentration difference. Typically, most people break the conc. diff.
into the henry's law constant (or solubility, written in terms of moles
per cubic meter per atm) and a partial pressure difference of CO2 across
the air-water boundary. So the second term on the right is related to
water temperature, since the Henry's law constant for most gases is
strongly temperature dependent (but not nearly so dependent on pressure).
Therefore, if you have cold water with CO2 in it, the partial pressure of
CO2 in it will rise as the water warms because the solubility decreases.
Still with me? Good. Here's where it gets tricky. So if you take cold
deep water in the S. Pacific and bring it to the surface, it's partial
pressure of CO2 will rise and there will be a large CO2 concentration
difference between the air and the water. But the kicker is that in the
equatorial regions the winds are not all that large, and the flux is also
controlled by k, the transfer velocity. k is, to a large degree, a
function of the wind, so where there are low winds, k is small and even
though you have a large deltaC, F is not all that big. This is all fact
and you can find this is texts like Schwarzenbach et al., Environmental
Organic Chemistry or Broecker and Peng, Tracers in the Sea (I think).
So, aside from the fact that the S. Pacific is not a huge area of
upwelling, during any part of the ENSO cycle, I don't see how you can get
large enough fluxes in regions where there is net transfer of CO2 from
the ocean to the atmosphere for what you postulated, namely that it is
the oceans that are responsible for the post-industrial increase in
atmospheric CO2, to be correct. Instead of actually trying to do the
math or suggest what processes aside from wind speed might be driving the
"k" part of the flux, you've deflected the discussion into some weird
Hubbert's Peak analogy. This kind of cut-and-dodge debating tactic is
typical of the shoddy intellectual work I've seen by people like you, who
although claim they really are in it just for the sport of playing
devil's advocate, are all too quick to take it personally and resort to
insults. It's why I say people like you bring the same tired old
arguments to the table: there's no real substance to any of them but
most people don't know that. But the truth is that credible scientists
would fillet every single point you raise, if they gave a crap or thought
anyone would actually listen.
But back to your explanation for why you don't try to do any real
research, people will listen to a rock-solid argument that gets the basic
physics and chemistry right, regardless of who makes that argument, or
their background. Al Woodcock was a much revered oceanographer, yet
never graduated from high school (http://tinyurl.com/3x2dd9). Your lack
of a Ph.D. is a cop-out excuse and you are the one that is holding
yourself back.
--
Bill Asher
raylopez99
> "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1172538672.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>
> Global temperatures aren't a big topic for me. Christy seems to be
> convinced there has been a global warming and if even he isn't squawking
> anymore, I consider temperature a dead issue scientifically.
So you believe in attribution rather than a review of the evidence
again, de novo? Into celebrity science then. You're a weak
intellectual. You also buy trademarked goods 'cause they're better,
eh?
> I doubt you
> have enough insight to make any meaningful contributions. I base that
> assumption on your lack of insight into CO2, which I think reflects your
> overall lack of scholarship in this issue in general. It's like I said,
> there are a lot of smart people working on this and if you want to say
> they're wrong you better bring the jizz to back your claims. I don't see
> that in anything I've ever read of yours. It's superficial analysis with
> no credible scientific basis.
Not true. You don't have to be an expert to criticise an area. You
can smell handwaving a mile away. Do you think Congress is rotten?
If so, why? If not, why not? Have you worked on the Hill? How can
you then base an opinion?
>
> Anyway, back to a subject I know a little more about than global
> temperature measurement, did you really mean to write that cold air
> releases CO2 as it rises?
Yes, of course. Open a warm beer bottle to see what I'm talking
about.
>If you did then you don't have any idea what I
> am talking about relative to CO2 and air-sea fluxes. Giving you the
> benefit of doubt and assuming you meant to say that as cold water rises
> it releases CO2, that statement is not strictly true (the statement that
> cold air releases CO2 is laughable, and that is being charitable).
You lack imagination then. It's clear what I meant: rising cold
water (ENSO event) releases CO2. This is standard physics (learn
it). You get hung up on words. Contrary to popular opinion, you would
not make a good lawyer BTW, as I have been an expert in court and have
seen real lawyers at work.
> Here's why: if you want to calculate the flux of CO2 from the ocean to
> the atmosphere it's really simple, the flux F (moles of CO2 per square
> meter per second) is given by:
>
> F = k * deltaC
>
This is what is known in engineering as a "transfer function". Let me
explain simply: it's a fudge factor. What are the assumptions behind
this transfer function? It has a range most likely, in which it
works, and a range where it doesn't. It's not a physics equation,
though based on physics. A real physics equation would be based on
conservation of energy (i.e., one of many, the incompressible Navier-
Stokes equation).
> where k is the transfer velocity and deltaC is the air-water
> concentration difference. Typically, most people break the conc. diff.
> into the henry's law constant (or solubility, written in terms of moles
> per cubic meter per atm) and a partial pressure difference of CO2 across
> the air-water boundary. So the second term on the right is related to
> water temperature, since the Henry's law constant for most gases is
> strongly temperature dependent (but not nearly so dependent on pressure).
> Therefore, if you have cold water with CO2 in it, the partial pressure of
> CO2 in it will rise as the water warms because the solubility decreases.
> Still with me? Good.
Yes, go on.
> Here's where it gets tricky. So if you take cold
> deep water in the S. Pacific and bring it to the surface, it's partial
> pressure of CO2 will rise and there will be a large CO2 concentration
> difference between the air and the water. But the kicker is that in the
> equatorial regions the winds are not all that large, and the flux is also
> controlled by k, the transfer velocity. k is, to a large degree, a
> function of the wind, so where there are low winds, k is small and even
> though you have a large deltaC, F is not all that big. This is all fact
> and you can find this is texts like Schwarzenbach et al., Environmental
> Organic Chemistry or Broecker and Peng, Tracers in the Sea (I think).
>
You think--but do you know? It's a fudge factor, k is. Where does it
work? Perhaps only in stormy areas--they don't call it the "Pacific"
ocean for nothing (i.e., peace = pacific = no storms). Perhaps it's
not constant, but changes depending on velocity, as you imply ("to a
large degree"--handwaving BTW, but I assume you mean k
=f(windspeed)). Thus you forget one big thing (again). During ENSO
events we get _more_ storms. Have you considered that the "normal k"
for an ordinarily calm ocean in the South American coast changes when
ENSO kicks in, and we get more storms? It's well known that ENSO
increases storms--so your "k" should also change from a normal
"pacific" ocean to a "stormy" one.
> So, aside from the fact that the S. Pacific is not a huge area of
> upwelling, during any part of the ENSO cycle, I don't see how you can get
> large enough fluxes in regions where there is net transfer of CO2 from
> the ocean to the atmosphere for what you postulated, namely that it is
> the oceans that are responsible for the post-industrial increase in
> atmospheric CO2, to be correct.
You don't see. You admit your lack of knowledge ("I don't see how"),
your ignorance. I explained it to you how even using your fudge
factor transfer function, k can change from the 'normal' k. You need
to measure k during stormy Pacific seas, of the kind found in ENSO
event years. You need to find how the normal k for the Pacific
changes during stormy ENSO events. You also need to reexamine whether
the transfer function above is even a good one to use during ENSO.
> Instead of actually trying to do the
> math or suggest what processes aside from wind speed might be driving the
> "k" part of the flux, you've deflected the discussion into some weird
> Hubbert's Peak analogy. This kind of cut-and-dodge debating tactic is
> typical of the shoddy intellectual work I've seen by people like you, who
> although claim they really are in it just for the sport of playing
> devil's advocate, are all too quick to take it personally and resort to
> insults.
Don't be an ass whole dude. You're as guilty, by your own admission,
of feeding the trolls. And it was an analogy, not an exact analogue.
The kind you make in your posts as well.
> It's why I say people like you bring the same tired old
> arguments to the table: there's no real substance to any of them but
> most people don't know that. But the truth is that credible scientists
> would fillet every single point you raise, if they gave a crap or thought
> anyone would actually listen.
Then explain the above, handwaver? Go dig out your old textbooks, as
is typical of an egghead pseudo-intellectual like you. Most textbooks
don't have all the answers, they are a starting point. I have no
doubt that textbook theories "explain" GW as per the Arrhenius
equations, but reality is often different from the theoretical model.
It's your profession's duty to investigate where the textbook model
doesn't fit reality, not to fit reality to the textbook.
>
> But back to your explanation for why you don't try to do any real
> research, people will listen to a rock-solid argument that gets the basic
> physics and chemistry right, regardless of who makes that argument, or
> their background. Al Woodcock was a much revered oceanographer, yet
> never graduated from high school (http://tinyurl.com/3x2dd9). Your lack
> of a Ph.D. is a cop-out excuse and you are the one that is holding
> yourself back.
Stupid argument. Al Woodcock was a researcher (the most despised of
intellectual pursuits, hence the pejorative "lab rat"), from a
different age, when PhD's and grade inflation were not prevalent (you
probably have several degrees from some weak third tier midwest public
school), and he was actually doing what I am advocating above--
checking out things like "k" in the field, to see where it applies.
Shame on you for even bringing him up with your weak analogies.
You're dismissed bozo. Don't even bother replying to this thread
unless you have something important to say. I've wasted 10 minutes of
my life too much already with a blowhard like you.
PS--yOU sound like Err-Hick Swine'son--sure you're not him? LOL.
RL
William Asher
Awww, and just when I was getting somewhere. There are people here who
probably understand what I am getting at. The stormy areas of the Pacific
don't have a high delta pCO2 so there is little CO2 flux. The areas with
high delta pCO2 don't have storms so the flux is low. It's unfortunate you
don't see that. It's why your analysis is superficial and wrong. Instead
you resort to slinging insults and stomping off in a huff because you
heard something you don't like you can't explain away except in vague
generalities. You don't need Navier-Stokes to explain gas transfer, if you
understood the topic you would know that.
As far as I know, there is no place on the form for submitting papers to
journals that asks if you have a Ph.D. Most papers are reviewed without
that context and judged solely on the science.
--
Bill Asher
z
> But just remember
> Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
> well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
> others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
> being a major causation of climate change.
Of course, until then you have no grounds to quibble over any model
which fits the observed data as well as the current model does, but
that doesn't seem to stop you.
z
> I guess one of the factors that need not be named is the fact that
> there is evidence that all the planets of the solar system are
> warming.
Still waiting for that evidence that the moon is warming. You know,
that one that hangs overhead, which we have observed for quite a
while, which receives the same solar output we do, and doesn't have
any atmosphere to confuse the picture of direct solar warming.
That would be kind of more convincing than some halfbaked assertion of
global warming on Pluto, 3 billion miles away from the nearest
thermometer, where the sun is merely a bright star, based on
observations made over a tiny fraction of a single orbit; or Mars,
where the ice caps are boiling CO2 into the atmosphere at a rapid rate.
Bob Brown
>Still waiting for that evidence that the moon is warming.
LOL, whoever said that is a complete moron. LOL
Moon is warming<---good god LOL
Rodney Blackall
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said nothing that Stefan Boltzman is wrong, dishonest little prick.
> This is the same means you do science. Twisting the truth for the
> effect you enjoy more. It is grenhouse theory which does not respect
> Boltzman Stefan. This equation specifies a quantity of energy that
> passes through the plane of a sq centimeter in 1 sec. Your use of this
> in a simple means of denoting and influx of energy to area of
> radiative area is absolutely false.
I thought Stephan Boltzman (and most other e-m radiation laws) relate to
"black bodies". I have not learned of ANY gases that act as black bodies.
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j
Bawana
What current model, ztard da retard?
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 25, 2:10 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote there have been advances
> > in the state of understanding since then (e.g., a paper in 2004 resolved
> > a lot of the discrepency between CO2 and temperature in the paleo record,
> > not that it really matters since most people who understand climate,
> > though who I will admit likely aren't as smart as you, don't think the
> > paleo record provides much guidance to what is theorized to be happening
> > today (see quote above).) Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than the
> > scientists on the IPCC.
>
l> publications on climate so I can read some correct science that
has
a
l> higher truthiness factor than what is being used by the IPCC?
After all,
l> they probably all learned the stuff they know out of textbooks
written
l> after 1960.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
your life if AGW is successful. That grown people look at this and
believe it is in any way valid or done by actual theoretical
scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
of people and the inability of the scientific community to objectively
criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.
One point of the complete stupidity of this depiction, is that it says
the atmosphere is radiating 324W, back to the surface. The incident
solar raditation is only 168W.
Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
absorb infrared radiation. So the water vapor which is about 2.5% and
the CO2 which is 4/10,000, are responsible for this 324Wm-2??
It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
this energy to the surface. A sphere of air would have the diameter of
24.00 cm. Radiating luminosity in one direction, 14.7W at 324Wm-2.
This is 14.7Joules per second.
The heat capacity of this mole is about 29 Joules/mol/deg. So every 2
seconds the heat capacity for one degree ofthe mole of air would have
to be transfered to the earth from the air next to it, for this energy
to be transferred from the air by thermal contact. This defies any
known analyses of the air and surface and convection.
So how does the atmosphere radiate 324Wm-2 back to the surface when
the 'radiative forcing of water vapour is 75 W·m-2, while for carbon
dioxide it is 32 W·m-2. """The longwave radiative forcing of the
climate system for both clear (125 W·m-2) and cloudy (155 W·m-2)""
It is the 2% water vapor and negligible CO2 concentrations????
What is forcing the other 170Watts of the atmosphere?????
Remember, N2 and O2 do not absorb IR in this theory. Or does it matter
that the theory is conhesive at all??
The 236Wm-2 that supposedly makes the 255K temperature which is then
bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
temperature. The temperature described by the average of the energies
is not the same as the average temperatures because energy is a fourth
power to
temperature.
Thus the average temperature of 287K cannot be achieved by the
radiative forcing of 125Wm-2 or 155Wm-2. This diagram depicts a
complete failure in calculating averages and values for energy and
temperature.
But who needs math when you got cute little peer reviewed diagrams
like this???
Peer review accepts this charlatan fraud.
And then it is claimed that 40Wm-2 passes back through the air without
being absorbed. This is important to this false theory because it
allows the radiation to be trapped by the net increase of 100ppm of
CO2. This goes with the other needed false point that you must depict
an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
the very minute concentration increases.
Valid science can PROVE this to be false theory.
The fact is that the energy that reaches the surface and is absorbed,
is transfered back through the atmosphere to space and determines the
temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not determine the
temperature of the surface as is needed for this fraudulent theory.
The fact that there are those on the public payroll at NASA who claim
to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
mean this diagram is valid. It is just proof of the invalidity of many
degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
and the suppression of valid theoretical science within the 'peer'
review of the charlatans that dominate theoretical science.
Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.
Deatherage
Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV
> Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
> nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
> wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
> scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
> criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.
> solar raditation is only 168W.
>
> Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
> It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
> seconds the heat capacity for one degree ofthe mole of air would have
> known analyses of the air and surface and convection.
> that the theory is conhesive at all??
> bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
> an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
> to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
> degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
> indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
Got it. Thanks
Eric Gisse
[snip psychosis]
>
> Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
> federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
> court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.
When kook? When?
When are you going to put your money where your BIG FAT MOUTH is and
file in federal court?
>
> Deatherage
D Smith
James' statement doesn't pass the laugh test. If you put it in a
general form and keep in in simpler terms, it says:
"Until you know everything, you can't claim to know anything at all".
Let's try another, slightly modified version of his original:
| Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
| well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
| others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of non-anthropic means
| being a major causation of climate change.
Can you detect the difference between the two statements?
Will James agree to the accuracy of the version I present?
z
> James' statement doesn't pass the laugh test. If you put it in a
> general form and keep in in simpler terms, it says:
>
> "Until you know everything, you can't claim to know anything at all".
Well, in his experience, it's true; he obviously doesn't know
everything; and he apparently doesn't know anything at all.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 27, 6:33 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [snip psychosis]
>
means the little Eric, the mediocre intelligenced twit of the science
channel, is happy with the repitition of the bullshit in this diagram.
Your petulant little mentality can memorize and repeat something this
simple. And your dishonest little mind will not mind the invalidity.
Normal anal irritability of the chumps that merely repeat the vague
and illdefined concepts when it comes to any valid scientific theory
that contradicts the dogma they swallow and regurgitate.
This just shows your complete inabliltiy to do science or physics. In
order to criticize this you must have some actual understanding of
physics and have had proper education in real physics like you would
recieve in valid astrophysics. In valid theoretical physics,
fundamental applications depend on laboratory demonstrated fundamental
principles.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
But your training is in the invalid theoretical field of QM. So you
have no ability to quantify the energy of the radiation field of
temperature and/or the kinetic energy of the molecules. You just add
up little chunks of quantum like the climatologists. What pile of
diarhea do you think gave birth to this piss poor theoretical physics
of AGW?? And you also need no valid laboratory data for the
assumptions that GHG's absorb these quantities of energies in these
small concentrations to trap enough energy to increase the temperature
33C which is 63% increase in energy at 255K.
By the way Eric, I know how you enjoy distorting the truth, but I am a
highly skilled carpenter and run a small business framing fine houses.
The day that I take time out of my life to file lawsuits will be the
day that I gather evidence to give to criminal prosecutors.
In the meantime, you can accept this Energy Budget Diagram from AGW in
your intellectual life, as a normal fixture of the dogmatic horseshit
you collect and replay in your own narcissistic enjoyment of your
fantasy that you are intelligent and can understand any actual
physics.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 27, 11:16 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 27, 6:33 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [snip psychosis]
>
> AS usual you are unable to discuss the subject matter.
You are unable to discuss any of the other theories you shit on. For
example, you don't understand classical mechanics, general or special
relativity, or quantum mechanics. But that doesn't stop you from
writing pages and pages about how wrong they are.
You continue to argue about whether or not carbon dioxide absorbs
infrared, despite proof that it does. You are unfit to judge, by
empirical demonstration.
[...]
Phil.
I suggest you read the paper not just the abstract, also look up the
definition of 'forcing'!