CHERRYPICKING AGAIN
bryn....@ntlworld.com
The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
warming !! As I recall, there is a single statation
responsible for it. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
The greater majority the stations in the 80 to 85 degree South latitude
band are on the volcanic Antarctic Peninsula.
Your single station in probably on a hot spot.
You've been told time and time again that the bulk of the of the
Antarctic is cooling.Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
Roger Coppock
> Roger Coppock wrote
> The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
> hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
> warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
> set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
That was in reply to this:
-------
aloha.kakuikanu
Date: Mon, Dec 4 2006 11:13 am
Yep. No station in antarctic interior evidences any warming during
the [ . . . ]
-------
Obviously, I found a station in the interior that is warming
and made my point, Aloha's all exclusive statement is
not true. Scientists rarely make all exclusive or all
inclusive statements.
For more information on zonal temperatures please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
Following the predictions made by Arrhenius in 1896:
- All 8 bands are warming.
- The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern.
- The North pole is warming faster than the Equator.
- My son has discovered that the extreme warming at the
North Pole moved down to lower latitudes over the last
century.
All of these patterns strongly indicate greenhouse gas forcing.
They totally rule out many other potential causes of the recent
warming, like an increase in solar radiation.
SBC Yahoo
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1166450103.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
kdt...@yahoo.com
These two statements in the same post prove you are insane. Scientists
rarely make all exclusive statements, but they do reach all exclusive
conclusions which they cannot support or prove the negative of by any
actual science? There is only postualtion of grenhouse gas forcing. And
this is false and can be proved to be in court. Your statements are
insane. Lucky you're not in court right now with these statements or
someone would have to decide on your length of prison term.
Like I said. You must be persisting in your beliefs (non-denialistism),
due to your belief that you will be rich from your brilliance in
investure in the NO carbon future and the lucrivity of CO2
paraphernelia, to which you are in on the ground floor as owner of
stock. But the fact is that CO2Phobia is merely a psycological disease.
And it is fatal. Like rabies. Coyotoes which are extremely shy of
humans, will actually come out of the wild to try to bite someone when
they are dying of hydrophobia (advanced rabies). Country folk know that
an animal with hydrophobia must be shot.
SO why don't you put yourself out of our misery with your continued
harping that you have any valid scientific claim of saving the world
with the imposition of the severe centralization of governmental
control (SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM) of emmison of the NON-POLLUTANT GAS OF
CARBON DIOXIDE that you seek in order to mandate the purchase of the
products that will make you rich?
KD
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies. Don't let a
CO2Phobiac bite you.
Ken Wood
bryn....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> Roger Coppock wrote
> The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
> hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
> warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
> set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
> warming !! As I recall, there is a single statation
> responsible for it. Please see:
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
> The greater majority the stations in the 80 to 85 degree South latitude
> band are on the volcanic Antarctic Peninsula.
> Your single station in probably on a hot spot.
> You've been told time and time again that the bulk of the of the
> Antarctic is cooling.
That's why the ice shelfs are melting and breaking off. Because they
are getting colder.
Brilliant.
AGW is a scam
The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone, the others
have have not changed in 100 years Filchner sailed up to the Rohnne ice
shelf 1908. He could not have done that in the last 25 years, there is
too much pack ice in the way.
The Antarctic is cooling. Gavin Schmidt has admitted as much in the
paper
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
If even climate scientists tell us that the Antarctic is cooling why
can't you believe them
instead of Roger Crackpot?
Pat Flannery
AGW is a scam wrote:
>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
>If even climate scientists tell us that the Antarctic is cooling why
>can't you believe them
>instead of Roger Crackpot?
>
>
Did you even read the abstract of what he wrote?
"While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface
temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This
cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift
in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both
Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have
contributed to these trends. We show that a climate model including the
stratosphere and both composition changes reproduces the vertical
structure and seasonality of observed trends. We find that the two
factors have had comparable surface impacts over recent decades, though
ozone dominates above the middle troposphere. Projected impacts of the
two factors on circulation over the next fifty years oppose one another,
resulting in minimal trends. In contrast, their effects on surface
climate reinforce one another, causing a departure from the SAM pattern
and a turnabout in Antarctic temperatures, which rise more rapidly than
elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere."
He says the cooling is due to overall global warming causing atmospheric
circulation changes over Antarctica.
Pat
bill
Correction, he says "it has been suggested" that overall global
warming caused that. He's a scientist perhaps, and no alternative
explanation has been proposed. however, all of this noise in the
signal makes it very difficult to listen to the music.
What the "climate scientists" are doing is shotgunning models out
there so that virtually any observed result will fit ONE of them,
neglecting the fact that the same model which "predicted" X was exactly
WRONG on Y. I will accept that climate science is no longer a
pseudo-science on level with psychology when theres a poster that
climate scientists all have on their wall that shows a map of the globe
with temperature anomolies charted and they consistently point to it
and say "yup, that fits the standard model" when new data comes in.
Lloyd Parker
"AGW is a scam" <bryn....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Ken Wood wrote:
>> bryn....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>> > Roger Coppock wrote
>> > The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
>> > hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
>> > warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
>> > set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
>> > warming !! As I recall, there is a single statation
>> > responsible for it. Please see:
>> >
>> > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
>> > The greater majority the stations in the 80 to 85 degree South latitude
>> > band are on the volcanic Antarctic Peninsula.
>> > Your single station in probably on a hot spot.
>> > You've been told time and time again that the bulk of the of the
>> > Antarctic is cooling.
>>
>> That's why the ice shelfs are melting and breaking off. Because they
>> are getting colder.
>> Brilliant.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>> > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone, the others
False.
>have have not changed in 100 years Filchner sailed up to the Rohnne ice
>shelf 1908. He could not have done that in the last 25 years, there is
>too much pack ice in the way.
>The Antarctic is cooling.
False again. Parts are, parts are not.
>Gavin Schmidt has admitted as much in the
>paper
>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
>If even climate scientists tell us that the Antarctic is cooling why
>can't you believe them
>instead of Roger Crackpot?
>
So why don't you believe what he also says:
"While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface
temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is
consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern
Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion
and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends."
Greenhouse gases are increasing. QED
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Greenhouse gases are increasing. QED
This term 'grenhouse gas' is made up and false. You have no science.
The solar constant is 1370 Wm-2. At the equator 1000 Wm-2 is recieved
at the surface. As angle to the sun increases, the amount of the near
infrared and UV reaching the surface diminishes and the solar radiation
consists of mainly the visible wavelenths. The near infrareds make it
to the lower atmosphere where they are absorbed. Air pressure is 1/2 at
6 kilometers. Concentration of energy is also decreased by angle of the
surface to the sun
The solar constant is 50% visible light, 41% infrareds and 9% UV. 1% of
the sun's energy is absorbed in UV in the stratosphere. In the analyses
of the radiation that reaches the surface at the equator, none of the
radiation of frequency 3 microns or longer reach the surface, although
there may be reradiated energy at these energies from other frequencies
which have been absorbed. These thermal frequencies are about 200 or so
Wm-2, which never make it to the lower atmosphere.
This directly in itself disproves the theory of grenhouse gases. NONE
of the energy of these frequencies passes through the atmosphere.
Likewise, these frequencies do not pass back out either, to be
restricted by increasing concentrations of CO2 as the theory presumes.
But, I would not expect an academic scientist to be able to follow this
exact train of logic which can be documented and established. Perhaps
your criminal defense lawyer may think it is important though.
Another point is that any restriction of passing radiation through the
atmosphere will restrict incoming solar radiation, not only outgoing
thermal radiation.
Secondly, 1000 Wm-2 equals 90C. 1370Wm-2 is 121C. The atmosphere
greatly protects the earth from the high temperatures that would be
induced by the sun. There is no evidence of day time temperatures
increased by GHGs from calculated temperatures. In fact only the direct
cooling of rapid convection by the air keeps temperatures down from
what they should be in the incident radiation. Overall temperatures and
night time temperatures are normal for absorbed energy at the surface
and temperature of the land mass and oceans, and the inability of the
thermal frequencies to pass directly out through the atmosphere. No
calculated existence of the 'grenhouse effect', is existent in valid
calculations of incident energy from the sun and earth's temperatures.
And no direct laboratory evidence exists of inordinate absorption of
thermal frequencies by CO2.
1370Wm-2,,,!000Wm-2.
Grenhouse theory does not have adequate analyses of these two important
numbers.
Grenhouse theory is direct fraud.
Grenhouse theory does not have the oppurtunity to make up an anlyses at
this point, which is their normal method.
Kent Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psycological disease. Fraud grand larceny is a felony.
Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> And no direct laboratory evidence exists of inordinate absorption of
> thermal frequencies by CO2.
Stick to the roofing - as your science is SORELY lacking. Have a look
at the atmospheric transmission chart.
--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
kdt...@yahoo.com
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> On 2006-12-23 02:20:46 +0000, kdt...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >
> > And no direct laboratory evidence exists of inordinate absorption of
> > thermal frequencies by CO2.
>
> Stick to the roofing - as your science is SORELY lacking. Have a look
> at the atmospheric transmission chart.
> --
and refer to it, without any corresponding discusion.
I build roofs, Mr. chumpfuck that better stick to simple research
embezzlelment instead of real world discusion of physics, economy,
imposition of police state and civil war. Your nature to twist the
truth is evident in each of your phobic disease spasms in which you
exude your mental diarhea. If I were you I WOULD start panicing about
future impending doom. Ever heard of the 'inability to runaway effect'?
haahahahahah
Deal with the two numbers, dicksuck wienie. All of us who pay taxes are
waiting. Don't defer the question to some bullshit chart you can't
understand yourself.
I'll stick to my job and my life as soon as you donkey dick fags leave
me and the American public the hell alone. But that is not the nature
of your severe paranoid psycological disease, that gives you that lust
for importance and dictorial control that may require a little genocide
here and there to keep the world safe from global warming. Even though
this postulate is a hoax developed by dishonest and anal little shits
like you.
Kent Deatherage
http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
AGW is a scam
> >
>
> So why don't you believe what he also says:
>
> "While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface
> temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is
> consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern
> Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion
> and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends."
Because the shift in the SAM is more likely to be the result of a
cooling Antarctic than a cause .Read up Physical Geography ( do that
assiduously with urgency so that you won't make a fool of yourself
with bloomers such that one about the cold front sweeping down from
Canada)
AGW is still dubious science, every paper supporting it is
questionable.Models presume that CO2 is the major warming gas.If it
isn't then the models are worthless.
There no proof of AGW there
The ice core data show that increasing global temperature increases CO2
and it is a presumption that the CO2 subsequently causes the
temperature to increase.
There no proof of AGW there
The "Hockey Stick" is questionable.It has been demonstrated that you
can get the same result as Mann et al. using their method with randomly
generated tree ring data.
There is certainly no proof of AGW there.
Finally correlation of CO2 and temperature is not proof of causation.
Lloyd will you only see how reasonable my arguments are when the
climate cools or will you even then be looking for some get out
clause
such as increasing pollution from India and China?
My counter argument will be that if pollution causes cooling then
reducing pollution caused the temperature rise during the 1990s to rise
not CO2.
The data supports that idea.
Lloyd Parker
>
>> >
>>
>> So why don't you believe what he also says:
>>
>> "While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface
>> temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling
is
>> consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern
>> Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone
depletion
>> and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends."
>
>Because the shift in the SAM is more likely to be the result of a
>cooling Antarctic than a cause .Read up Physical Geography ( do that
>assiduously with urgency so that you won't make a fool of yourself
>with bloomers such that one about the cold front sweeping down from
>Canada)
>
>AGW is still dubious science, every paper supporting it is
>questionable.
So we should believe you over real scientists publishing in Nature and
Science, over the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical
Union, etc.? You've got moxie, but no sense.
>Models presume that CO2 is the major warming gas.If it
>isn't then the models are worthless.
No, science shows CO2 is the major warming gas.
>There no proof of AGW there
Liar.
>The ice core data show that increasing global temperature increases CO2
>and it is a presumption that the CO2 subsequently causes the
>temperature to increase.
No, it is basic science.
>There no proof of AGW there
>The "Hockey Stick" is questionable.
No it isn't.
>It has been demonstrated that you
>can get the same result as Mann et al. using their method with randomly
>generated tree ring data.
No it hasn't.
>There is certainly no proof of AGW there.
>Finally correlation of CO2 and temperature is not proof of causation.
No, but scientific principles provide that.
>Lloyd will you only see how reasonable my arguments are when the
>climate cools or will you even then be looking for some get out
>clause
How much do you want to bet on that?
Ken Wood
AGW is a scam wrote:
> > bryn....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > Roger Coppock wrote
> > > The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
> > > hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
> > > warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
> > > set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
> > > warming !! As I recall, there is a single statation
> > > responsible for it. Please see:
> > >
> > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
> > > The greater majority the stations in the 80 to 85 degree South latitude
> > > band are on the volcanic Antarctic Peninsula.
> > > Your single station in probably on a hot spot.
> > > You've been told time and time again that the bulk of the of the
> > > Antarctic is cooling.
> >
> > That's why the ice shelfs are melting and breaking off. Because they
> > are getting colder.
> > Brilliant.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
glaciers across the world.
The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
That's enough evidence.
KW
Rand Simberg
<ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
>
>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>glaciers across the world.
>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>That's enough evidence.
No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:glaciers across the world.
Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
again in the future.
:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
again in the future.
:CO2 is a known
:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:That's enough evidence.
Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
evidence'.
I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
in...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Lloyd Parker
Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation. That
means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
Lloyd Parker
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>:
>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>:glaciers across the world.
>
>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>again in the future.
>
Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
>
>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>again in the future.
>
See above.
>:CO2 is a known
>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>:That's enough evidence.
>
>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
>evidence'.
Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
>
>I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
>in...
>
I've got a 6th grade science book you might learn something from.
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
> simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
>><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>>way as to indicate that:
>>
>>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
>>>
>>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>>>glaciers across the world.
>>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
>>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>>>That's enough evidence.
>>
>>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
>
>Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation. That
>means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
You can do controlled experiments on biology. And in any event,
what's your point?
Fred J. McCall
:In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
Wrong.
:That
:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
More wrong.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:>:
:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:>:glaciers across the world.
:>
:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>again in the future.
:>
:
:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
sorts of things occur on.
:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
:>
:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>again in the future.
:>
:
:See above.
See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
:>:CO2 is a known
:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:>:That's enough evidence.
:>
:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
:>evidence'.
:
:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
degree over the next half century or so. This does *NOT* account for
the degree of warming that Global Warming folks are claiming is being
seen.
:>
:>I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
:>in...
:>
:
:I've got a 6th grade science book you might learn something from.
Only if I shoved it up your ass.
Unclaimed Mysteries
Your multimedia teaching strategies, while innovative, need refining.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
"Being an Auburn fan explains a lot about what is wrong with you,
Unclaimed ... You didn't chose to address any of my post except this
last little piece where I ridiculing you for being an idiot." - "Altie"
on rec.sport.football.college, 2006
Rand Simberg
Mysteries <the_letter_k_and_...@unclaimedmysteries.net>
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate
that:
>> No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
>> According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
>> human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
>> degree over the next half century or so. This does *NOT* account for
>> the degree of warming that Global Warming folks are claiming is being
>> seen.
>>
>> :>
>> :>I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
>> :>in...
>> :>
>> :
>> :I've got a 6th grade science book you might learn something from.
>>
>> Only if I shoved it up your ass.
>>
>
>Your multimedia teaching strategies, while innovative, need refining.
Well, in Lloyd's case, it might be the most direct way to his brain.
J. Taylor
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>:In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
>: simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>:>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
>:><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>:>way as to indicate that:
>:>
>:>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>:>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>:>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
>:>>
>:>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>:>>glaciers across the world.
>:>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
>:>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>:>>That's enough evidence.
>:>
>:>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
>:
>:Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation.
>
>Wrong.
Correlation is not causation, and ...
The only ways to determine causation is to isolate the variables.
Which is correct, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can
never show causation.
Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
Which means, at the very least, the correlation does carry a casual
element. The question remaining, (if) after isolating ALL variables,
is it the factor for what is observed.
At any rate, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never
show causation, is true.
>
>:That
>:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
>
>More wrong.
Correlation cannot be ignored without a showing causation, and you
cannot show causation without controlled experiments to isolate the
variables.
Which of you is showing the variables, how they were isolated?
JT
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:03:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>
:>:In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
:>: simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>:>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
:>:><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:>:>way as to indicate that:
:>:>
:>:>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
:>:>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
:>:>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
:>:>>
:>:>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:>:>>glaciers across the world.
:>:>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
:>:>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:>:>>That's enough evidence.
:>:>
:>:>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
:>:
:>:Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation.
:>
:>Wrong.
:
:Correlation is not causation, and ...
Quite right.
:The only ways to determine causation is to isolate the variables.
Generally true.
:Which is correct, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can
:never show causation.
Which is still false. Consider. You could examine N happenings of
event A where all variables change but in different ways. By
examining correlation in each event you eliminate as many of the
apparently independent variables as possible. For sufficiently large
N, you can eliminate all of them but the one that is actually
potentially causal. Construct competing hypotheses as required and
eliminate all of them you can based on the N happenings of event A
that you have.
Now find an event A actually in progress and determine with certainty
what order your candidate causes occur in with regard to event A.
Note that no controlled experiment is required in order for the
preceding to work. This is how astrophysics (among other sciences)
actually works and why they get so excited when they actually catch an
event in the process of happening.
:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
Causality may run the other way.
:Which means, at the very least, the correlation does carry a casual
:element.
It means no such thing.
:The question remaining, (if) after isolating ALL variables,
:is it the factor for what is observed.
And a very large question it is. We've built lots of different models
(hypotheses) for how global warming and cooling comes about. NONE of
them seem to work unless one cherry picks the data points.
:At any rate, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never
:show causation, is true.
Still wrong. A model that actually predicts all the known data
without having to throw away chunks of it that don't fit would be a
damned good start.
Such a model doesn't currently exist.
:>
:>:That
:>:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
:>
:>More wrong.
:
:Correlation cannot be ignored without a showing causation, ...
???
:... and you
:cannot show causation without controlled experiments to isolate the
:variables.
Still wrong.
:Which of you is showing the variables, how they were isolated?
See all the preceding...
Lloyd Parker
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Dec 06 10:48:12 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
>> simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>>>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
>>><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>>>way as to indicate that:
>>>
>>>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>>>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>>>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
>>>>
>>>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>>>>glaciers across the world.
>>>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
>>>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>>>>That's enough evidence.
>>>
>>>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
>>
>>Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation.
That
>>means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
>
>You can do controlled experiments on biology. And in any event,
>what's your point?
Not really. Even with something like rats, there are far too many variables
to control or even take into account (unless you go to huge populations).
Lloyd Parker
>
>:In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
>: simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>:>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
>:><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>:>way as to indicate that:
>:>
>:>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
>:>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
>:>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
>:>>
>:>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>:>>glaciers across the world.
>:>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
>:>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>:>>That's enough evidence.
>:>
>:>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
>:
>:Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation.
>
>Wrong.
>
So we find your knowledge of statistics is on a par with your knowledge of
science -- zilch.
Lloyd Parker
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>:
>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>:>:glaciers across the world.
>:>
>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>:>again in the future.
>:>
>:
>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
>
>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
>sorts of things occur on.
>
Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
survives isn't much comfort.
>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
>:>
>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>:>again in the future.
>:>
>:
>:See above.
>
>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
>
>:>:CO2 is a known
>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>:>:That's enough evidence.
>:>
>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
>:>evidence'.
>:
>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
>
>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
>degree over the next half century or so.
Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
again.
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
Have you ever taken a basic physics course? Even the most elementary
physic course describes the fundamental theory behind radiative
transfer processes. If "Grenhouse theory is direct fraud" then the side
of the earth away from the sun would be so cold as to be uninhabitable
and the side facing the sun would be too hot to be inhabitable. You
don't even understand high school science!
J. Taylor
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
But we are still left with taking their word for it, since it is not
testable, or repeatable. It is like the museum displaying dinosaurs
with the wrong head. You can never be certain "that" head was
connected to "that" body, but you can be fairly certain "the" body was
connected to "a" head.
Which is all about probability. The monkey wrench, the set of
variables is larger than the set of observed outcomes.
Which means you have a nice theory, but
"Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove
causation." is correct.
>
>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
>
>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
>Causality may run the other way.
So in the winter we get better gas milage?
JT
Fred J. McCall
:In article <hel2p250n3mjoqulm...@4ax.com>,
Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Parker, but I took a math degree and
probably know more about statistics than you ever will.
So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
enough to actually have formed opinions.
:>:That
:>:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
:>
:>More wrong.
:>
Fred J. McCall
:In article <dil2p2lpqm80lrfj9...@4ax.com>,
: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>
:>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
:>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:>:>:glaciers across the world.
:>:>
:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>:>again in the future.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
:>
:>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
:>sorts of things occur on.
:>
:
:Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
:survives isn't much comfort.
But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
of human activity, now does it?
Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
:>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
:>:>
:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>:>again in the future.
:>:>
:>:
:>:See above.
:>
:>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
:>
:>:>:CO2 is a known
:>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:>:>:That's enough evidence.
:>:>
:>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
:>:>evidence'.
:>:
:>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
:>
:>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
:
:OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
:>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
:>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
:>degree over the next half century or so.
:
:Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
:again.
Then you either have no support for your position other than ad
hominem bullshit or ... well, there is no 'or'.
You're merely clueless.
:> This does *NOT* account for
:>the degree of warming that Global Warming folks are claiming is being
:>seen.
:>
:>:>
:>:>I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
:>:>in...
:>:>
:>:
:>:I've got a 6th grade science book you might learn something from.
:>
:>Only if I shoved it up your ass.
:>
Eric Chomko
Took a math degree? You didn't earn it, you took it...
Language is key, Freddy.
>
> So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
> your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
> enough to actually have formed opinions.
So a belief is not an opinion. Hmm, and you seem to imply that opinions
are somehow superior to beliefs. You're lacking facts in more ways than
one now, Freddy.
Eric
Eric Chomko
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
> :In article <dil2p2lpqm80lrfj9...@4ax.com>,
> : Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :>
> :>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
> :>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :>:>
> :>:>:
> :>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
> :>:>:glaciers across the world.
> :>:>
> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
> :>:>again in the future.
> :>:>
> :>:
> :>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
> :>
> :>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
> :>sorts of things occur on.
> :>
> :
> :Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
> :survives isn't much comfort.
>
> But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
> of human activity, now does it?
>
> Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
Are they truly non sequiturs or are you just dense?
>
> :>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
> :>:>
> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
> :>:>again in the future.
> :>:>
> :>:
> :>:See above.
> :>
> :>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
> :>
> :>:>:CO2 is a known
> :>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
> :>:>:That's enough evidence.
> :>:>
> :>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
> :>:>evidence'.
> :>:
> :>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
> :>
> :>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
> :
> :OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
>
> They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
> quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
> increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
>
> :>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
> :>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
> :>degree over the next half century or so.
> :
> :Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
> :again.
>
> Then you either have no support for your position other than ad
> hominem bullshit or ... well, there is no 'or'.
>
> You're merely clueless.
Of WHO the paying shills are...
Eric
Terrell Miller
news:emubpe$gab$4...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <45bf4cf4....@news.giganews.com>,
>>You can do controlled experiments on biology. And in any event,
>>what's your point?
>
> Not really. Even with something like rats, there are far too many
> variables
> to control or even take into account (unless you go to huge populations).
case in point: nobody really knows just how a lot of widely used medicines
(incl. penicillin) actually work.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Just...take...the...fucking...flower...darling"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com
Paul F. Dietz
> case in point: nobody really knows just how a lot of widely used medicines
> (incl. penicillin) actually work.
Huh? They know the enzyme in bacteria that is blocked by penicillin.
They know the enzyme (beta lactamase) that some bacteria use to destroy
penicillin. They know the mutations of the penicillin binding proteins
that confer resistance.
They know an awful lot about how this all works. Billions of dollars
andp potentially millions of lives depend on this knowledge.
Paul
kangarooistan
AGW is a scam wrote:
> Ken Wood wrote:
> > bryn....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > Roger Coppock wrote
> > > The trend on the 80 to 85 degree South latitude band
> > > hadcrut2v.dat file is positive. In fact, it is the fastest
> > > warming of any 5 degree latitude band on the data
> > > set. It's a WHOPPING +9 +- 4 K per century of
> > > warming !! As I recall, there is a single statation
> > > responsible for it. Please see:
> > >
> > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
> > > The greater majority the stations in the 80 to 85 degree South latitude
> > > band are on the volcanic Antarctic Peninsula.
> > > Your single station in probably on a hot spot.
> > > You've been told time and time again that the bulk of the of the
> > > Antarctic is cooling.
> >
> > That's why the ice shelfs are melting and breaking off. Because they
> > are getting colder.
> > Brilliant.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
> have have not changed in 100 years Filchner sailed up to the Rohnne ice
> shelf 1908. He could not have done that in the last 25 years, there is
> too much pack ice in the way.
> paper
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
> If even climate scientists tell us that the Antarctic is cooling why
> can't you believe them
> instead of Roger Crackpot?
Have you read the article you are quoting above ?? if so what do you
think of the last section , I copy it for you
here
The model included interactions between the oceans and atmosphere. Each
model run began in 1945 and extended through 2055. For the most part,
the simulations matched well compared with past observations.
Model inputs of increasing greenhouse gases were based upon
observations through 1999, and upon the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change mid-range estimates of future emissions. Stratospheric
ozone changes were based on earlier NASA GISS model runs that were
found to be in good agreement with past observations and similar to
those found in other chemistry-climate models for the future.
Shindell said the biggest long-term danger of global warming in this
region would be ice sheets melting and sliding into the ocean. "If
Antarctica really does warm up like this, then we have to think
seriously about what level of warming might cause the ice sheets to
break free and greatly increase global sea levels," he said.
In the Antarctic Peninsula, ice sheets as big as Rhode Island have
already collapsed into the ocean due to warming. The warming in this
area is at least partially a result of the strengthened westerly winds
that pass at latitudes of about 60 to 65 degrees south. As the
peninsula sticks out from the continent, these winds carry warm
maritime air that heats the peninsula.
-------------
My concern is that the massive ice sheets in antarctica , that average
3 km thick and cover an area twice as big as australia , will in time
slide into the sea , thus rising sea levels 67 meters if all ice slides
into the sea , in minutes , not milenia , it does not have to melt ,
just start sliding , perhaps from a volcanoe or earth quake or rise in
sea levels that weaked the edges and incresae the rates of ice sheet
movement that would become self perpetuating once started
Fred J. McCall
:
Yes, language *is* key, El Chimpo, and my usage of it above is fairly
standard. Did you take ANY courses in school, El Chimpo? If not, it
would explain your unrelieved ignorance about pretty much everything.
:>
:> So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
:> your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
:> enough to actually have formed opinions.
:
:So a belief is not an opinion.
Not in this case.
:Hmm, and you seem to imply that opinions
:are somehow superior to beliefs. You're lacking facts in more ways than
:one now, Freddy.
Funny how El Chimpo just has to mix in everywhere. Spit out that hook
and run along and play, Eric...
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>
:> :In article <dil2p2lpqm80lrfj9...@4ax.com>,
:> : Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:> :>
:> :>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
:> :>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> :>:>
:> :>:>:
:> :>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:> :>:>:glaciers across the world.
:> :>:>
:> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:> :>:>again in the future.
:> :>:>
:> :>:
:> :>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
:> :>
:> :>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
:> :>sorts of things occur on.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
:> :survives isn't much comfort.
:>
:> But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
:> of human activity, now does it?
:>
:> Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
:
:Are they truly non sequiturs or are you just dense?
The former, of course. Jesus, Eric, EVERYONE knows you're an idiot
whose stock in trade is nonsensical non sequiturs.
:>
:> :>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
:> :>:>
:> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:> :>:>again in the future.
:> :>:>
:> :>:
:> :>:See above.
:> :>
:> :>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
:> :>
:> :>:>:CO2 is a known
:> :>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:> :>:>:That's enough evidence.
:> :>:>
:> :>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
:> :>:>evidence'.
:> :>:
:> :>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
:> :>
:> :>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
:> :
:> :OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
:>
:> They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
:> quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
:> increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
:>
:> :>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
:> :>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
:> :>degree over the next half century or so.
:> :
:> :Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
:> :again.
:>
:> Then you either have no support for your position other than ad
:> hominem bullshit or ... well, there is no 'or'.
:>
:> You're merely clueless.
:
:Of WHO the paying shills are...
You're still clueless. And that should be "Of WHOM..."
Pat Flannery
J. Taylor wrote:
>But we are still left with taking their word for it, since it is not
>testable, or repeatable. It is like the museum displaying dinosaurs
>with the wrong head. You can never be certain "that" head was
>connected to "that" body, but you can be fairly certain "the" body was
>connected to "a" head.
>
>
>
>
>
Or sometimes two:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061226-two-heads.html
Pat
Lloyd Parker
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>:In article <dil2p2lpqm80lrfj9...@4ax.com>,
>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>:>
>:>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
>:>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:
>:>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
>:>:>:glaciers across the world.
>:>:>
>:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>:>:>again in the future.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
>:>
>:>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
>:>sorts of things occur on.
>:>
>:
>:Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
>:survives isn't much comfort.
>
>But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
>of human activity, now does it?
>
1. Do you deny humans have put CO2 into the atmosphere?
2. Do you deny CO2 traps heat?
>Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
>
>:>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
>:>:>
>:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
>:>:>again in the future.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:See above.
>:>
>:>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
>:>
>:>:>:CO2 is a known
>:>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
>:>:>:That's enough evidence.
>:>:>
>:>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
>:>:>evidence'.
>:>:
>:>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
>:>
>:>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
>:
>:OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing
CO2?
>
>They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
>quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
>increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
And all the CO2 humans produce goes where, Never Never Land? Another
universe?
And what causes the temp. to increase?
And how come the sinks are increasing in CO2? With your scenario, they'd be
decreasing, as you claim CO2 is being released.
Lloyd Parker
Knowing what it does is different from knowing how it does it.
Lloyd Parker
You've got to know how they're changing, and then you're controlling them.
>By
>examining correlation in each event you eliminate as many of the
>apparently independent variables as possible.
Again, only if you know exactly how they've changed from experiment to
experiment. If there's a variable you don't consider, and it's increasing all
during your experiments, you cannot draw any conclusions about the other
variables.
>For sufficiently large
>N, you can eliminate all of them but the one that is actually
>potentially causal. Construct competing hypotheses as required and
>eliminate all of them you can based on the N happenings of event A
>that you have.
>
>Now find an event A actually in progress and determine with certainty
>what order your candidate causes occur in with regard to event A.
>
>Note that no controlled experiment is required in order for the
>preceding to work. This is how astrophysics (among other sciences)
>actually works and why they get so excited when they actually catch an
>event in the process of happening.
>
But also why they can't say X causes Y.
>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
>
>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
>Causality may run the other way.
So what caused the inc. in temp?
>
>:Which means, at the very least, the correlation does carry a casual
>:element.
>
>It means no such thing.
>
>:The question remaining, (if) after isolating ALL variables,
>:is it the factor for what is observed.
>
>And a very large question it is. We've built lots of different models
>(hypotheses) for how global warming and cooling comes about. NONE of
>them seem to work unless one cherry picks the data points.
>
Actually the one which says CO2 causes warming does work. Nicely.
>:At any rate, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never
>:show causation, is true.
>
>Still wrong. A model that actually predicts all the known data
>without having to throw away chunks of it that don't fit would be a
>damned good start.
>
That model would have to include all the variables, which means you'd have to
know how they work.
Lloyd Parker
Terrell Miller
>>> case in point: nobody really knows just how a lot of widely used
>>> medicines
>>> (incl. penicillin) actually work.
>>
>>Huh? They know the enzyme in bacteria that is blocked by penicillin.
>>They know the enzyme (beta lactamase) that some bacteria use to destroy
>>penicillin. They know the mutations of the penicillin binding proteins
>>that confer resistance.
>>
>>They know an awful lot about how this all works. Billions of dollars
>>andp potentially millions of lives depend on this knowledge.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Knowing what it does is different from knowing how it does it.
...and, indeed, being pretty sure they know what it does (but not being able
to directly prove it) is even more different than knowing how it does it.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <1qm5p2187760sll7r...@4ax.com>,
: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>
:>:In article <dil2p2lpqm80lrfj9...@4ax.com>,
:>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:In article <3vquo2lap560udl6k...@4ax.com>,
:>:>: Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>:>"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
:>:>:>:glaciers across the world.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>:>:>again in the future.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
:>:>
:>:>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
:>:>sorts of things occur on.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
:>:survives isn't much comfort.
:>
:>But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
:>of human activity, now does it?
:
:1. Do you deny humans have put CO2 into the atmosphere?
Nope.
:2. Do you deny CO2 traps heat?
Is it? More than usual? Do YOU know or do you just bleat?
:>Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
:>
:>:>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
:>:>:>again in the future.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:See above.
:>:>
:>:>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
:>:>
:>:>:>:CO2 is a known
:>:>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
:>:>:>:That's enough evidence.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
:>:>:>evidence'.
:>:>:
:>:>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
:>:>
:>:>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
:>:
:>:OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
:>
:>They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
:>quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
:>increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
:
:And all the CO2 humans produce goes where, Never Never Land? Another
:universe?
If it was up your ass you'd know.
[Since you've chosen this mode of discussion rather than actually
trying to discuss the issue, I hope you enjoy it.]
:And what causes the temp. to increase?
What's caused it every other time in geological history predating the
Industrial Revolution?
:And how come the sinks are increasing in CO2?
Cite? Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. I've seen no citations that
carbon sinks are increasing radically, although if they were that
would certainly point to a self-regulating mechanism going on (and be
against most of the models touting human-caused Global Warming that
I've heard of).
:With your scenario, they'd be
:decreasing, as you claim CO2 is being released.
Go read it again. I made no such claim. If you can't discuss the
issue without making shit up, please don't bother to discuss it at
all.
:>
:>:>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
:>:>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
:>:>degree over the next half century or so.
:>:
:>:Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
:>:again.
:>
:>Then you either have no support for your position other than ad
:>hominem bullshit or ... well, there is no 'or'.
:>
:>You're merely clueless.
:>
:>:> This does *NOT* account for
:>:>the degree of warming that Global Warming folks are claiming is being
:>:>seen.
:>:>
:>:>:>
:>:>:>I've got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested
:>:>:>in...
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:I've got a 6th grade science book you might learn something from.
:>:>
:>:>Only if I shoved it up your ass.
:>:>
:>
Fred J. McCall
:In article <amm5p2h18g4brqho9...@4ax.com>,
Why would I do that? I don't mind you being abysmally stupid. That
would be YOUR problem.
:>So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
:>your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
:>enough to actually have formed opinions.
:>
:>:>:That
:>:>:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
:>:>
:>:>More wrong.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <0pb5p25qppof5escb...@4ax.com>,
:You've got to know how they're changing, ...
True.
:... and then you're controlling them.
False. I look out the window right now and see that the depth of the
snow is increasing. Does that mean I'm controlling it? If it did,
I'd make it stop.
:>By
:>examining correlation in each event you eliminate as many of the
:>apparently independent variables as possible.
:
:Again, only if you know exactly how they've changed from experiment to
:experiment. If there's a variable you don't consider, and it's increasing all
:during your experiments, you cannot draw any conclusions about the other
:variables.
This is true for any experiment, controlled or in situ.
Congratulations. I believe you just proved that science cannot
possibly work.
:>For sufficiently large
:>N, you can eliminate all of them but the one that is actually
:>potentially causal. Construct competing hypotheses as required and
:>eliminate all of them you can based on the N happenings of event A
:>that you have.
:>
:>Now find an event A actually in progress and determine with certainty
:>what order your candidate causes occur in with regard to event A.
:>
:>Note that no controlled experiment is required in order for the
:>preceding to work. This is how astrophysics (among other sciences)
:>actually works and why they get so excited when they actually catch an
:>event in the process of happening.
:>
:
:But also why they can't say X causes Y.
Of course they can! Do you know ANYTHING about observational
sciences?
:>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
:>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
:>
:>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
:>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
:>Causality may run the other way.
:
:So what caused the inc. in temp?
What's caused it every other time that the geological record shows
that it's gone up?
:>
:>:Which means, at the very least, the correlation does carry a casual
:>:element.
:>
:>It means no such thing.
:>
:>:The question remaining, (if) after isolating ALL variables,
:>:is it the factor for what is observed.
:>
:>And a very large question it is. We've built lots of different models
:>(hypotheses) for how global warming and cooling comes about. NONE of
:>them seem to work unless one cherry picks the data points.
:>
:
:Actually the one which says CO2 causes warming does work. Nicely.
Actually, none of the current models I've heard of predict all that
well. You either have to throw out data or restrict them quite
severely in time span (which means they really show nothing other than
that they produce the answers they were engineered to produce).
:>:At any rate, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never
:>:show causation, is true.
:>
:>Still wrong. A model that actually predicts all the known data
:>without having to throw away chunks of it that don't fit would be a
:>damned good start.
:>
:
:That model would have to include all the variables, which means you'd have to
:know how they work.
So none of the models work. Congratulations, I think you've proven
that science can't possibly work again.
:>Such a model doesn't currently exist.
:>
:>:>
:>:>:That
:>:>:means biology, astronomy, and geology rely on correlations.
:>:>
:>:>More wrong.
:>:
:>:Correlation cannot be ignored without a showing causation, ...
:>
:>???
:>
:>:... and you
:>:cannot show causation without controlled experiments to isolate the
:>:variables.
:>
:>Still wrong.
:>
:>:Which of you is showing the variables, how they were isolated?
:>
:>See all the preceding...
:>
Fred J. McCall
:On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:48:41 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Is there no one on these newsgroups who knows anything at all about
how observational sciences work?
Hint: You take some data. You build a model. Models have predictive
power. You then look at other data and see if your model accurately
predicts it. If not, refine your model. Iterate until out of data.
Go find new data. Iterate. Predict future events. Does the model
work?
This is how *ALL* science actually works. The only difference between
experimental sciences and observational sciences is that you get the
opportunity in experimental sciences to predict the outcome of
experiments rather than having to rely on predicting the real world.
Even at that, real world prediction is still what 'proves' science.
Light bending around the Sun in the experimental science of physics,
for example...
:Which is all about probability. The monkey wrench, the set of
:variables is larger than the set of observed outcomes.
:
:Which means you have a nice theory, but
:"Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove
:causation." is correct.
By this reasoning you can never prove causation even if you can do
controlled experiments. There might be invisible gremlins or
something, after all...
:>
:>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
:>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
:>
:>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
:>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
:>Causality may run the other way.
:
:So in the winter we get better gas milage?
Why is it that none of the fans of human-caused Global Warming can
manage to ever get through even a short discussion of it without
saying something egregiously stupid and insulting?
J. Taylor
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It is ALL observation, the experiments are for testing to isolate the
variables. You can do thought experiments using probability to the
same level as which could be attained by doing a physical experiment.
>Even at that, real world prediction is still what 'proves' science.
>Light bending around the Sun in the experimental science of physics,
>for example...
Which is correct, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can
never show causation.
The problem, you do not know you are saying the same thing
>
>:Which is all about probability. The monkey wrench, the set of
>:variables is larger than the set of observed outcomes.
>:
>:Which means you have a nice theory, but
>:"Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove
>:causation." is correct.
>
>By this reasoning you can never prove causation even if you can do
>controlled experiments. There might be invisible gremlins or
>something, after all...
"Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove
causation."
>
>:>
>:>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
>:>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
>:>
>:>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
>:>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
>:>Causality may run the other way.
>:
>:So in the winter we get better gas milage?
>
>Why is it that none of the fans of human-caused Global Warming can
>manage to ever get through even a short discussion of it without
>saying something egregiously stupid and insulting?
Not a fan, see no reason to rejected Global Warming just because it
could be human-caused and my statement was *all* your speculation is
testable.
JT
J. Taylor
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Except the evidence doesn't support that, since CO2 concentrations may
not be leading the warming but rather lagging it. Evidence seems to
say that solar variability has played a big part in the past.
And just where did the CO2 come from if humans weren't around to
produce it all? What caused it to increase?
Merely making a false statement is hardly a convincing argument for
your position.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Eric Chomko
"Observational science" is an oxymoron. You observe evidence, the
science part requires experimentation (i.e. requires more than mere
observation). Don't confuse empiricism with science as it only makes
you look like a fool.
>
> Hint: You take some data. You build a model. Models have predictive
> power. You then look at other data and see if your model accurately
> predicts it. If not, refine your model. Iterate until out of data.
> Go find new data. Iterate. Predict future events. Does the model
> work?
That is where your experimentation comes in. Observation can be
misleading.
>
> This is how *ALL* science actually works. The only difference between
> experimental sciences and observational sciences is that you get the
> opportunity in experimental sciences to predict the outcome of
> experiments rather than having to rely on predicting the real world.
This makes no sense at all. You forgot the aspect of demonstration and
of being repeatable under like conditions. Also when the conditions
change you must be able to explian the differences in the outcome. THAT
is science, not your 20-20 hindsight approach of empiricism.
> Even at that, real world prediction is still what 'proves' science.
That the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the
Universe?
> Light bending around the Sun in the experimental science of physics,
> for example...
So now your observations go out the window and you cite experiments.
Just HOW confused are you is what I want to know?
>
> :Which is all about probability. The monkey wrench, the set of
> :variables is larger than the set of observed outcomes.
> :
> :Which means you have a nice theory, but
> :"Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove
> :causation." is correct.
>
> By this reasoning you can never prove causation even if you can do
> controlled experiments.
Sometimes you can't!
> There might be invisible gremlins or something, after all...
Only in your brain it would appear, but one wonders if experiments
would support my observation on that one based upon some of the crap
that you post.
> :>
> :>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
> :>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
> :>
> :>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
> :>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
> :>Causality may run the other way.
> :
> :So in the winter we get better gas milage?
>
> Why is it that none of the fans of human-caused Global Warming can
> manage to ever get through even a short discussion of it without
> saying something egregiously stupid and insulting?
Mostly because we are offended that when the earth does go to hell in a
handbasket we all suffer and not just the neighsaying right-wing loons
such as yourself.
Eric
Lloyd Parker
How is "is it" a response to my question.
Yes, CO2 traps heat. Look up the definition of "greenhouse gas."
Or maybe that freshman science book you haven't read.
So since AIDS didn't kill people prior to the 20th century, AIDS cannot be
killing anyone now?
That's your argument -- if X caused Y in the past, Z cannot be causing Y
today. That's illogical and inane.
>:And how come the sinks are increasing in CO2?
>
>Cite? Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. I've seen no citations that
>carbon sinks are increasing radically, although if they were that
>would certainly point to a self-regulating mechanism going on (and be
>against most of the models touting human-caused Global Warming that
>I've heard of).
>
How so? Since sinks are gaining CO2, they can't be releasing it into the
atmosphere, as you claim.
Lloyd Parker
But you cannot know what the snow will be tomorrow, so it's a confounding
factor. That spoils your data analysis.
Yes. I know they cannot say X causes Y.
>:>:Increase in CO2 does correlate with the melt of ice, and CO2 does trap
>:>:heat and heat does cause ice to melt.
>:>
>:>All relatively true, but do you get the increase in CO2 because of the
>:>increase in temperature lowering the solubility of the stuff?
>:>Causality may run the other way.
>:
>:So what caused the inc. in temp?
>
>What's caused it every other time that the geological record shows
>that it's gone up?
Who cares? That's irrelevant, since we know what's causing it now.
>
>:>
>:>:Which means, at the very least, the correlation does carry a casual
>:>:element.
>:>
>:>It means no such thing.
>:>
>:>:The question remaining, (if) after isolating ALL variables,
>:>:is it the factor for what is observed.
>:>
>:>And a very large question it is. We've built lots of different models
>:>(hypotheses) for how global warming and cooling comes about. NONE of
>:>them seem to work unless one cherry picks the data points.
>:>
>:
>:Actually the one which says CO2 causes warming does work. Nicely.
>
>Actually, none of the current models I've heard of predict all that
>well.
Once again, you willfully remain ignorant. The current models predict quite
well, and get better all the time.
>You either have to throw out data or restrict them quite
>severely in time span (which means they really show nothing other than
>that they produce the answers they were engineered to produce).
>
>:>:At any rate, unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never
>:>:show causation, is true.
>:>
>:>Still wrong. A model that actually predicts all the known data
>:>without having to throw away chunks of it that don't fit would be a
>:>damned good start.
>:>
>:
>:That model would have to include all the variables, which means you'd have
to
>:know how they work.
>
>So none of the models work. Congratulations, I think you've proven
>that science can't possibly work again.
No, that it cannot prove causation without controlled experiments. What I and
others have been trying to tell you. What we shouldn't HAVE to inform someone
with a degree in mathematics.
Lloyd Parker
To what level of accuracy though?
I can do a controlled experiment in which I add HCl to water and the pH goes
down. I'm sure I'm controlling all the other variables, or averaging them
out, given the huge number of water molecules in my sample.
In biology, I cannot do a controlled experiment in which I expose a human to
PCB and see if it causes cancer. So I do it on mice. But I cannot use normal
dosages, as cancer takes a long time to show up, longer than mice live, so I
go to huge levels. Say I see some tumors. Can I conclude the PCB did it?
No, too many variables between the mice (give me Avagadro's number of
mice, like I had water molecules, and maybe I can). Then I extrapolate and
say normal doses will also produce tumors, then I extend this to a different
species and say PCB will cause tumors in humans? No way.
Lloyd Parker
OK, this is the 3rd statement you've made that is flat-out wrong (the other
two being the temp. increase is very tiny and models don't predict well).
The evidence overwhelmingly supports that an increase in CO2 is causing the
current warming.
> since CO2 concentrations may
>not be leading the warming but rather lagging it.
Totally false.
>Evidence seems to
>say that solar variability has played a big part in the past.
No it does NOT. Read the damn science!
>
>And just where did the CO2 come from if humans weren't around to
>produce it all? What caused it to increase?
>
Again, why is this relevant? Like asking what caused the peasants to die
off in 16th century France when presented with the issue of AIDS today.
>Merely making a false statement is hardly a convincing argument for
>your position.
>
Merely pleading ignorance is your fallback.
J. Taylor
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ok, what evidence?
>since CO2 concentrations may
>not be leading the warming but rather lagging it.
Wouldn't you have to know BEFORE claiming the evidence doesn't
support?
>Evidence seems to
>say that solar variability has played a big part in the past.
And we know that HOW? From the MAY above?
Sorry, have to snip, can only take so much stupidity in one post.
JT
don findlay
Forget Socrates, ..what I don't get in all of this discussion on global
warming is the role of water, which (once in the atmosphere) is said to
be about four times more efficient a global warmer than CO2.
Loss to space is never figured. but is (I understand) taken to be real.
Now, ... Imagine you could suck all the water out of the atmosphere
and put a hold on its replacement (evaporation) till midnight, and then
take your finger off the button. How long (geologically speaking)
would it take for the world's atmosphere to be replenished with water?
I'm guessing, but (in geological-time terms) I would reckon surely, it
would be virtually immediate. You wouldn't even get to one minute past
midnight, probably. There has to be a balance therefore between
what's going *IN* to the atmosphere, and what's going out. What
controls it? Maybe the point is, not what's being put into the
atmosphere, but what is being taken out.
What controls loss to space, and by how much?
Paul F. Dietz
And, of course, the lag between warming at the end of the ice
age and the CO2 increase doesn't mean CO2 didn't cause warming.
It just means the CO2 didn't cause the first 800 years of the
warming (which I understand occured over a period of 5000 years).
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Forget Socrates, ..what I don't get in all of this discussion on global
> warming is the role of water, which (once in the atmosphere) is said to
> be about four times more efficient a global warmer than CO2.
It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
but CO2 is controlled by an external input (additions from burning
of fossil fuels). Any water humans add to the environment is completely
insignificant compared to what's already sloshing around; the same is
not true of CO2.
So it could both be true that water contributes most of the IR opacity
in the atmosphere, but that increases in CO2 are driving global warming.
As CO2 increases, this could increase the temperature, which could
drive more water into the atmosphere in a positive feedback that
amplifies the effect of the CO2 addition.
Paul
Phil.
On Dec 30, 12:20 am, "Paul F. Dietz" <d...@dls.net> wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
> > Forget Socrates, ..what I don't get in all of this discussion on global
> > warming is the role of water, which (once in the atmosphere) is said to
> > be about four times more efficient a global warmer than CO2.It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
> That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
> but CO2 is controlled by an external input (additions from burning
> of fossil fuels). Any water humans add to the environment is completely
> insignificant compared to what's already sloshing around; the same is
> not true of CO2.
>
> So it could both be true that water contributes most of the IR opacity
> in the atmosphere, but that increases in CO2 are driving global warming.
> As CO2 increases, this could increase the temperature, which could
> drive more water into the atmosphere in a positive feedback that
> amplifies the effect of the CO2 addition.
>
Also unlike CO2 water concentration is not homogeneous, dropping off
particularly with altitude, so the higher in the atmosphere you get the
more important CO2 becomes until it is the dominant GH gas.
don findlay
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
>
> > Forget Socrates, ..what I don't get in all of this discussion on global
> > warming is the role of water, which (once in the atmosphere) is said to
> > be about four times more efficient a global warmer than CO2.
>
> It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
> That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
Which includes winnowing loss to space?
> but CO2 is controlled by an external input (additions from burning
> of fossil fuels). Any water humans add to the environment is completely
> insignificant compared to what's already sloshing around; the same is
> not true of CO2.
>
> So it could both be true that water contributes most of the IR opacity
> in the atmosphere, but that increases in CO2 are driving global warming.
The question of winnowing loss to space again, ..and the 'pressure'
keeping the atmospheric quantity balanced. (Why did Mars lose its
water?). I repeat the point in this global warming discussion - the
question of loss to space is not addressed (as far as I know.) And if
water winnows off to space I don't see why there isn't co2 loss with
it..
> As CO2 increases, this could increase the temperature, which could
> drive more water into the atmosphere in a positive feedback that
> amplifies the effect of the CO2 addition.
>
> Paul
(Loss to space? ) (was the original question) (and how it is being
incorporated into the hype)
Paul F. Dietz
>>It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
>>That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
>
> Which includes winnowing loss to space?
The flow of water between the troposphere and the oceans utterly
dwarfs the flow of water from the atmosphere to space, so the
rate of the latter has essentially no effect on how much water
vapor is in the troposphere, where the vapor is exerting its
greenhouse effect.
> repeat the point in this global warming discussion - the
> question of loss to space is not addressed (as far as I know.) And if
> water winnows off to space I don't see why there isn't co2 loss with
> it..
It isn't addressed because it's completely irrelevant.
Paul
don findlay
How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
don findlay
<OK, so, ..when all else fails, read the instructions>
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm
"Left: The polar auroral fountain sprays ions - oxygen, helium, and
hydrogen - from Earth's upper ionosphere into deep space. The loss is
miniscule compared to the immense ocean of air covering our world, but
is significant in terms of what drives space weather around our world.
(NASA)"
The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
years (And if ozone's being lost, so might the other gases yes/ no?)
(How do we reconcile what's being said there? - so much hype about
the loss of ozone in just a few short years, ..and yet "miniscule" loss
of water?
How much of this debate is political, and how much is science?
Paul F. Dietz
>>It isn't addressed because it's completely irrelevant.
>
> How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
The rate of loss of water to space can be estimated by
measuring the concentration of hydrogen atoms and ions
around and downwind of the Earth. Stuff going to space
doesn't disappear, and space is other very, very thinly
populated with particules, so even a small number show
up.
(Examples: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1144 )
I'll add that the rate of loss of water is limited by
the 'cold trap' in the upper atmosphere that prevents
much water from reaching extreme altitudes where it can
be dissociated and the hydrogen escape.
(BTW, you're not one of those young earth creationists who
thinks entire oceans of water were lost since Noah,
are you?)
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
> there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
> years
[...]
>
> How much of this debate is political, and how much is science?
Look, there isn't some sinister conspiracy. The point your raising
isn't discussed in the context of the pressing issues because it
ISN'T RELEVANT. Why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't matter!
Paul
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
Basic physics. Look at the temperature of the gas. Compute the RMS
velocity of the gas molecules based on that temperature and their
mass. Compare to escape velocity.
Fred J. McCall
:The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
:there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
:years (And if ozone's being lost, so might the other gases yes/ no?)
Ozone isn't being 'lost to space' in any great amounts. The problem
is that CFCs catalyze reactions that break it down, so it is being
'lost' by being converted into other oxygen molecular forms.
don findlay
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
> :The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
> :there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
> :years (And if ozone's being lost, so might the other gases yes/ no?)
>
> Ozone isn't being 'lost to space' in any great amounts. The problem
> is that CFCs catalyze reactions that break it down, so it is being
> 'lost' by being converted into other oxygen molecular forms.
Yes, of course, ..I'll buy that, .. It's what they do say, ..(though I
haven't thought about it). (They don't talk very much about this any
more, ..Is that hole still there? Or did it suddenly go away when
everybody stopped using it for fridges and shaving themselves..?
don findlay
Because I think there's good reason to believe that water has been
created over time as a by-product of mantle formation - that the two go
together. And if water keeps being made, then it must also keep
getting lost (since the plimsol line has been more or less static over
geological time....) But if loss is not important, that means it
can't be getting made, otherwise the land would be covered with it.
That means all this 'archean water' must be the product of condensation
when the hydrosphere and atmosphere formed, ... ( like, ..forty days
and forty nights, ...)
> It doesn't matter!
Well, ..I'm wary of creationists, ... :-)
>
> Paul
don findlay
I'm very wary of basic physics since it's also used to prove that the
mantle is a fluid that can drive crustal deformation and partially melt
the mantle to the extent of creating the ocean floors over two thirds
of the Planet ( i.e., upset everthing, after the Earth settled down to
being a simple core mantle and a crust.)
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
That's when I think about it, ..that is.
don findlay
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
>
> >>It isn't addressed because it's completely irrelevant.
> >
> > How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
>
> The rate of loss of water to space can be estimated by
> measuring the concentration of hydrogen atoms and ions
> around and downwind of the Earth. Stuff going to space
> doesn't disappear, and space is other very, very thinly
> populated with particules, so even a small number show
> up.
>
> (Examples: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm
> http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1144 )
>
> I'll add that the rate of loss of water is limited by
> the 'cold trap' in the upper atmosphere that prevents
> much water from reaching extreme altitudes where it can
> be dissociated and the hydrogen escape.
Would you be saying then that loss to space has always been
insignificant? That the water budget has always remained the same
since creation? That it's effectively archaean water sloshing around
today (and always has been)? That the addition of feral water is not a
goer?
What about the magnetic field? It says in my book that the Earth's
magnetic field shields the atmosphere from the solar wind. If it
wasn't there the Earth would lose its water pretty quickly (Like Mars).
What happens when the magnetic field flips? Does that mean there is
no magnetic field for a time? (How long is an 'interflip') I was
never sure when they say it 'flips', if it just goes below a median
line, or if it actually switches polarity (must check) but either way
if it gets weak then atmosphere loss will be greater. You'd think a
bit of that Archaean water would have got lost over time - and
replaced.. (Well, ..I would anyway..)
(That's neat, ..about the cold bit....) (Mars couldn't have had one...
though I suppose it gets cold at night)
davee
did anyone mention hysterisis and thermal inversion? No? thought they
did Sorry wrong track!!! bye bye
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
:>
:> :The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
:> :there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
:> :years (And if ozone's being lost, so might the other gases yes/ no?)
:>
:> Ozone isn't being 'lost to space' in any great amounts. The problem
:> is that CFCs catalyze reactions that break it down, so it is being
:> 'lost' by being converted into other oxygen molecular forms.
:
:Yes, of course, ..I'll buy that, .. It's what they do say, ..(though I
:haven't thought about it). (They don't talk very much about this any
:more, ..Is that hole still there? Or did it suddenly go away when
:everybody stopped using it for fridges and shaving themselves..?
It will be some time before the ozone hole 'heals' completely. The
problem is that CFCs basically stay in the atmosphere unchanged once
they're up there and continue to catalyze ozone-destroying reactions.
The largest recorded 'hole' was in 2003. The 'hole' in 2005 covered
some 22 million square kilometers.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Paul F. Dietz wrote:
:> :> don findlay wrote:
:> :>
:> :> >>It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
:> :> >>That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
:> :> >
:> :> > Which includes winnowing loss to space?
:> :>
:> :> The flow of water between the troposphere and the oceans utterly
:> :> dwarfs the flow of water from the atmosphere to space, so the
:> :> rate of the latter has essentially no effect on how much water
:> :> vapor is in the troposphere, where the vapor is exerting its
:> :> greenhouse effect.
:> :>
:> :> > repeat the point in this global warming discussion - the
:> :> > question of loss to space is not addressed (as far as I know.) And if
:> :> > water winnows off to space I don't see why there isn't co2 loss with
:> :> > it..
:> :>
:> :> It isn't addressed because it's completely irrelevant.
:> :
:> :How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
:>
:> Basic physics. Look at the temperature of the gas. Compute the RMS
:> velocity of the gas molecules based on that temperature and their
:> mass. Compare to escape velocity.
:
:I'm very wary of basic physics ...
Then your only other choice for explanations is 'magic' and nobody
here can help you with that.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
davee
"braaak polly want a cracker"
Wrong, wrong, wrong, I must have got it wrong!!!
I hate repeating me myself I eye captain warp factor eight Mr
Sulu.......who let out to much lard ass TV watching me.....
Catalytic effects of the CFC are pointed at by the wider science
community.....
Crazy radical fringe Me said Yes an effect but....
masked the true cause, like global wars, share market collapses, Nasty
Nasty Jet planes flying above thirty thousand feet .
Oxygen is the common denominator in all compounds being compared
modelled and measured......
Back at the start (when the earth condensed,popularist belief) the
earths surface was all
water.....phytoplankton populated and caused rise in O2 in the
atmosphere.....
As this molecule rises up to outer layers of the atmosphere 5 years or
so UV light breaks the bonds by raising the bonding electrons to a
higher state whereby Ozone is formed......
"Austin Im your father, I can't back that up" whoops to much Movies
Me......
So Oxygen protects us from UV by absorbing and not the Ozone layer
protects by absorbing UV, Subtle I know but we as a Majority multiple
quantum Me agree.....with me
And yes that water system like a giant heat pump,(air conditioner) does
also play a role
as does much of the mathematics of Maxwell, Bohr, Tesla, Einstein,
Avogadro ,Boyle,
Dalton, Raoult, Clapyron and Claisen and I might also say that alot of
the stuff that was postulated by these great people was not modelled or
proven until much later but still fundamental building blocks of many
science teachings today.....braaaaak
don findlay
"Children have this habit of thinking for themselves, and the point of
education is to cure them of this habit" -
Bertrand Russell
We've just discovered on a parallel thread that geologists believe more
than they think
Google
"Geologists believe"= 94,300
"Geologists think" = 23,000
(I'm not sure I believe you...) (about cfs, magic, and arithmetic
telling us about the ductile flow in the mantle - or loss to space.
But it will do for now, ..till somebody thinks of something more
...believable.)
Paul F. Dietz
> Would you be saying then that loss to space has always been
> insignificant?
I'd say that I'm out of patience with your maddening inability
to make a coherent point.
Paul
davee
Pat Flannery
davee wrote:
>"braaak polly want a cracker"
>
>
Polly got a vocabulary of 950 words:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm
Pat
Lloyd Parker
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>> :> don findlay wrote:
>> :>
>> :> >>It's quite simple, don. Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing.
>> :> >>That is, water vapor is controlled by immediate climatic conditions,
>> :> >
>> :> > Which includes winnowing loss to space?
>> :>
>> :> The flow of water between the troposphere and the oceans utterly
>> :> dwarfs the flow of water from the atmosphere to space, so the
>> :> rate of the latter has essentially no effect on how much water
>> :> vapor is in the troposphere, where the vapor is exerting its
>> :> greenhouse effect.
>> :>
>> :> > repeat the point in this global warming discussion - the
>> :> > question of loss to space is not addressed (as far as I know.) And if
>> :> > water winnows off to space I don't see why there isn't co2 loss with
>> :> > it..
>> :>
>> :> It isn't addressed because it's completely irrelevant.
>> :
>> :How do we *know* the rate of loss of atmosphere to space?
>>
>> Basic physics. Look at the temperature of the gas. Compute the RMS
>> velocity of the gas molecules based on that temperature and their
>> mass. Compare to escape velocity.
>
>I'm very wary of basic physics
I bet you are. Basic reading and arithmetic too, I bet.
Lloyd Parker
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> :The point is, we don't hear too much discussion of it - though
>> :there's been plenty about the loss of polar ozone to space in recent
>> :years (And if ozone's being lost, so might the other gases yes/ no?)
>>
>> Ozone isn't being 'lost to space' in any great amounts. The problem
>> is that CFCs catalyze reactions that break it down, so it is being
>> 'lost' by being converted into other oxygen molecular forms.
>
>Yes, of course, ..I'll buy that, .. It's what they do say, ..(though I
>haven't thought about it). (They don't talk very much about this any
>more, ..Is that hole still there? Or did it suddenly go away when
>everybody stopped using it for fridges and shaving themselves..?
>
>
Actually "they" talk about it a lot. But you won't see it on the shows you
watch -- what are they, WWE?
Lloyd Parker
Would you learn what a period is? And speed up that ESL course.
davee
pause........for effect waz sappeneg bro wot it is wot eh ow eh singing
poly moly butyl all the day!!!!
davee
char bro do nay warry bout did doe as soooon yah will bee deable ta
arnsa ween da googly temer runan doon...........
davee
13 From: Lloyd R. Parker - view profile
Date: Wed, Sep 30 1998 12:00 am
Email: lpar...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
Groups: rec.autos.sport.nascar
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Scott Sullivan (sully...@sprint.ca) wrote:
: SO are ALL nasal DECONGESTANTS....so if I want to race/jump/run I
have to do it
No, just in the Olympics, to keep them totally "pure." The NFL, et al,
don't ban decongestants.
Reply Rate this post:
Any comments mr "to many periods" and is Earth your second Planet?
Lloyd Parker
"davee" <dave_e...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>char bro do nay warry bout did doe as soooon yah will bee deable ta
>arnsa ween da googly temer runan doon...........
>
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
Eric Chomko
Fred J. McCall wrote:> :> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :>
> :> :In article <hel2p250n3mjoqulm...@4ax.com>,
> :> : Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :>:In article <45b7d4da....@news.giganews.com>,
> :> :>: simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> :> :>:>On 24 Dec 2006 10:44:51 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ken Wood"
> :> :>:><ken_w...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> :> :>:>way as to indicate that:
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>>> > Even Global Warming Climatologists tell us that,
> :> :>:>>> > > but you still insist on telling us that it is warming.
> :> :>:>>> The only Ice shelves to break up are in a volcanic zone,
> :> :>:>>
> :> :>:>>Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
> :> :>:>>glaciers across the world.
> :> :>:>>The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming. CO2 is a known
> :> :>:>>"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
> :> :>:>>That's enough evidence.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>No, it's not. Correlation is not causation.
> :> :>:
> :> :>:Unless you can do controlled experiments, you can never prove causation.
> :> :>
> :> :>Wrong.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :So we find your knowledge of statistics is on a par with your knowledge of
> :> :science -- zilch.
> :>
> :> Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Parker, but I took a math degree and
> :> probably know more about statistics than you ever will.
> :
> :Took a math degree? You didn't earn it, you took it...
> :
> :Language is key, Freddy.
>
> Yes, language *is* key, El Chimpo, and my usage of it above is fairly
> standard. Did you take ANY courses in school, El Chimpo? If not, it
> would explain your unrelieved ignorance about pretty much everything.
I have two BS degrees and one MS. You, McClod?
>
> :>
> :> So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
> :> your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
> :> enough to actually have formed opinions.
> :
> :So a belief is not an opinion.
>
> Not in this case.
Dumb, dumb, Freddy..
>
> :Hmm, and you seem to imply that opinions
> :are somehow superior to beliefs. You're lacking facts in more ways than
> :one now, Freddy.
>
> Funny how El Chimpo just has to mix in everywhere. Spit out that hook
> and run along and play, Eric...
I'm not craving you up into filets yet...
> --
> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
> your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
> -- Mark Twain
Eric Chomko
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> :
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :>
> :> : Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :>lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>:
> :> :>:>:Glacial ice is melting in the Antarctic, the Arctic and in mountain
> :> :>:>:glaciers across the world.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
> :> :>:>again in the future.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:
> :> :>:Which has not happened this much or this fast in human history.
> :> :>
> :> :>Human history is short when you're talking about the time scales these
> :> :>sorts of things occur on.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Human civilization is all that matters to us. Whether the earth physically
> :> :survives isn't much comfort.
> :>
> :> But it has bugger all to do with whether global warming is the result
> :> of human activity, now does it?
> :>
> :> Are you another Eric Chomko, only able to respond with non sequiturs?
> :
> :Are they truly non sequiturs or are you just dense?
>
> The former, of course. Jesus, Eric, EVERYONE knows you're an idiot
> whose stock in trade is nonsensical non sequiturs.
Everyone? No, when you use the proverbial "everyone", that means you
are truly alone. How does it feel for me to best you an virtually every
post, Freddy? You've been diced and always come back for more. Twit...
>
> :>
> :> :>:>:The atmoshere is warming, the oceans are warming.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>Which has happened in the past and no doubt will happen again and
> :> :>:>again in the future.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:
> :> :>:See above.
> :> :>
> :> :>See above. "I haven't seen it" doesn't constitute proof.
> :> :>
> :> :>:>:CO2 is a known
> :> :>:>:"greenhouse gas" which industry emits and is at very historical levels.
> :> :>:>:That's enough evidence.
> :> :>:>
> :> :>:>Not hardly. That's not even a good argument, much less 'enough
> :> :>:>evidence'.
> :> :>:
> :> :>:Huh? Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it's increasing?
> :> :>
> :> :>No, I'm questioning which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
> :> :
> :> :OK, how do increasing temp. cause humans to burn fossil fuels, producing CO2?
> :>
> :> They don't. But now leave out the stupid center and I can give you
> :> quite a good mechanism for how increasing temperatures could cause
> :> increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
> :>
> :> :>According to most atmospheric and weather people I've heard, CO2 from
> :> :>human production will contribute something like a few tenths of a
> :> :>degree over the next half century or so.
> :> :
> :> :Then you've either heard from right-wing paid shills or you've been asleep
> :> :again.
> :>
> :> Then you either have no support for your position other than ad
> :> hominem bullshit or ... well, there is no 'or'.
> :>
> :> You're merely clueless.
> :
> :Of WHO the paying shills are...
>
> You're still clueless. And that should be "Of WHOM..."
A grammar flame for a USENET bottom dweller. Oh, the irony...
Do you really take yourself seriously? If so, then you and not me are
the one that is insane.
Eric
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
And it's pretty obvious that none of them required proper use of the
English language...
:>
:> :>
:> :> So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
:> :> your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
:> :> enough to actually have formed opinions.
:> :
:> :So a belief is not an opinion.
:>
:> Not in this case.
:
:Dumb, dumb, Freddy..
Ignorant, ignorant, El Chimpko.
:>
:> :Hmm, and you seem to imply that opinions
:> :are somehow superior to beliefs. You're lacking facts in more ways than
:> :one now, Freddy.
:>
:> Funny how El Chimpo just has to mix in everywhere. Spit out that hook
:> and run along and play, Eric...
:
:I'm not craving you up into filets yet...
Interesting Freudian slip, El Chimpko. How many times do I have to
tell you that 'no means no', no matter how much you crave?
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
We could take a vote. Is there ANYONE out there who does NOT think
that El Chimpko is an idiot?
:How does it feel for me to best you an virtually every
:post, Freddy?
I wouldn't know, since I don't share your delusions.
:You've been diced and always come back for more. Twit...
<snicker>
:>
:> :>
Well, it's good that you recognize that you are "a USENET bottom
dweller". Spelling and grammar flames are made for such as you, El
Chimpko.
:Do you really take yourself seriously? If so, then you and not me are
:the one that is insane.
And yet you bleat and bleat and bleat to anything I post, even on
postings that are responses to other people.
Poor El Chimpko. It appears he's going to have to settle for
splinters from the marionette Gepetto carved for him...
davee
no just hydroencephalitis.
Eric Chomko
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't answer my
question.
>
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> So we see that ad hominem bullshit is the limit of your support for
> :> :> your own beliefs - and I say beliefs because you apparently don't know
> :> :> enough to actually have formed opinions.
> :> :
> :> :So a belief is not an opinion.
> :>
> :> Not in this case.
> :
> :Dumb, dumb, Freddy..
>
> Ignorant, ignorant, El Chimpko.
But I continue to kick your kiester around cyberspace like a whipped
cur.
>
> :>
> :> :Hmm, and you seem to imply that opinions
> :> :are somehow superior to beliefs. You're lacking facts in more ways than
> :> :one now, Freddy.
> :>
> :> Funny how El Chimpo just has to mix in everywhere. Spit out that hook
> :> and run along and play, Eric...
> :
> :I'm not craving you up into filets yet...
>
> Interesting Freudian slip, El Chimpko. How many times do I have to
> tell you that 'no means no', no matter how much you crave?
Your continuing reference to me being gay says more about you than it
does me, if you want to be quoting Freund and all. Was that the reason
your wife left you? After she discovered you had your own "Brokeback
Mountain" experience?
Is it tough posting from in the closet, Freddy?
Eric