J. Hansen paper casts doubt on AGW Hypotheis
raylopez99
NASA/Columbia and be prepared to discuss:
1. If methane (CH4) is decreasing over 66% since 1980 (!), despite
increasing fossil fuel use, can CO2 also decrease? ANSWER: YES IT CAN.
2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The slowdown in the
growth rate of GHG climate forcing from the peak in the 1980s is due
mainly to the phase-out of CFC production. " ANSWER: WHAT PART OF
SLOWDOWN DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? WHAT PART OF 'PEAK' DO YOU NOT
UNDERSTAND?
3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: the more CO2 we
produce in excess of the quiscent level, the FASTER it will be absorbed
by the earth; further, the more CH4 is removed the higher the CO2 level
the earth can have without damaging effects--and remember CH4 is
decreasing. Pls read this passage before commenting: "We have
suggested (13) that a concerted effort to reduce CH4 emissions could
yield a negative forcing, which would be amplified The magnitude of
this effect can be estimated from the assumption
that the net uptake of CO2 from the air is proportional to
''excess'' atmospheric CO2, i.e., the difference ( CO2) between
ambient CO2 and the equilibrium CO2 that would exist for the current
climate without any anthropogenicCO2 emissions."
ANSWER: WHAT PART OF 'YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DISAGREE' DO YOU NOT
UNDERSTAND?
In short, Hansen's paper implicitly debunks runaway AGW.
Ray Lopez
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_HansenSato.pdf
The overall decline in growth rate [of CH4] has not been fully
explained. Possibilities that could partially explain the decreased
growth rate are increased OH radical concentrations due to long-term
decreasing trends in stratospheric O3, and stabilization of emissions
from anthropogenic sources such as rice agriculture and cattle. A
recent analysis of the CMDL global CH4 averages shown in Figure 2.13
[Dlugokencky et al., 1998] suggests that the decreasing growth rate of
atmospheric methane can be explained as a chemical system approaching
steady state where emissions and [OH] have remained about constant from
1983-1996.
Annual CH4 growth (Fig. 2B) accelerated after World War II, in
a manner similar to the growth of CO2. However, since 1980 the
CH4 growth rate has decreased by at least two-thirds. This slowdown
could result from a leveling off or decrease of one or more
of the CH4 sources, such as leakage during the mining, production,
and distribution of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and emissions
from
landfills, waste-management lagoons, and rice farming (14). It is
also possible that the CH4 lifetime changed because of changes in
the abundance of atmospheric OH, the primary sink for CH4 (14).
Fig. 4 shows the growth rate of GHG climate forcing in the
industrial era, including scenarios for the 21st century.
The slowdown in the growth rate of GHG climate forcing from
the peak in the 1980s is due mainly to the phase-out of CFC
production.
We have suggested (13) that a concerted effort to reduce CH4
emissions could yield a negative forcing, which would be amplified
The magnitude of this effect can be estimated from the assumption
that the net uptake of CO2 from the air is proportional to
''excess'' atmospheric CO2, i.e., the difference ( CO2) between
ambient CO2 and the equilibrium CO2 that would exist for the
current climatewithout any anthropogenicCO2 emissions.
Phil Hays
>Please read the important 2004 paper by J. Hansen et al. of
>NASA/Columbia and be prepared to discuss:
>
>1. If methane (CH4) is decreasing over 66% since 1980 (!), despite
>increasing fossil fuel use, can CO2 also decrease? ANSWER: YES IT CAN.
"However, since 1980 the CH4 growth rate has decreased by at least
two-thirds."
The reduction in the rae of growth isn't the same as a reduction in
levels. Oh Duh. Please read more carefully.
--
Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays
Roger Coppock
Phil Hays wrote:
Yet another basic mistake from loop-the-loop Lopez.
dbo...@mindspring.com
dbo...@mindspring.com
common a Japanese name this is? Two chemists with the same name? The
Maki I knew did work at FSU in the mid-80s on atmospheric and aqueous
chemistry from pulsed corona discharges.
He arrived in Tallahassee with wife and two kids knowing hardly any
english but exhausted from travel with his family. We got him in his
hotel where he suddenly pointed to the two glasses and ice bucket and
demanded "Liquor Store" thereupon using his entire english vocab.
Roger Coppock
Drop him a line.
Harold Brooks
dbo...@mindspring.com says...
Nope. Makiko and Makoto Sato have been at GISS since at least 1977.
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
dbo...@mindspring.com
owl
wrote:
>Please read the important 2004 paper by J. Hansen et al. of
>NASA/Columbia and be prepared to discuss:
>
>1. If methane (CH4) is decreasing over 66% since 1980 (!), despite
>increasing fossil fuel use, can CO2 also decrease? ANSWER: YES IT CAN.
The theme of the paper is that CO2 cannot be halted or practically
slowed down in the near-term:-
"The next 25-50 years are important because the
world’s energy infrastructure makes it difficult, if not impossible,
to reverse growth rates of CO2 emissions in a brief period."
page 16112.
Methane growth rates have declined for reasons that aren't fully
understood. AGW forcing rates have declined in part because of the
success of the Montreal Protocol in curbing CFC usage.
So if you want to curb the growth rate of CO2, the template is to use
something like the Montreal Protocol, but apply it to CO2. (Hint:
It's called Kyoto).
Hansen walks through the problems, and this paper is really an
exploration of buying some time with a methane reduction focus.
>2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The slowdown in the
>growth rate of GHG climate forcing from the peak in the 1980s is due
>mainly to the phase-out of CFC production. " ANSWER: WHAT PART OF
>SLOWDOWN DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? WHAT PART OF 'PEAK' DO YOU NOT
>UNDERSTAND?
You left out 'growth rate' in your vent. It's not accelerating as
fast. And Hansen notes that it was a cherry pick of the CFCs -
that's the rationale for presenting a strategy of repeating the
success of the Montreal Protocol by going after other OTG gases.
>3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: the more CO2 we
>produce in excess of the quiscent level, the FASTER it will be absorbed
>by the earth; further, the more CH4 is removed the higher the CO2 level
>the earth can have without damaging effects--and remember CH4 is
>decreasing.
It's the CH4 increase-rate that has slowed. CH4 'may' level off.
The part about the CO2 is misinterpretted. Hansen is offer a
suggestion for why oceanic and land sinks appear to have increased
their capability in direct proportion to the amount of industrial CO2
pollution produced. It's a possible explanation.
As for the methane focus for any other purpose than to buy time,
Hansen states in the article that CO2 must remain the focus of
reduction efforts. (page 16111).
> Pls read this passage before commenting: "We have
>suggested (13) that a concerted effort to reduce CH4 emissions could
>yield a negative forcing, which would be amplified The magnitude of
>this effect can be estimated from the assumption
>that the net uptake of CO2 from the air is proportional to
>''excess'' atmospheric CO2, i.e., the difference ( CO2) between
>ambient CO2 and the equilibrium CO2 that would exist for the current
>climate without any anthropogenicCO2 emissions."
You've misquoted the article. Between 'amplified' and 'The magnitude'
there's a major section of information.
The first part is actually a description the benefits of CH4 reduction
(anthro sources have to be reduced 50% to even try to get those
benefits). The second part is all premised with some sink theory -
'If it works this way...' with a fairly constant removal of about
40GTs per year over the pre-industrial equilibrium, then " there's
this kind of soak-up benefit...".
>ANSWER: WHAT PART OF 'YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DISAGREE' DO YOU NOT
>UNDERSTAND?
You missed the point of the article. It's actually stating that
there's an emergency Plan B - a global consensus to drastically, and
quickly, reduce CH4s and other GHGs and buy time. It rests on some
fairly new theories and explanations. It could prove to be flawed.
>In short, Hansen's paper implicitly debunks runaway AGW.
It's the opposite. Hansen's paper is a strong warning that the edge
of the tipping (+1dC above 2004) is inside the 25-50 year range; that
curbing CO2 growth is proving too complex; and that an emergency
strategy trying to buy time with CH4 and OTG reductions may be worth
pursuing. (page 16109). He restates it in the conclusion:-
"On the basis of paleoclimate evidence, this climate feedback is
unlikely to cause a large nonlinear effect if additional global
warming is held to 1°C or less." (page 16114).
Not much new in that cacl - .6 in the bank, .6 in the pipe, and +1dC
in this paper is back to the danger line of +2dC that's frequently
referenced.
>Ray Lopez
>
>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_HansenSato.pdf
raylopez99
(notice how the other (im)posters dodge the thrust of the paper--it's
over their head). And to think an autodidactic with a high school
education can sound so impressive.
I did learn from this paper a few things, see my comments below:
owl wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2005 16:46:43 -0700, "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Please read the important 2004 paper by J. Hansen et al. of
> >NASA/Columbia and be prepared to discuss:
> >
> >1. If methane (CH4) is decreasing over 66% since 1980 (!), despite
> >increasing fossil fuel use, can CO2 also decrease? ANSWER: YES IT CAN.
>
> The theme of the paper is that CO2 cannot be halted or practically
> slowed down in the near-term:-
Yes, saw that, but I was quoting the paper for other things, see below.
>
> "The next 25-50 years are important because the
> world's energy infrastructure makes it difficult, if not impossible,
> to reverse growth rates of CO2 emissions in a brief period."
> page 16112.
>
> Methane growth rates have declined for reasons that aren't fully
> understood. AGW forcing rates have declined in part because of the
> success of the Montreal Protocol in curbing CFC usage.
>
> So if you want to curb the growth rate of CO2, the template is to use
> something like the Montreal Protocol, but apply it to CO2. (Hint:
> It's called Kyoto).
>
Thanks. I did not realize CFC was a greenhouse gas until now.
> Hansen walks through the problems, and this paper is really an
> exploration of buying some time with a methane reduction focus.
>
Yes, agreed; as before I realized this the first time.
> >2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The slowdown in the
> >growth rate of GHG climate forcing from the peak in the 1980s is due
> >mainly to the phase-out of CFC production. " ANSWER: WHAT PART OF
> >SLOWDOWN DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? WHAT PART OF 'PEAK' DO YOU NOT
> >UNDERSTAND?
>
> You left out 'growth rate' in your vent. It's not accelerating as
> fast. And Hansen notes that it was a cherry pick of the CFCs -
> that's the rationale for presenting a strategy of repeating the
> success of the Montreal Protocol by going after other OTG gases.
>
OK--my bad. Second derivative is negative, not the total value.
Rodger that.
> >3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: the more CO2 we
> >produce in excess of the quiscent level, the FASTER it will be absorbed
> >by the earth; further, the more CH4 is removed the higher the CO2 level
> >the earth can have without damaging effects--and remember CH4 is
> >decreasing.
>
> It's the CH4 increase-rate that has slowed. CH4 'may' level off.
Ditto.
>
> The part about the CO2 is misinterpretted. Hansen is offer a
> suggestion for why oceanic and land sinks appear to have increased
> their capability in direct proportion to the amount of industrial CO2
> pollution produced. It's a possible explanation.
>
This interests me. This is what excited me. Logic and the simple gas
diffusion / Arrhhenius ions-in-solution models for mixing gases and
liquids (from my Holliday and Resnick physics and chem textbooks, from
memory) say that diffusion is proportional to concentration. So the
higher the CO2, the faster the diffusion. This paper says in a
paragraph that experimentally it's found to be the case.
> As for the methane focus for any other purpose than to buy time,
> Hansen states in the article that CO2 must remain the focus of
> reduction efforts. (page 16111).
>
Yes, standard AGW "propaganda" about CO2.
> > Pls read this passage before commenting: "We have
> >suggested (13) that a concerted effort to reduce CH4 emissions could
> >yield a negative forcing, which would be amplified The magnitude of
> >this effect can be estimated from the assumption
> >that the net uptake of CO2 from the air is proportional to
> >''excess'' atmospheric CO2, i.e., the difference ( CO2) between
> >ambient CO2 and the equilibrium CO2 that would exist for the current
> >climate without any anthropogenicCO2 emissions."
>
> You've misquoted the article. Between 'amplified' and 'The magnitude'
> there's a major section of information.
"Negative forcing" is exciting. It means reduction I believe. So
reduce methane and reduce CO2, right?
>
> The first part is actually a description the benefits of CH4 reduction
> (anthro sources have to be reduced 50% to even try to get those
> benefits). The second part is all premised with some sink theory -
> 'If it works this way...' with a fairly constant removal of about
> 40GTs per year over the pre-industrial equilibrium, then " there's
> this kind of soak-up benefit...".
Yes, this is exciting, if true.
>
> >ANSWER: WHAT PART OF 'YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DISAGREE' DO YOU NOT
> >UNDERSTAND?
>
> You missed the point of the article. It's actually stating that
> there's an emergency Plan B - a global consensus to drastically, and
> quickly, reduce CH4s and other GHGs and buy time. It rests on some
> fairly new theories and explanations. It could prove to be flawed.
>
Yes, it could prove to be false. But if true, it gives a lot of hope.
Perhaps Mother Nature will come to the rescue, naturally, without us
having to do much of anything. Possibly of course, not probably. Wait
and see?
> >In short, Hansen's paper implicitly debunks runaway AGW.
>
> It's the opposite. Hansen's paper is a strong warning that the edge
> of the tipping (+1dC above 2004) is inside the 25-50 year range; that
> curbing CO2 growth is proving too complex; and that an emergency
> strategy trying to buy time with CH4 and OTG reductions may be worth
> pursuing. (page 16109). He restates it in the conclusion:-
>
> "On the basis of paleoclimate evidence, this climate feedback is
> unlikely to cause a large nonlinear effect if additional global
> warming is held to 1°C or less." (page 16114).
I hear you. And I see you've bought into the "tipping theory" where we
get feed-forward "runaway" growth. I am not aware of this "tipping
theory" literature, but I understand the gist, broadly speaking. And I
don't believe it. Perhaps some references might persuade me, or at
least educate me. I will do my own research as well, but if you have
any easy to find references post them here.
>
> Not much new in that cacl - .6 in the bank, .6 in the pipe, and +1dC
> in this paper is back to the danger line of +2dC that's frequently
> referenced.
Ditto. I'm not convinced there is a "tipping point"
Regards,
Ray
raylopez99
CO2 greenhouse gas causes GW" theory, but he, according to the
authoratative organization Friends of Science, has over the last few
years downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas ("moreover, James
Hansen (2000) downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.")
Could this paper, which talks about how reducing CH4 will allow higher
levels of CO2 to be safely stored in the earth's atmosphere, and
explains how the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the greater
the absorption by CO2 sinks, be another crack in the facade of AGW, and
coming from the father of AGW?
Time will tell.
"Further research is needed to see if GW = AGW"--Ray Lopez
RL
Prescott Bush managed Nazi Thyssen's Silesian Coal 1926-1942
Maybe this will clear up the big mystery -- I asked google to explain,
these are the results of my search terms. Some results are clearly not
relevent, but if you read every one the problem is solved. Like the
X-Files, the Truth is Out There...
http://tinyurl.com/c2spb
Results 1 - 100 of about 53,700 for James Hansen Sells Out to Koch
Group.
http://tinyurl.com/9cgva
Results 1 - 100 of about 61,500 for James Hansen has another nervous
breakdown.
http://tinyurl.com/bqosl
Results 1 - 100 of about 23,000 for James Hansen committed to insane
asylum.
http://tinyurl.com/dff8r
Results 1 - 100 of about 670 for Ray Lopez caught forging James
Hansen's name.
James Annan
> Too bad, woulda been nice. Must be a common name.
>
More than 1% (say 1.5 million) of Japanese have the surname "Sato", and
Makiko is not uncommon - in fact a simple google search seems to pick up
several unrelated people with this name.
James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
Coby Beck
news:1128401200.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"I am not aware of this "tipping theory" literature, but I understand the
gist,
broadly speaking. And I don't believe it."
If we take a quick examination of this quote from Ray, we get a good
illustration of the way his mind approaches problems. It is a basic
three-step train of thought:
1. I am not aware of X.
2. But I understand X.
3. And I don't believe X.
Can you say "prejudice"? I knew you could...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck
>I just learned that James Hansen is one of the fathers of the "man made
> CO2 greenhouse gas causes GW" theory, but he, according to the
> authoratative organization Friends of Science, has over the last few
> years downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas ("moreover, James
> Hansen (2000) downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.")
You should be more careful about your sources. Friends of Science has a lot
of ridiculous crap on their website. Some of it even you might recognize as
such.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Please read the important 2004 paper by J. Hansen et al. of
>NASA/Columbia and be prepared to discuss:
>
>1. If methane (CH4) is decreasing over 66% since 1980 (!), despite
>increasing fossil fuel use, can CO2 also decrease? ANSWER: YES IT CAN.
>
>2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The slowdown in the
>growth rate of GHG climate forcing from the peak in the 1980s is due
>mainly to the phase-out of CFC production. " ANSWER: WHAT PART OF
>SLOWDOWN DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? WHAT PART OF 'PEAK' DO YOU NOT
>UNDERSTAND?
You confuse slowing of the growth rate with it not growing. The warming is
still growing, but he's saying not as fast.
>
>3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: the more CO2 we
>produce in excess of the quiscent level, the FASTER it will be absorbed
>by the earth;
Then how come it isn't -- it's up 30%?
>further, the more CH4 is removed the higher the CO2 level
>the earth can have without damaging effects--and remember CH4 is
>decreasing. Pls read this passage before commenting: "We have
>suggested (13) that a concerted effort to reduce CH4 emissions could
>yield a negative forcing, which would be amplified The magnitude of
>this effect can be estimated from the assumption
>that the net uptake of CO2 from the air is proportional to
>''excess'' atmospheric CO2, i.e., the difference ( CO2) between
>ambient CO2 and the equilibrium CO2 that would exist for the current
>climate without any anthropogenicCO2 emissions."
>ANSWER: WHAT PART OF 'YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DISAGREE' DO YOU NOT
>UNDERSTAND?
>
>In short, Hansen's paper implicitly debunks runaway AGW.
In short, you cannot understand what you read.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just learned that James Hansen is one of the fathers of the "man made
>CO2 greenhouse gas causes GW" theory, but he, according to the
>authoratative organization Friends of Science, has over the last few
>years downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas ("moreover, James
>Hansen (2000) downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.")
What he's said is since it's so hard to reduce CO2, we should concentrate on
reducing other GH gases first, and then go after the CO2. Hardly
"downplaying" CO2.
>
>Could this paper, which talks about how reducing CH4 will allow higher
>levels of CO2 to be safely stored in the earth's atmosphere, and
>explains how the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the greater
>the absorption by CO2 sinks, be another crack in the facade of AGW, and
>coming from the father of AGW?
Yet if CO2 sinks did what you seem to think they do, CO2 wouldn't be up 30%,
now would it?
raylopez99
physical condition here on earth that is feed forward ('run-away').
For example, if left unchecked, nemotodes, flies and bacteria will
outweight the earth in X hours/days/weeks. But we know that never
happens.
Likewise, to say Mars or Venus got hot from GHG is to deny that process
took place in a very thin atmosphere, and took thousands if not
millions of years.
The earth has seen a mere 1 degree change in temperatures before, and
that change did not "tip" the earth into feed-forward increases in
temperature. From what I understand of the 'tipping' theory, the
increase in temperatures unlocks CO2 trapped in the soil (such as the
permafrost region in Siberia, or trapped in rotting vegitation).
Nonesense and counter-intuitive.
But I retain an open mind. Cite some papers from reputable, non AGW
affiliated website and I'll be happy to critique them.
RL
raylopez99
negative forcing. In short, you short-of-brains eco-nut, decreasing
methane may also cause CO2 to be decreased. Not yet proved, but a
promising theory.
RL
Michael Tobis
science, and there's no such thing to my knowledge as "tipping theory"
in science, there is certainly a concept of a conditionally unstable
equilibrium, and in that sense there are a few factors that may be
tippy. Here's a few that come to mind.
First, positive albedo feedbacks. Less Arctic ice means more absorbtion
of heat energy into the Arctic, which forces the equator-to-pole
temperature gradient which affects the entire northern hemisphere. More
summertime heating in the interior will heat the ground, slowing the
advance of the continental snow pack, to similar effect.
(It's 88F (31C) in Chicago today. After a hot summer, the early autumn
has persistently flirted with record heat. Finally some seasonal
temperatures expected starting tomorrow evening, but it's odd running
the air conditioning in October around here.)
Second, clathrate releases from the tundra. While the ocean clathrate
inventory probably won't be released for a couple of thousand years
according to studies I have seen, (that may constitute a very long tail
on the 20th- 21st century anthropogenic perturbation) the tundra may
start to release methane more or less immediately. The tundra methane
inventory is uncertain but may amount to a significant boost to global
warming.
Third, there's saturation of the CO2 fertilization negative feedback.
There are indications that CO2 fertilization, which withdraws CO2 from
the atmosphere, is already saturating. This isn't actually an
instability, but it may constitute an abrupt transition nonetheless.
Because of the second and third effects mentioned, our rule-of-thumb
estimates of how much excess CO2 or CH4 gets into the atmosphere may
stop working, which would mean not that GCMs are wrong but that the
forcings fed to them are overoptimistic. (The first effect is already
in the GCMs, but both sea ice and land snow are among the hardest
things to get right. The models could as easily be overly optimistic as
overly pessimistic.)
All of these effects may be starting already. None of them are
cataclysmic - they aren't enough to boil the oceans - but each of them
may contribute to things turning quickly worse than they already
appear.
It's refreshing to see "Ray Lopez" showing some sporadic signs of
actually reading and thinking about the replies. I don't suppose this
will ever extend to an honest renunciation of his probably fictitious
persona (not recommended, really), but it is still a pleasant surprise.
mt
Phil Hays
>But I retain an open mind. Cite some papers from reputable, non AGW
>affiliated website and I'll be happy to critique them.
Sure. "Snowball Earth".
Google's first hit for "Snowball Earth" is:
http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html
A good place to start.
Coby Beck
> CB--it's not inconsistent or prejudice. I defy you to name one
> physical condition here on earth that is feed forward ('run-away').
Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
Forest fires.
> For example, if left unchecked, nemotodes, flies and bacteria will
> outweight the earth in X hours/days/weeks.
No examples from your bathroom, please.
> The earth has seen a mere 1 degree change in temperatures before, and
> that change did not "tip" the earth into feed-forward increases in
> temperature. From what I understand of the 'tipping' theory, the
> increase in temperatures unlocks CO2 trapped in the soil (such as the
> permafrost region in Siberia, or trapped in rotting vegitation).
> Nonesense and counter-intuitive.
>
> But I retain an open mind. Cite some papers from reputable, non AGW
> affiliated website and I'll be happy to critique them.
I would refer you to this record:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
A small increase from orbital forcing resulted in a multi-century runaway
that did not stop until the climate had warmed by ~10oC.
You have no clue what an open mind feels like.
owl
wrote:
>While I think "tipping point" is management school jargon and not
>science, and there's no such thing to my knowledge as "tipping theory"
>in science, there is certainly a concept of a conditionally unstable
>equilibrium, and in that sense there are a few factors that may be
>tippy. Here's a few that come to mind.
It's a term used to describe a large, landslide, effect from a
seemingly small change in the climate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html
"It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first
identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise
in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the
environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global
temperatures."
It is tied to a possible explanation for known abrupt climate changes
in the paleo records.
Agreed that it's jargon rather than a rigorously defined climate
phrase.
Coby Beck
news:1128466792.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's refreshing to see "Ray Lopez" showing some sporadic signs of
> actually reading and thinking about the replies. I don't suppose this
> will ever extend to an honest renunciation of his probably fictitious
> persona (not recommended, really), but it is still a pleasant surprise.
You may recall for yourself, but Ray actually started out as a borderline
reasonable person, entertaining ideas explained to him etc, professing to
try to learn. But he utterly refused to stop spouting nonsense even *after*
admiting it was indeed nonsense. For me, he does not even have
entertainment value anymore which he did for a short post-almost-rational
phase. Oh well...
raylopez99
earth takes millions of years to form. A more ready analogy would have
been "the Younger Dryas" effect which apparently may have happened over
a few years. In either event, "life goes on".
RL
Relevant passage:
Could the Earth become a "snowball" in future? For the last million
years, the Earth has been in its coldest state since the
Neoproterozoic. We are now living in a relatively warm episode, some
80,000 years from the next glacial maximum, but some evidence suggests
that each successive glaciation over the last several cycles has been
getting stronger and stronger. During the most recent glacial event,
20,000 years ago, the deep ocean cooled to near its freezing point, and
sea ice reached latitudes as low as 40 to 45 degrees north and south,
still far from the critical threshold needed to plunge the Earth into a
snowball state. But could such a state be in our future? Certainly over
time scales of hundreds to thousands of years, we are more concerned
with anthropogenic effects on climate, as the Earth heats up in
response to emissions of carbon dioxide. But only time will tell where
the Earth's climate will drift over millions of years. If the trend
of the last million years of Earth history is continued and if the
polar continental "safety switch" were to fail, we may once again
experience a global ice catastrophe which would inevitably jolt life in
some new direction. Perhaps Robert Frost foresaw this in his poem,
"Fire and Ice"
hahah...@sbcglobal.net
raylopez99 wrote:
> Good link. I read it in its entirety and concluded that a snowball
> earth takes millions of years to form. A more ready analogy would have
> been "the Younger Dryas" effect which apparently may have happened over
> a few years. In either event, "life goes on".
My God. The Earth is cooling... Must be the cooling sun. There's only
one thing to do, we must send our best thinker, that would be Ray
Lopez, on an expedition to the sun to take actual measurements of the
temperature by putting a thermometer right into it. Yup, the need for
more study is so imperitive that even if it requires the sacrifice of
his life, that is a sacrifice I will gladly make. After all, if a
lesser sacrifice of New Orleans had to be made to see how bad Global
Warming could get if nobody did anything, then sacrificing Ray is
certainly not too high a price to pay for us to sit around the pool
with our Pina Coladas knowing that Snowball Earth was not allowed to
happen without the best minds applied to the task.
Phil Hays
>Good link. I read it in its entirety and concluded that a snowball
>earth takes millions of years to form.
How long to melt?
hanson
news:1128476659....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> nothing of any consequence (like pinko Vendickarse DickArian)
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA.... ahahaha.... if you need to plagiarize my handle
then at least do it properly... NOT like the inept little green idiot
that you are... ahahaha...AHAHA... Thanks for the laughs though...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Here, for you benefit, is the post again that drove you
over the edge, you wilting blossom of environmentalism:
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128461065....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> han...@quick.net wrote:
>> ahahaha... Yo, hey, you hilarious little green idiot save yourself
>> a lot of work by your thinly veiled disguises and post under ONE
>> handle that you might earn some respect for persistence in enviro-
>> fanaticism, as (1) "Ian St. John" <ist...@sbcglobal.net> the green
>> astrologer who was ordered by his charts to be an enviro-asstrolloger.
>> ... ahahaha... Or do little green idiots get an enviro discount by signing
>> onto "sbcglobal"?.... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA....
>> AHAHAHA... the now 5-fold demented little green idiot believes that
>> he is making enviro policy but is actually achieving the opposite by
>> posting his globally warmed delusions as/under his phony handles of
>> 2) "Psalm 110" <gods...@sbcglobal.net> aka
>> 3) "David G. Naugler" <david.g...@sbcglobal.net> aka
>> 4) "GayLopez69" <GayLo...@sbcglobal.net> aka
>> 5) "Prescott Bush managed Nazi Thyssen's Silesian Coal 1926-1942"
>> <bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> aka "Awe Schwitz" aka "Awe Shit"
>> who retorted to the wise Doctor Ray Lopez <raylopez99> [snipped]
>> >
[hanson]
>> So, "Awe Shit" can you fathom why Dr. Prof. Lopez definitely
>> does show earthbound wisdom whereas you, "Awe shit", and your
>> other aliases, absolutely do not, since you and all those other little
>> green idiots are merle farting around in your/their green fog and
>> are producing very large quantities of CO2 and CH4 themselves...
>> a fact which you/they strenuously try to gloss over... ahahaha...
>> Seriously, if all you greenies stop producing CH4/CO2 none of
>> the problems you whine about will exist... ahahaha....
>> AHAHAHA... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson.
>
[Ray]
> Wise, WISE, Wise I say ahahanson is!
> And yes, I am both a doctor and I have lectured as well, in my
> specialty.
> Truth be told: GW in the 'real world' elicits a stifled yawn, since
> people correctly conclude either it's not happening, or, if it
> happens, humanity will deal with it.
> RL
>
[hanson]
...."humanity will deal with it"... absolutely! ....and it will do it
in its very "fashionable" emotional ways of cousre, absolutely
unkind to the enviros... as was posted by "Tim Campbell"
<tim...@sbcglobal.net> (another sbcler.. ahAHAHa...)
who wrote about the ways government does it in message
news:1125443499.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
>>> California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) earned green esteem early
>>> in his tenure, [but now he appoints] his selections that "reflect a
>>> cross-section of California"... like Tuck, a particular hired mouthpiece
>>> who has spent her career working to undermine the laws that she will
>>> now be enforcing. ..... ahahaha..... AHAHAHAHA....
>
To boot, even the Feds are weighing in with:
== In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
== The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the nation.
>
...."humanity will deal with it"... thru' even unhappier individual people
like here in this post here by "Eric Gisin" <eric...@hotmail.com> who
wrote in message news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>>> ...fucking greens should be shot ....
>
I am quite sure that 5+ fold little green idiot rolled into one, as exampled
above, are already on a watchlist... an event & a situation I REALLY hate
to see developing and occurring. But these green fanatics do labor so
excruciatingly hard to bring on their own self destruction by their radical
behavior... so that, well... "humanity will deal with it"... ahahaha... AHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahanson
hahah...@sbcglobal.net
hanson wrote:
> <hahah...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1128476659....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > nothing of any consequence (like pinko Vendickarse DickArian)
> >
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHA.... ahahaha.... if you need to plagiarize my handle
> then at least do it properly... NOT like the inept little green idiot
> that you are... ahahaha...AHAHA... Thanks for the laughs though...
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Here, for you benefit, is the post again that drove you
> over the edge, you wilting blossom of environmentalism:
>
Turds, poopy poo on George Bush and Caa-caa on everybody who is
conservative and kills mother nature with rusty knives.
Ahahahaha giggle chuckle giggle, snort hysterical insane asylem
laughter uncontrollably hahahaha hahahahahaha fecal analogy turds poop
caa-caa full diaper loads, CaCaCaCaCa.
More full diaper loads of fecal similes Ahahahahaha. Smelly poopy-poop
turds. Ahahahaha.
hanson
news:1128528022.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You Brown Turds, .....
>
AHAHA.... ahahaha... that's your give away, Josh baby....
Well, at least you've still got a hard-on... of sorts... AHAHAHA...
ahahahaha... You and you alone used that term, copiously, a
while back when the term "Green turd" cranked you to no end...
ahahaha... So, you have joined the pinko green shits now with
its hordes of little green idiots, you being one of them... & that
at your advanced age.... AHAHAHAHA... premature senility?
Thanks for the laughs though, Josh. Why are you hiding?
ahahahaha.... ahaha...@quick.net
Here, old buddy, for your benefit, is again what has cranked you
so grievously.... because you know that it is the TRUTH...
<hahah...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128476659....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> nothing of any consequence (like pinko Vendickarse DickArian)
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA.... ahahaha.... if you need to plagiarize my handle
then at least do it properly... NOT like the inept little green idiot
that you are... ahahaha...AHAHA... Thanks for the laughs though...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Here, for you benefit, is the post again that drove you
over the edge, you wilting blossom of environmentalism:
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
David G. Naugler
hanson wrote:
> <hahah...@sbcglobal.net> aka Josh in disguise wrote in
> news:1128528022.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You Brown Turds, .....
> >
> AHAHA.... ahahaha... that's your give away, Josh baby....
> Well, at least you've still got a hard-on... of sorts... AHAHAHA...
> ahahahaha... You and you alone used that term, copiously, a
> while back when the term "Green turd" cranked you to no end...
> ahahaha... So, you have joined the pinko green shits now with
> its hordes of little green idiots, you being one of them... & that
> at your advanced age.... AHAHAHAHA... premature senility?
> Thanks for the laughs though, Josh. Why are you hiding?
> ahahahaha.... ahaha...@quick.net
Ahahahaha Caa-Caa Toilet Mouth, poopy-pooh, fecal reference. You Brown
hanson
"David G. Naugler" <david.g...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128533540.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here, old buddy, for your benefit, is again what has cranked you
so grievously.... because you know that it is the TRUTH...
<hahah...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128476659....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> nothing of any consequence (like pinko Vendickarse DickArian)
>
GayLopez69
Turds, poopy poo on George Bush and Caa-caa on everybody who is
conservative and kills mother nature with rusty knives.
Ahahahaha giggle chuckle giggle, snort hysterical insane asylem
laughter uncontrollably hahahaha hahahahahaha fecal analogy turds poop
caa-caa full diaper loads, CaCaCaCaCa.
More full diaper loads of fecal similes Ahahahahaha. Smelly poopy-poop
turds.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=turd
turd
n. Vulgar
1. A piece of excrement.
2. Slang. A contemptible person.
[Middle English, from Old English tord. See der- in Indo-European
Roots.]
turd
n : obscene terms for feces [syn: crap, dirt, shit, shite, poop]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feces
fe·ces
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Waste matter eliminated from the bowels; excrement.
fe·ces
pl.n.
The matter that is discharged from the bowel during defecation;
excrement. Also called stercus.
Main Entry: fe·ces
Variant: or chiefly British fae·ces
Function: noun plural
: bodily waste discharged through the anus : EXCREMENT
feces
n : solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels [syn: fecal
matter, faecal matter, faeces, BM, stool, ordure, dejection]
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=shit
Main Entry: debris
Definition: litter
Synonyms: bits, crap, detritus, dregs, dross, fragments, garbage,
junk, offal, pieces, refuse, remains, rubbish, rubble, ruins, shit,
trash, waste, wreck, wreckage
Main Entry: eat crow
Definition: humble oneself
Synonyms: eat dirt, eat humble pie, eat one's words, eat shit,
swallow one's pride, tuck one's tail
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwmed&q=excrement
Main Entry: ex·cre·ment
: waste matter discharged from the body; especially : waste (as feces)
discharged from the alimentary canal -ex·cre·men·tal
/"ek-skr&-'ment-&l/ adjective -ex·cre·men·ti·tious
/-"men-'tish-&s/ adjective
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=poop
poop4 Audio pronunciation of "poop" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pp)
n. Slang
A person regarded as very disagreeable. [Perhaps short for
nincompoop.]
poop5 Audio pronunciation of "poop" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pp)
Slang
n.
Excrement.
intr.v. pooped, poop·ing, poops
To defecate. [Possibly from obsolete poop, to break wind, from
Middle English poupen, to blow a horn, toot, of imitative origin.]
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=excrement
Main Entry: dirt
Definition: grime
Synonyms: excrement, feculence, filth, filthiness, gook, gunk,
impurity, mire, muck, mud, mung, prut, rottenness, scuzz, sleaze,
slime, smudge, smut, stain, tarnish
Main Entry: filth
Definition: dirt
Synonyms: carrion, contamination, corruption, crud, defilement,
dregs, dung, excrement, feces, feculence, filthiness, foul matter,
foulness, garbage, grime, impurity, mire, muck, mud, nastiness, ordure,
pollution, putrefaction, putrescence, putridity, refuse, rottenness,
scuzz, sediment, sewage, silt, sleaze, slime, slop, sludge, slush,
smut, trash, uncleanness
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=crap
Main Entry: absurdity
Definition: ridiculousness
Synonyms: applesauce, bull, crap, craziness, farce, flapdoodle,
folly, foolishness, hot air, idiocy, illogicality, illogicalness,
improbability, inanity, incongruity, insanity, irrationality, jazz,
jive, ludicrousness, ridiculousness, senselessness, silliness,
stupidity, unreasonableness
Main Entry: bull
Definition: nonsense
Synonyms: balderdash, baloney, bilge, bunkum, claptrap, crap,
hogwash, rubbish, trash
Antonyms: fact, truth
Main Entry: debris
Definition: litter
Synonyms: bits, crap, detritus, dregs, dross, fragments, garbage,
junk, offal, pieces, refuse, remains, rubbish, rubble, ruins, shit,
trash, waste, wreck, wreckage
Main Entry: distortion
Definition: falsification
Synonyms: baloney, bend, bias, buckle, coloring, contortion, crap,
crock, crookedness, deformity, exaggeration, intorsion, jazz, jive,
lie, line, malconformation, malformation, misinterpretation,
misrepresentation, misshape, misstatement, misuse, mutilation,
perversion, slant, smoke, story, tall story, torture, twist,
twistedness, warp
Antonyms: accuracy, truth, verity
Main Entry: exaggeration
Definition: overstatement
Synonyms: aggrandizement, amplification, baloney, boasting, BS,
caricature, cheese, coloring, crap, crock, elaboration, embroidery,
emphasis, enlargement, exaltation, excess, extravagance, fabrication,
falsehood, fancy, fantasy, fish story, gas, hogwash, hyperbole,
inflation, jazz, line, magnification, misjudgment, misrepresentation,
overemphasis, overestimation, pretension, pretentiousness, rant,
romance, stretch, stretching, tall story, untruth, whopper, yarn
Antonyms: minimizing, understatement
Main Entry: fabrication
Definition: lie
Synonyms: artifact, bull, concoction, crap, deceit, fable, fairy
story, fake, falsehood, fib, fiction, figment, forgery, hogwash,
invention, jazz, jive, lie, line, myth, opus, smoke, untruth, work,
yarn
Antonyms: fact, truth
Main Entry: fiction
Definition: story
Synonyms: anecdote, banana oil, book, BS, cliff-hanger, clothesline,
cock-and-bull story, concoction, crap, crock, drama, fable,
fabrication, falsehood, fancy, fantasy, fib, fish story, hooey,
imagination, improvisation, invention, jazz, legend, lie,
misrepresentation, myth, narrative, novel, potboiler, prevarication,
romance, smoke, story, storytelling, tale, tall story, terminological
inexactitude, untruth, whopper, yarn
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shite
shite
n : obscene terms for feces [syn: crap, dirt, shit, poop, turd]
hanson
a fanatical pinko greenie is really into shit, big time.... AHAHAHA
him of course representing the LEFT radical environmental movement
in its aims and philosophy as he so succinctly wrote in his message
news:1128537779.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GayLopez69
raylopez99
You admit the models are not correct ("models could as easily be overly
optimistic as
overly pessimistic")
In view of this, it makes sense to "wait and see", don't you agree?
In short, we should be thinking of ways to remove CO2 or methane from
the atmosphere, in anticipation of runaway global warming (which has
not happened).
Note that according to Wikipedia "Methane hydrate is 8-10 times more
effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming." and "sudden
release of methane clathrate has been hypothesized as a cause of past
and maybe impending climate changes, because methane is a greenhouse
gas. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic
extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum."
There's always something to worry about, but stopping humanity in its
tracks on an unproven computer simulation is not an option.
RL
GayLopez69
raylopez99 wrote:
> MT--
>
> You admit the models are not correct ("models could as easily be overly
> optimistic as
> overly pessimistic")
>
> In view of this, it makes sense to "wait and see", don't you agree?
When the FIRE ALARM rings it is not good sense to "wait and see". One
evacuates while one still can before the exit strategies are blocked by
flames and lung-broiling hot asphexiating gases.
The GLOBAL WARMING ALARM is clanging without relief. Pay attention.
Move in the direction to safety or be like the non-evauees in New
Orleans who "waited to see".
> In short, we should be thinking of ways to remove CO2 or methane from
> the atmosphere, in anticipation of runaway global warming (which has
> not happened).
You can do that immediately AFTER behavior changes required by the
Clanging GLOBAL WARMING ALARM. Nobody will stop you, and many will help
you. This is not the time to indulge in drug-induced fantasies that you
have colgate's invisible protective shield around you because you brush
with their paste.
> There's always something to worry about, but stopping humanity in its
> tracks on an unproven computer simulation is not an option.
You are the only chicken little who thinks that there is a danger if
monopolists no longer have a monopoly on fuels and power. Most others
realize the value of investments people could make if they didn't pay
extortionate monopolist fuel and power prices.
hanson
news:1128539990.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Cranked you-hohohoooo didn't I hahahanson? Really cranked you.
>
AHAHAHA... ahahaha... really?... it looks much more like you
went onto an epic green search, on a self-realization discovery to
announce to the world who/m and what you are. Congratulations:
YOU are a splendid example portraying the pinko-green Left,
helping their silly causes in your special ways.... ahahahaha.....
Keep up the good work.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... hahahaha...
>
["Gay-green shit", the coprophiliac and anilinguist, moans: ]
.... ahahaha... You didn't do a very good job "Gay-green shit". So,
here, again, for your benefit, is the venerable post that cranked you
so hard and is cranking you still, ahahahaha... no matter how badly
and desperately you try to switch the situation around.... ahahaha...
YOU SIMPLY MUST TRY HARDER... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA...:
even it drives you over the edge again, you wilting blossom of
hahaha (uncontrollable cackle) Hanson
agglomeration, only corresponds with messages with feces allogories.
hanson
himself again in message
news:1128554798.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
with what appeard to him as the Self-obscessed, hahah hanson, the deranged
brown fecal mass agglomeration, only corresponds with messages with
feces allogories.
>
Awe... awe... did I crank you"? I certainly did not mean to... ahaha.
See, you are simply not very good at imitating me, han...@quick.net.
Like James posted, your dilettante attempts of criticism are coming
across like the sincerest form of flattery, in a Freudian fashion of course.
You must try much harder. Give it another try... ahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
Coby Beck
news:DNE0f.1289$yS6.720@clgrps12...
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128461499....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> CB--it's not inconsistent or prejudice. I defy you to name one
>> physical condition here on earth that is feed forward ('run-away').
>
> Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
> Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
> Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
> Forest fires.
I answered your challenge. Why do you ignore it?
Gee, one might get the impression you're not here to learn.
raylopez99
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> > Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
This I assume you're referring to the "manmade soot on arctic ice
causes increased solar absorption and thereby melts the ice" argument.
If that's what you are referring to, I argue this is just a theory, and
it remains to be seen how much melting will take place before the ice
stabilizes. An analogy: a black roof will make your house hotter in
the summertime, but it will not cause it to melt completely. Likewise,
if the arctic ice pack is big enough, any increased solar absorption
from the soot will not cause the _entire_ ice pack to melt, just
portions of it (unless of course the soot continues to increase,
blanketing the arctic in an inch of soot, causing an insulator effect,
etc, or something ridiculous of that nature). You would have to do a
heat transfer analysis to be certain, but my gut tells me it's nothing
to worry about.
> > Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
Good argument--the Oklahoma dust bowl (caused by excessive dryness and
certain American farm techniques of plowing) comes to mind. I think
these effects are local, since vegitation is local. Another analogy is
the spread of sand dunes in the Sahara--eventually taking over all the
Sahara (caused by goat dissecation, as Owl would agree)--but it did not
take over all the world. Local versus Global.
> > Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
I don't buy this theory, but I acknowledge it might be true. Same for
the methane 'hydrates' at the botton of the ocean (if they release
their methane we are doomed--as methane is 8x to 10x more potent than
CO2 as a greenhouse gas)
> > Forest fires.
Like vegatation--local not global--since they peter out.
>
> I answered your challenge. Why do you ignore it?
>
> Gee, one might get the impression you're not here to learn.
>
Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things. Like today from MT about methane
hydrades. Fascinating--I recall in the 1970s they were talking about
farming them for fuel.
RL
Coby Beck
> Below are my answers.
>
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>
>> > Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
>
> This I assume you're referring to the "manmade soot on arctic ice
> causes increased solar absorption and thereby melts the ice" argument.
> If that's what you are referring to, I argue this is just a theory, and
> it remains to be seen how much melting will take place before the ice
> stabilizes. An analogy: a black roof will make your house hotter in
> the summertime, but it will not cause it to melt completely. Likewise,
ROTFL!! Thanks for that, you just improved your entertainment value...no,
my house will not melt completely, you are right...But what I meant was the
ice melts and the exposed ground has much higher albedo which warms and
causes yet more ice to melt etc.
> heat transfer analysis to be certain, but my gut tells me it's nothing
> to worry about.
Yes, and we all know how wise it is to trust your gut...
>> > Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
>
> Good argument--the Oklahoma dust bowl (caused by excessive dryness and
> certain American farm techniques of plowing) comes to mind. I think
> these effects are local, since vegitation is local. Another analogy is
> the spread of sand dunes in the Sahara--eventually taking over all the
> Sahara (caused by goat dissecation, as Owl would agree)--but it did not
> take over all the world. Local versus Global.
>
>> > Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
>
> I don't buy this theory, but I acknowledge it might be true. Same for
> the methane 'hydrates' at the botton of the ocean (if they release
> their methane we are doomed--as methane is 8x to 10x more potent than
> CO2 as a greenhouse gas)
>
>> > Forest fires.
>
> Like vegatation--local not global--since they peter out.
>
>>
>> I answered your challenge. Why do you ignore it?
>>
>> Gee, one might get the impression you're not here to learn.
>>
>
> Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
> but I do learn a few things. Like today from MT about methane
> hydrades. Fascinating--I recall in the 1970s they were talking about
> farming them for fuel.
Yes, you are a troll. But unlike most you mock with semi-plausible
mumbo-jumbo a serious issue with substantial human costs and you aid the
oily propaganda machines.
raylopez99
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128578335.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Below are my answers.
> >
> > Coby Beck wrote:
> >> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
> >
> > This I assume you're referring to the "manmade soot on arctic ice
> > causes increased solar absorption and thereby melts the ice" argument.
> > If that's what you are referring to, I argue this is just a theory, and
> > it remains to be seen how much melting will take place before the ice
> > stabilizes. An analogy: a black roof will make your house hotter in
> > the summertime, but it will not cause it to melt completely. Likewise,
>
> ROTFL!! Thanks for that, you just improved your entertainment value...no,
> my house will not melt completely, you are right...But what I meant was the
> ice melts and the exposed ground has much higher albedo which warms and
> causes yet more ice to melt etc.
I think I addressed this issue. How can albedo increase continuously?
That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
>
> > heat transfer analysis to be certain, but my gut tells me it's nothing
> > to worry about.
>
> Yes, and we all know how wise it is to trust your gut...
Or we can trust your gut?
>
> >> > Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
> >
> > Good argument--the Oklahoma dust bowl (caused by excessive dryness and
> > certain American farm techniques of plowing) comes to mind. I think
> > these effects are local, since vegitation is local. Another analogy is
> > the spread of sand dunes in the Sahara--eventually taking over all the
> > Sahara (caused by goat dissecation, as Owl would agree)--but it did not
> > take over all the world. Local versus Global.
> >
> >> > Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
> >
> > I don't buy this theory, but I acknowledge it might be true. Same for
> > the methane 'hydrates' at the botton of the ocean (if they release
> > their methane we are doomed--as methane is 8x to 10x more potent than
> > CO2 as a greenhouse gas)
> >
> >> > Forest fires.
> >
> > Like vegatation--local not global--since they peter out.
> >
> >>
> >> I answered your challenge. Why do you ignore it?
> >>
> >> Gee, one might get the impression you're not here to learn.
> >>
> >
> > Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
> > but I do learn a few things. Like today from MT about methane
> > hydrades. Fascinating--I recall in the 1970s they were talking about
> > farming them for fuel.
>
> Yes, you are a troll. But unlike most you mock with semi-plausible
> mumbo-jumbo a serious issue with substantial human costs and you aid the
> oily propaganda machines.
>
>\
I see you conceed my other points. Thank you.
"oily propaganda machines" - ah, youth! to quote Joseph Conrad. Such
naivete, it's refreshing...if you were a cute girl, like our marine
biologist. Unfortunately you are probably some seedy pervert, up all
hours of the night, posting here 24/7 like Rodger.
Ray Lopez
(c) 2005 all worldwide rights reserved
David G. Naugler
raylopez99 wrote:
> Coby Beck wrote:
> > "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1128578335.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Below are my answers.
> > >
> > > Coby Beck wrote:
> > >> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> > Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
> > >
> > > This I assume you're referring to the "manmade soot on arctic ice
> > > causes increased solar absorption and thereby melts the ice" argument.
> > > If that's what you are referring to, I argue this is just a theory, and
> > > it remains to be seen how much melting will take place before the ice
> > > stabilizes. An analogy: a black roof will make your house hotter in
> > > the summertime, but it will not cause it to melt completely. Likewise,
> >
> > ROTFL!! Thanks for that, you just improved your entertainment value...no,
> > my house will not melt completely, you are right...But what I meant was the
> > ice melts and the exposed ground has much higher albedo which warms and
> > causes yet more ice to melt etc.
>
> I think I addressed this issue. How can albedo increase continuously?
> That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
> temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
Human activities produce particulates. Snow has one of the highest
albedo values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Global Warming itself increases the particulates in the atmosphere,
which settle constantly. White snow in cities is black snow within a
short period of time. Particulates reflect less EM than snow and ice.
The energy absorption is increased. If the particulates melt into the
surface, they are replaced by new dandruff falling continually.
In addition to Global Warming increasing the particulates in the
atmosphere, it also contributes to energy transference. Warmer
atmosphere will transfer heat directly to molecules differentially. Ice
will absorb energy without warming up to the phase-change amount which
melts the ice. Particulates will warm without the delay. Thus there are
two mechanisms whereby Global Warming contributes to changes in the
heat balance of the system.
A third factor of concern or interest is the production of the
particulates themselves, which have both warming and cooling
properties. It is by no means simple and straightforward.
> > > heat transfer analysis to be certain, but my gut tells me it's nothing
> > > to worry about.
> >
> > Yes, and we all know how wise it is to trust your gut...
>
> Or we can trust your gut?
Humans were limited to five senses, more or less, for most of
evolutionary time. Lately, in the past few centuries we have developed
prosthetic devoices to amplify and suppliment out natural limits. These
instruments and machines have provided many benefits and a few
drawbacks. WE now fly drone airplanes from thousands of miles away
through instrument controls. Trusting instruments is not "natural" and
for some it is harder than for others. Still, the instruments are
verified to high degrees of integrity and trustworthyness. One need not
"trust their gut".
> > >> > Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
> > >
> > > Good argument--the Oklahoma dust bowl (caused by excessive dryness and
> > > certain American farm techniques of plowing) comes to mind. I think
> > > these effects are local, since vegitation is local. Another analogy is
> > > the spread of sand dunes in the Sahara--eventually taking over all the
> > > Sahara (caused by goat dissecation, as Owl would agree)--but it did not
> > > take over all the world. Local versus Global.
The dust situation is one where it creates particulates which have both
cooling and heating properties sensitive to circumstances. Land use
disturbances have many complications, and ought not be treated
superficially. The combination of environmental disturbances have
changed the continental humidity factors to a point that drying of
continental interiors is an observable trend, which has dire
consequences of its own. It is not all Global Warming related, but
heatwaves which stress vegetation too greatly leads to more vegetative
changes. There are serious trends requiring remediation. Corrective
factors are being put into place, but this is not the time or the forum
to discuss those.
> > >> > Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
> > >
> > > I don't buy this theory, but I acknowledge it might be true. Same for
> > > the methane 'hydrates' at the botton of the ocean (if they release
> > > their methane we are doomed--as methane is 8x to 10x more potent than
> > > CO2 as a greenhouse gas)
This is so far beyond human remediation that there is no point
discussing it. If it is not headed off early, life on earth is over.
> > >> > Forest fires.
> > >
> > > Like vegatation--local not global--since they peter out.
Forest fires in 1998 in Indonesia put 40% as much CO2 into the air as
all other human sources normally do. Mature trees have deep roots. They
have complex interactions with the soil life, and 40% of all primary
productivity (photosynthesis work done) is deposited underground where
it descends rather than ascends. CO2 dissolves readily into water, and
the product is carbonic acid. As this enters the subterranean water
tables it can contribute to formation of beautiful stalagtites and
stalagmites in caves.
Mature trees therefore are part of the strategy of sequestering large
amounts of CO2, both permanently underground, where the CO2 will react
with calcium to make limestones, and temporarily aboveground as tree
wood which sequesters CO2 for centuries or more in some long-lived
specied.
With the advent of carbon-fiber composite materials, wood is
over-priced as a building material, and obsolete. The highest and best
use of wood is forest wildlife habitat. Some fire suppression is
required.
The Sixth Extinction is a problem of equal or greater magnitude as
Global Warming, and both problems have the same solution: give up the
failed 20th century lifestyle and move up to a higher standard of
living with less work and more luxuries by adopting the 21st century
lifestyle.
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1128578335.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Below are my answers.
>> >
>> > Coby Beck wrote:
>> >> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > Melting of polar ice and the resulting abedo increase feedback.
>> >
>> > This I assume you're referring to the "manmade soot on arctic ice
>> > causes increased solar absorption and thereby melts the ice" argument.
>> > If that's what you are referring to, I argue this is just a theory, and
>> > it remains to be seen how much melting will take place before the ice
>> > stabilizes. An analogy: a black roof will make your house hotter in
>> > the summertime, but it will not cause it to melt completely. Likewise,
>>
>> ROTFL!! Thanks for that, you just improved your entertainment
>> value...no,
>> my house will not melt completely, you are right...But what I meant was
>> the
>> ice melts and the exposed ground has much higher albedo which warms and
>> causes yet more ice to melt etc.
>
> I think I addressed this issue.
Well, we could always compare what you think you said with what you actually
did say quoted just above.
> How can albedo increase continuously?
> That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
> temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
A higher temperature means even more ice melting. A new equilibrium is not
reached until all the ice is gone. That is a perfectly reasonable example
of what you asked for, a "tipping point" or feed forward effect.
>> > heat transfer analysis to be certain, but my gut tells me it's nothing
>> > to worry about.
>>
>> Yes, and we all know how wise it is to trust your gut...
>
> Or we can trust your gut?
Well this is the thing about being rational and using science on a
scientific question, we don't need to trust anyone's gut. Measure. Deduce.
Describe.
>> >> > Vegatation losses and soil erosion.
>> >
>> > Good argument--the Oklahoma dust bowl (caused by excessive dryness and
>> > certain American farm techniques of plowing) comes to mind. I think
>> > these effects are local, since vegitation is local. Another analogy is
>> > the spread of sand dunes in the Sahara--eventually taking over all the
>> > Sahara (caused by goat dissecation, as Owl would agree)--but it did not
>> > take over all the world. Local versus Global.
>> >
>> >> > Permafrost thaw and methane releases.
>> >
>> > I don't buy this theory, but I acknowledge it might be true. Same for
>> > the methane 'hydrates' at the botton of the ocean (if they release
>> > their methane we are doomed--as methane is 8x to 10x more potent than
>> > CO2 as a greenhouse gas)
>> >
>> >> > Forest fires.
>> >
>> > Like vegatation--local not global--since they peter out.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I answered your challenge. Why do you ignore it?
>> >>
>> >> Gee, one might get the impression you're not here to learn.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
>> > but I do learn a few things. Like today from MT about methane
>> > hydrades. Fascinating--I recall in the 1970s they were talking about
>> > farming them for fuel.
>>
>> Yes, you are a troll. But unlike most you mock with semi-plausible
>> mumbo-jumbo a serious issue with substantial human costs and you aid the
>> oily propaganda machines.
>>
>>\
>
> I see you conceed my other points. Thank you.
As your other points were agreeing with me, yes, I guess in that sense I
concede.
> "oily propaganda machines" - ah, youth! to quote Joseph Conrad. Such
> naivete, it's refreshing...if you were a cute girl, like our marine
> biologist. Unfortunately you are probably some seedy pervert, up all
> hours of the night, posting here 24/7 like Rodger.
From Google http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/about/ :
This month's top posters
106 raylope...@yahoo.com
68 clhupr...@aol.com
66 rcopp...@adnc.com
65 c...@mercury.bc.ca
62 lpar...@emory.edu
60 david.g.naug...@sbcglobal.net
42 bush_auschw...@sbcglobal.net
39 o...@moonlite.com
39 gaylope...@sbcglobal.net
37 dboh...@mindspring.com
From Google http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/about/ :
This month's top posters
97 raylope...@yahoo.com
68 clhupr...@aol.com
58 rcopp...@adnc.com
51 c...@mercury.bc.ca
45 o...@moonlite.com
45 lpar...@emory.edu
43 david.g.naug...@sbcglobal.net
34 bush_auschw...@sbcglobal.net
32 stuart.g...@nospam.comcast.net
27 gaylope...@sbcglobal.net
You get seedy pervert of the month award (so far)!
raylopez99
>
> > How can albedo increase continuously?
> > That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
> > temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
>
> A higher temperature means even more ice melting. A new equilibrium is not
> reached until all the ice is gone. That is a perfectly reasonable example
> of what you asked for, a "tipping point" or feed forward effect.
>
No, you cannot assume this is true without modeling it. We agree to
disagree.
No. You have to combine all "@sbcglobal.net" posts into one, as they
are the same person. You see then that David wins the seedy pervert
award. You're not far behind, Behind.
RL
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>>
>> > How can albedo increase continuously?
>> > That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
>> > temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
>>
>> A higher temperature means even more ice melting. A new equilibrium is
>> not
>> reached until all the ice is gone. That is a perfectly reasonable
>> example
>> of what you asked for, a "tipping point" or feed forward effect.
>>
>
> No, you cannot assume this is true without modeling it. We agree to
> disagree.
It's been modeled. We agree you are disagreeable.
> No. You have to combine all "@sbcglobal.net" posts into one, as they
> are the same person. You see then that David wins the seedy pervert
> award. You're not far behind, Behind.
You really can't get anything right, can you? Your claim was about Rodger
and me.
Ray Loopey:
>> > Unfortunately you are probably some seedy pervert, up all
>> > hours of the night, posting here 24/7 like Rodger.
You lose again.
David G. Naugler
raylopez99 wrote:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> >
> > > How can albedo increase continuously?
> > > That is the issue. It cannot. It increases, causing an increase in
> > > temperature, which melts some ice, and creates a new equilibrium.
> >
> > A higher temperature means even more ice melting. A new equilibrium is not
> > reached until all the ice is gone. That is a perfectly reasonable example
> > of what you asked for, a "tipping point" or feed forward effect.
> >
>
> No, you cannot assume this is true without modeling it. We agree to
> disagree.
You can model it in a friggin' cup of ice water, dumbazz. In less than
an hour. Then everybody can agree to be on the same page about facts of
physics instead of retard dropouts that flunked physics demanding that
their opinion be treated as worth a damn.
Actually, all other posts are from me. I write all of them to fool you
that there is a big crowd of people out here, when there is only you
and me. I'm just waiting to see how long it takes you to figure this
out, even when I give you a big clue like the previous sentence, but
with your IQ i might have a long wait.