The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming
Eric Swanson
campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
It's a lot worse than I thought...
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
tom-b...@ntlworld.com
Climate change may be occurring and it manifestly not caused by
the rise in CO2.
The clique of IPCC scientists are wrong.
I can prove it.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> It's a lot worse than I thought...
Yes, it was so covert that rolling stone magazine manages to expose
it.
If there is any covert op here, it's that they're trying to trick you
into believing that they oppose carbon trading schemes so that
idealists and romantics will naturally support carbon trading schemes.
In reality, ALL the banker and oil barons want these idiotic schemes
as the first step towards global taxation (which leads to global
government).
Kurt Lochner
>
> On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >
> > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> >
> > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> >
> > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
effect on the troposphere?
--Not like you're a physical chemist..
Tom Gardner
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46868CAB...@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
And, do you not see the potential for a huge power and money grab?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >
> >tom-b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Eric Swanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> >> > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> >> > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> >> >
> >> > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> >>
> >>Climate change may be occurring[..]
> >
> > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > effect on the troposphere?
> >
> > --Not like you're a physical chemist..
>
> And, do you not see the potential for a huge power and money grab?
There's always that going on, though I attribute it to stupidity..
--Rather than malice aforethought..
Paul Cardinale
Note:
1. The IPCC report was written by UN beaureaucrats, not scientists.
2. The 2600 contributors weren't all scientists
3. Not all of the 2600 contributors agreed with the conclussions of
the report.
4. The number who disagreed will not be disclosed by the UN.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Cardinale
The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny to be
detected. If you look at actual measured data instead of the outputs
of bogus computer models, you can see that CO2 levels don't influence
global temperature.
Paul Cardinale
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> >tom-b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > > >
> > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> > >
> > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
> >
> > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > effect on the troposphere?
>
>The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
--Plus you continue to avoid the obvious about CO2 concentrations..
Kurt Lochner
> > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > >
> > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> >
> >the rise in CO2. The clique of IPCC scientists are wrong.
>
>Note:
>1. The IPCC report was written by UN beaureaucrats, not scientists.
Bullshit..
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
>2. The 2600 contributors weren't all scientists
So? Most of them are more learned than yourself..
What was your degree work in?
>3. Not all of the 2600 contributors agreed with the conclussions[..]
So? And your point is?
>4. The number who disagreed will not be disclosed by the UN.
*>LOL!<* And you point was?
--Or, were you just asserting that which you cannot prove?
Whata Fool
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
>campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
>of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
>It's a lot worse than I thought...
People who believe everything they read are far more stupid
than I ever thought possible.
It would be nice to have somebody reassure us that the sky is
not falling.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> Climate change may be occurring and it manifestly not caused by
> the rise in CO2.
> The clique of IPCC scientists are wrong.
> I can prove it.
I would like to see your proof, or just the outline if the full thing
is too much trouble.
Bleepy
Sam Wormley
>
> Climate change may be occurring and it manifestly not caused by
> the rise in CO2. The clique of IPCC scientists are wrong. I can prove it.
>
We are waiting for your scientific publications.
mrbawana2u
> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
Now there's a scientific journal...
> It's a lot worse than I thought...
Yeah...well...you're a fucking idiot, swanturd.
talk-...@talk-n-dog.com
wrote:
secret??????????
The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
Eric Swanson
>
>On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
>wrote:
>> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
>> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>>
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
>> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>>
>> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>secret??????????
The extent of the campaign was much greater than I had heard previously.
>The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
>future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
>the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
The models experiments don't "predict" weather, they forecast changes
in climate. Climate is the statistics of weather and the statistics
don't change very much over time. And, the weather models are now
rather good at forecasting weather 3-4 days into the future. That
doesn't say all such forecasts are 100% accurate, but they getting
rather good at it.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
news:f69nth$ssm$1...@news04.infoave.net...
> In article <1183331833....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> talk-...@TALK-N-dog.com says...
>>
>>On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
>>wrote:
>>> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
>>> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>>>
>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
>>> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>>>
>>> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
>>secret??????????
>
> The extent of the campaign was much greater than I had heard previously.
>
>>The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
>>future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
>>the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> The models experiments don't "predict" weather, they forecast changes
> in climate.
Same data. Same algorithms.
> Climate is the statistics of weather and the statistics
> don't change very much over time.
This is one of the stupidest statements made in this NG in a long time.
> And, the weather models are now
> rather good at forecasting weather 3-4 days into the future. That
> doesn't say all such forecasts are 100% accurate, but they getting
> rather good at it.
Nonsense. There's no difference between weather and climate when it comes
to computer models.
lora...@cs.com
> "Eric Swanson" <swan...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f69nth$ssm$1...@news04.infoave.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1183331833.473001.68...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com says...
>
> >>On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
> >>wrote:
> >>> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> >>> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> >>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> >>> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> >>> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> >>secret??????????
>
> > The extent of the campaign was much greater than I had heard previously.
>
> >>The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
> >>future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
> >>the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> > The models experiments don't "predict" weather, they forecast changes
> > in climate.
>
> Same data. Same algorithms.
>
> > Climate is the statistics of weather and the statistics
> > don't change very much over time.
>
> This is one of the stupidest statements made in this NG in a long time.
>
> > And, the weather models are now
> > rather good at forecasting weather 3-4 days into the future. That
> > doesn't say all such forecasts are 100% accurate, but they getting
> > rather good at it.
>
> Nonsense. There's no difference between weather and climate when it comes
> to computer models.
Of course there is dummy..
Else you would be slopping around in the same steaming jungles as
Diplodicus did.
Eric Chomko
The evidence for global warming is not in the weather but in looking
at sea ice and glaciers. Clearly glaciers are receding and sea ice is
melting.
Eric
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Idiot. Glaciers have been receding and advancing for millions of
year. Whether or not a glacier is presently advancing or receding has
more to do with weather happening over thousand of years than it does
recent weather. It's very easy to cherry pick data that will create
the impression that they are retreating or advancing.
john fernbach
> On Jul 1, 12:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> Yes, it was so covert that rolling stone magazine manages to expose
> it.
>
> If there is any covert op here, it's that they're trying to trick you
> into believing that they oppose carbon trading schemes so that
> idealists and romantics will naturally support carbon trading schemes.
> In reality, ALL the banker and oil barons want these idiotic schemes
> as the first step towards global taxation (which leads to global
> government).
>
One of the main point of the Kyoto TREATY was to get the different
governments of the world to do it by TREATY.
And as many of the "banker and oil barons" -- well, more of the
bankers so far, than the oil barons -- have recognized, one way to
implement reductions in CO2 emissions is through ADVANCES IN
CAPITALIST
TECHNOLOGY.
In fact, there are private, capitalistically organized corporations,
big and small, that hope to make big profits tackling this problem.
I'm an American leftist, pretty far on the left actually, but I used
to be an American libertarian and rightwinger. And I'm really tired
of the American Far Right - the John Birch Society and all of the
groups that have spun off from it -- describing every damned political
and economic development that occurs as a step towards the dreaded
"ONE WORLD SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT."
This common Righwing fear probably made sense back in the days of Joe
Stalin, when there were powerful Communist Parties around the world,
each one with its support group of "fellow travelers," and virtually
all of these national parties supported the aims of Russian Communism.
Those were scary times - no arguing. But today?
For 30 - 40 years now, it's been obvious that even the Communist
Parties of the world, which in theory were committed to achieving a
one-world socialist government, have been unwilling or unable to
cooperate even in unifying what used to be the old "socialist
block."
We've seen the Chinese Communists invade the Vietnamese Communists,
who at the time were engaged in invading and conquering the Cambodian
Communists. We've seen the old Soviet Union collapse and the various
Eastern European satellite governments -- the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles,
East Germans, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Slovenians, etc. --
breaking away from Russian domination to make nice with the West.
We've seen the Communist Party of China, which certainly is
dictatorial and repressive enough, turning to basically capitalist
enterprise to promote the growth of the Chinese economy, and over the
fast couple of years we've even seen the emergence of a "socialist"
Chinese stock market.
So where is the damned threat of "one world socialist government"
these days -- except in the fantasy lives of the Far Right? If the
Chinese and the Russians don't get along, and the Vietnamese don't get
along with either, and some of the old Communist nations of Eastern
Europe are now capitalist nations of Eastern Europe who are supporting
the US occupation of Iraq - WHERE IS THE BEEF?
Answer: there IS no beef, or damned little.
But fearful American businessmen and upper-class invidividuals, who
probably do have genuine fears of losing money and independence due to
"liberal" regulation of the economy, persist in painting every burp
and fart of Washington politicians as the prelude to ONE WORLD
SOCIALIST TYRANNY.
Which provides them with a great excuse, of course, for trying to
weaken labor laws, break American labor unions, privatize the US
social security system, and gut American environmental regulation.
And if it weren't the prospect of CO2 regulations that was thought to
be the harbinger of one-world socialism, it would be something else.
FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR -- that's the message from the political
doomsayers of the Far Right, who are the first to accuse Al Gore and
the mainstream climate researchers of promoting a "sky is falling"
attitude towards the prospects of climate change.
"YOUR fears" -- based on scientific research that's increasingly
accepted by climate scientists around the world -- is just a
smokescreen for a ONE WORLD SOCIALIST power grab, the Far Right says,
endlessly.
"Whereas OUR fears " -- our paranoid fantasies that everything from
civil rights laws to worker's compensation laws to social security to
environmental regulations serves as a stepping stone to Stalinist
slave labor camps for all -- 'OUR fears are simple truth," and
probably endorsed in the Bible.
Stalinist tyranny is obviously worth fighting, but this ain't the way
to do it. This way is just a perpetual attack on the idea of humane &
effective government, based on the selfish class interests of a group
of rich individuals and business owners who don't want to pay for it.
Lloyd
Cuckoo, cuckoo!
Lloyd
> tom-bol...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > --
> > > Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Climate change may be occurring and it manifestly not caused by
> > the rise in CO2.
> > The clique of IPCC scientists are wrong.
>
> Note:
> 1. The IPCC report was written by UN beaureaucrats, not scientists.
You are lying.
> 2. The 2600 contributors weren't all scientists
Lie.
> 3. Not all of the 2600 contributors agreed with the conclussions of
> the report.
So? The overwhelming majority did. And I suspect more wanted
stronger conclusions than weaker ones.
> 4. The number who disagreed will not be disclosed by the UN.
>
Count the number of black helicopters overhead and divide by pi.
> Paul Cardinale
Lloyd
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > tom-bol...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
>
> > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > effect on the troposphere?
>
> The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny to be
> detected.
Flat-out lie.
>If you look at actual measured data instead of the outputs
> of bogus computer models, you can see that CO2 levels don't influence
> global temperature.
>
> Paul Cardinale
If you look at a mirror, you can see an idiot.
Lloyd
> "Eric Swanson" <swan...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f69nth$ssm$1...@news04.infoave.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <1183331833.473001.68...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com says...
>
> >>On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
> >>wrote:
> >>> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> >>> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> >>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> >>> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> >>> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> >>secret??????????
>
> > The extent of the campaign was much greater than I had heard previously.
>
> >>The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
> >>future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
> >>the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> > The models experiments don't "predict" weather, they forecast changes
> > in climate.
>
> Same data. Same algorithms.
>
> > Climate is the statistics of weather and the statistics
> > don't change very much over time.
>
> This is one of the stupidest statements made in this NG in a long time.
>
> > And, the weather models are now
> > rather good at forecasting weather 3-4 days into the future. That
> > doesn't say all such forecasts are 100% accurate, but they getting
> > rather good at it.
>
> Nonsense. There's no difference between weather and climate when it comes
> to computer models.
OK, it's just Monday and we already have a leading contender for
"idiot of the week!"
Learn to use a dictionary, Gump.
Lamont Cranston
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183401610.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You make way too much sense, so you will be instantly attacked. But,
before the righties drive you away from your computer screen, do you
like anything today at Hollywood Park?
Eric Chomko
> On Jul 2, 9:07 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:17 pm, talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > --
> > > > Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > secret??????????
>
> > > The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
> > > future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
> > > the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> > The evidence for global warming is not in the weather but in looking
> > at sea ice and glaciers. Clearly glaciers are receding and sea ice is
> > melting.
>
> > Eric
>
> Idiot. Glaciers have been receding and advancing for millions of
> year.
Not evidenced in the core samples that have been taking recently. Read
here, Clod.
> Whether or not a glacier is presently advancing or receding has
Glaciers are receding. All of them. There are none that are advancing.
There is no 'whether or not' with glaciers in this context. I repeat,
they are ALL receding.
> more to do with weather happening over thousand of years than it does
> recent weather. It's very easy to cherry pick data that will create
> the impression that they are retreating or advancing.
There is nothing that would indicate that glaciers are advancing.
Nothing. ALL the evidence indicates that glaciers are receding.
Robert Run
global warming, as if electing a President is going to solve the
problem, or simply passing new laws, or arguing with dunderheads about
the science of it.
The alleged "pro-business" right wing does nothing to encourage the
development and implementation of new energy technology, and the left
wing does not know enough about business to bring any new ideas to the
marketplace.
We will do best to leave them all behind and get busy
http://thelastgasstation.typepad.com/index/2007/06/we-live-in-a-ch.html
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Core samples don't tell you anything about glacier movement, idiot.
Core sample are primarily indicative of past atmospher, by way of air
bubbles. Get a clue.
Read
> here, Clod.
>
> > Whether or not a glacier is presently advancing or receding has
>
> Glaciers are receding. All of them.
Bull shit. Some are advancing, some receding. Look it up.
There are none that are advancing.
> There is no 'whether or not' with glaciers in this context. I repeat,
> they are ALL receding.
Your full of shit.
>
> > more to do with weather happening over thousand of years than it does
> > recent weather. It's very easy to cherry pick data that will create
> > the impression that they are retreating or advancing.
>
> There is nothing that would indicate that glaciers are advancing.
Look at the actual evidence. Avoid the cherry-picked data from AGW
fund seekers.
> Nothing. ALL the evidence indicates that glaciers are receding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Hey Bro,
We get the message. Stop the roboposting and go play somewhere else.
Eric Chomko
It isn't glacial movement that is the question, it is the glacial
disappearence that is the question.
> Core sample are primarily indicative of past atmospher, by way of air
> bubbles. Get a clue.
No, they tell you ice thickness and act as annual rings similar to
what we see with trees trunks cut down.
> Read
>
> > here, Clod.
>
> > > Whether or not a glacier is presently advancing or receding has
>
> > Glaciers are receding. All of them.
>
> Bull shit. Some are advancing, some receding. Look it up.
I have. Cite a single one that is growing (i.e. gaining rather than
losing ice).
> There are none that are advancing.
There are none that are going from a liquid to a solid state. They are
all going from a solid to liquid state. Look it up. The same is true
with sea ice.
> > There is no 'whether or not' with glaciers in this context. I repeat,
> > they are ALL receding.
>
> Your full of shit.
Prove me wrong. Point me to a glaicer that is growing rather than
shrinking.
>
>
> > > more to do with weather happening over thousand of years than it does
> > > recent weather. It's very easy to cherry pick data that will create
> > > the impression that they are retreating or advancing.
>
> > There is nothing that would indicate that glaciers are advancing.
>
> Look at the actual evidence. Avoid the cherry-picked data from AGW
> fund seekers.
I see, you are politically and economically motivated rather than
scientifically motivated. Sorry, I don't listen to politicians or
ecomonists when it comes to science.
Eric
Eric Chomko
You YOU read! Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
>
> > here, Clod.
>
> > > Whether or not a glacier is presently advancing or receding has
>
> > Glaciers are receding. All of them.
>
> Bull shit. Some are advancing, some receding. Look it up.
>
> There are none that are advancing.
>
> > There is no 'whether or not' with glaciers in this context. I repeat,
> > they are ALL receding.
>
> Your full of shit.
>
>
>
> > > more to do with weather happening over thousand of years than it does
> > > recent weather. It's very easy to cherry pick data that will create
> > > the impression that they are retreating or advancing.
>
> > There is nothing that would indicate that glaciers are advancing.
>
> Look at the actual evidence. Avoid the cherry-picked data from AGW
> fund seekers.
>
>
>
> > Nothing. ALL the evidence indicates that glaciers are receding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aloha.kakuikanu
I second this. Predicting weather is easier than predicting climate.
When modeling weather you look only few days ahead. You can ignore
myriads of factors. Changes in volcano, solar activity are irrelevant.
Deforestation, farming, and the host of other human activities is not
a factor. New technology transforming the world as we know it is
irrelevant as well. Climate computer models take into account about
500 different physical processes, many of them with arbitrary "fudge"
factors. If you are a skillful computer modeler you can "tune" these
parameters to shape any output, including silhouette of Taj Mahal.
Jonathan Kirwan
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
><snip>
>And, the weather models are now
>rather good at forecasting weather 3-4 days into the future. That
>doesn't say all such forecasts are 100% accurate, but they getting
>rather good at it.
I wanted to comment on this narrow point, mostly because the area I
live in is one of the harder areas to forecast. It was difficult to
do when I was growing up here and my sense is that things have not
improved a lot. (I've lived in the same place my entire life.)
The north-western corner of Oregon is complicated, for example, by the
Columbia gorge that intersects the Cascade range quite near Mt. Hood
which is itself 11,300' elevation and just slightly (a few miles)
south of the Columbia river. The Portland area is also about 90 miles
to the east of the Pacific ocean (far enough to allow significant
short term changes) and is protected to a degree by the coast range
(elevations are in the 4000' and higher area in several places and not
a lot below that elsewhere) to the west of it.
Just in the last month I've heard more than a few predictions as far
off as "colder and rainy" predicted for the following day (60 F
estimated) when we actually got 80 F, no rain, hardly any clouds at
all. All that being between a 6PM evening broadcast and the following
early afternoon time -- say about 20 hours of time. Being generally
ignorant of the exact modeling and data available, you'd imagine they
would not be so significantly wrong about it in such a short period of
time.
But this small area is either very hard to model dynamically or else
not important enough to garner sufficient attention to needed detail.
I've read just recently that there is a proposal to gather more
information here as there is very little upper air data available and
none at all in the gorge area. At levels above the gorge, the natural
flow would be obviously less confined, although mountains such as Mt.
Hood would substantially alter flows nearby. There is also little
information regarding mixing depths and to what extent other features
such as low-level jets affect transport and dispersion. I think these
are part of the reason why this area is remains a pain for
meteorologists.
None of this is directly about climate. Just thought I'd highlight
one area that remains trickier for meteorologists.
Jon
Peter Muehlbauer
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote
You YOU read! Here: http://klimanotizen.de/html/newsletter_4.html
Look at the graph and whine!
Rand Simberg
Muehlbauer" <spam...@frankenexpress.de> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote
>> > Core samples don't tell you anything about glacier movement, idiot.
>> > Core sample are primarily indicative of past atmospher, by way of air
>> > bubbles. Get a clue.
>> >
>> > Read
>>
>> You YOU read! Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
>
>You YOU read! Here: http://klimanotizen.de/html/newsletter_4.html
>Look at the graph and whine!
Eric, being an idiiot, is capable of little else.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Well stated. IOW, people that pretend to predict climate change
through computer models are doing just that, pretending. The whole
notion is patently absurd.
mrbawana2u
> Who needs "global government" to curb global CO2 emissions?
>
> One of the main point of the Kyoto TREATY was to get the different
> governments of the world to do it by TREATY.
Tell us about how well that worked out, ya fucking tard.
Bill Ward
Indeed. Here's a secondhand Fermi/von Neumann story:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.quotations/browse_thread/thread/ba85e620d8b9b669/84603f6183e43f1e
<begin excerpt>
Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his
career, in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had
built the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his
team of graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed
like a remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded
with Fermi's actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson's dismay, Fermi quickly
dismissed his model.
"In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the
agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He
replied, 'How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your
calculations?' I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and
said, 'Four.' He said, 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the
co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an
elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' With that, the
conversation was over."
<end>
Someone should try build a climate model that reproduces the temperature
record without taking CO2 into account. If successful, that would
eliminate climate models as evidence for AGW.
talk-...@talk-n-dog.com
> In article <1183331833.473001.68...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com says...
OK, but the CLIMATE soaked my ass at the beach, when it was supposed
to be a dry climate...
Paul Cardinale
Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > >tom-b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > effect on the troposphere?
> >
> >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
>
> I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
>
My "interpretation" is that since global temperature changes precede
the corresponding changes in CO2 level by several hundred years, that
means that the CO2 changes can't be causing the temperature changes.
Please explain the fault.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Cardinale
That is the reaction one gets from a small-minded fanatic when he's
confronted by facts contrary to his preconceived notions.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Cardinale
That would be easy because actual data shows that CO2 has no
detectable effect on temperature.
Paul Cardinale
Eric Chomko
wrote:
I used to live in Garmisch between 1960-65. The Eibsee Lake shoreline
back then never came near the hotel wall except on the far right side
when looking out at the lake. When I returned back in 1991 the
shoreline was 15-20ft. closer to the hotel and coverewhat was a beach.
The Zugspitz valley itself, which is a glacier, is retreating.
Eric
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> >Paul Cardinale wrote:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >tom-b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> > > > >
> > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
> > > >
> > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > effect on the troposphere?
> > >
> > >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
> > >to be detected. If you look at actual measured data[..]
> >
> > I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
> >
>
>My "interpretation" is that since global temperature changes precede
Like I said, your 'interpretation' is faulty, and without merit..
See the original poster's article at..
>Please explain the fault.
You're comparing global temperatures of the past to the figures
of the present and trying to pretend that the dumping of millions
of tons of CO2 and other pollutants isn't having an effect upon
the atmosphere over the past 50 years..
Granted, I don't see a catastrophic "warming", but I already
the effects on the weather systems passing over us..
--See subject header for details..
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > >Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> > > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
>
> > > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > > effect on the troposphere?
>
> > > >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
> > > >to be detected. If you look at actual measured data[..]
>
> > > I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
>
> > > --Plus you continue to avoid the obvious about CO2 concentrations..
>
> >My "interpretation" is that since global temperature changes precede
> >the corresponding changes in CO2 level by several hundred years[//]
>
> Like I said, your 'interpretation' is faulty, and without merit..
>
> See the original poster's article at..
>
>
> >Please explain the fault.
>
> You're comparing global temperatures of the past to the figures
> of the present and trying to pretend that the dumping of millions
> of tons of CO2 and other pollutants isn't having an effect upon
> the atmosphere over the past 50 years..
Tiny effect, loadturd.
Nothing to get your leftist panties in a wad about.
> Granted, I don't see a catastrophic "warming",
Two cult tard demerits for you, loadturd.
> but I already
> the effects on the weather systems passing over us..
Sure you do, loadturd.
(that's what the co2agw tards call consensus science)
Two cult-tard points.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
. .
> > If you look at a mirror, you can see an idiot.
>
>That is the reaction one gets from a small-minded fanatic when
>he's confronted by facts contrary to his preconceived notions.
That's precisely what I noticed about you..
--Emphasis on the "small-minded fanatic" too..
Peter Muehlbauer
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote
The Eibsee is less than 3 meters deep at the shore, that means a very
shoal sea, and it is an "end sea", that means it has no run-off.
So due to its slight depth, already little water can raise its shoreline
drastically.
Depends on when you were there in 1991, summer or winter, this behaviour
of the Eibsee is normal.
Paul F. Dietz
> I second this. Predicting weather is easier than predicting climate.
Just like predicting the next roll of a die is easier than predicting
the average of the next 1000 rolls of the die?
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> That would be easy because actual data shows that CO2 has no
> detectable effect on temperature.
The current climate of Earth is impossible to explain without
taking the effects of CO2 into account.
Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
But maybe you mean that climate models show that as CO2 increases,
temperature will not increase further. Oh, wait -- no climate
models (that also conform to the observational evidence) show
that, not even any from the oil or coal companies. Funny, I'd
have thought they'd have been willing to spend millions to
come up with such a model. I guess they've just be lazy.
Paul
Peter Muehlbauer
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > That would be easy because actual data shows that CO2 has no
> > detectable effect on temperature.
>
> The current climate of Earth is impossible to explain without
> taking the effects of CO2 into account.
>
> Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
> Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
That would be nice from you to explain to us now.
I'm very interested.
Paul F. Dietz
>>Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
>>Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
>
> That would be nice from you to explain to us now.
> I'm very interested.
Transport of radiation from the surface of Venus back out
into space is strongly inhibited by absorption of IR photons
in its atmosphere, overwhelmingly due to absorption by CO2
(helped by pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption features).
Without this absorption, the equilibrium temperature of
Venus's surface -- which can be calculated from first principles
-- would be much lower, even given that it is closer to
the sun than is the Earth.
This is textbook planetary science; denying it is flat-Earth
level kookiness.
The same effects exists on the Earth, although of course the absorption
is weaker here, due to the thinner atmosphere and lower concentration
of IR-active gases. The mean temperature of Earth's surface would be
much lower than is observed without the effect of the greenhouse
gases, including CO2.
Paul
BradGuth
> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Bush and most other Zionist at heart are typically anti-truth (it's
why we're still at war with Muslims), as well as being anti-physics as
to why Earth is getting itseft so extra toasty warm as of the very
last ice age this planet with moon will ever see.
Relocate that somewhat recently obtained moon of ours out to Earth's
L1 and lo and behold, we'll obtain 3.0~3.5% isolation and roughly
1/16th the amount of the moon's tidal imposed energy.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
We're going to lose a great amount of dry land with each cm rise in
ocean and subsequent tidal+storm surge, that'll magnify each cm by as
much as 10 fold.
On a global basis, a cm worth of extra ocean is potentially sharing
multi teraWatts of surface energy to deal with, as being continous for
the world and otherwise at least twice each and every day for those
locations most affected or at risk of tidal+storm surge
considerations.
-
Brad Guth
schoenf...@gmail.com
When you burn fuels, you release CO2. More simply - apply heat, get
CO2. Same goes for rocks and soil -- apply heat, get CO2.
Now
[1] Global warming is real on Earth, Mars and other planetary bodies.
[2] Atmospheric CO2 is being released as a consequence of the
additional heat.
Atmospheric CO2 is unable to CAUSE a heat imbalance for the simple
reason that:
[3] Any CO2 molecule that reflects outgoing light back to the ground
must also reflect incoming light back to the sun.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Jul 1, 7:17 pm, talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
> > wrote:
>
> > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > --
> > > Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > secret??????????
>
> > The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
> > future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
> > the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> The evidence for global warming is not in the weather but in looking
> at sea ice and glaciers. Clearly glaciers are receding and sea ice is
> melting.
Yes, and they are receding on Mars too:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> Eric
Docky Wocky
report on global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they concluded, that the
planet is heating up. Humans are directly responsible for the planetary heat
wave, and only by taking immediate action can the world avert a climate
catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging wildfires, decimated forests, dengue
fever, legions of Katrinas - unless humans act now to curb our
climate-warming pollution, warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, "we are in deep trouble."
You would think, in the wake of such stark and conclusive findings, that the
White House would at least offer some small gesture to signal its concern
about the impending crisis..."
____________________________________
Maybe they know more than they are letting on.
Maybe the "world's top climate scientists" are not exactly the world's top
climate scientists after all..
Maybe humans ain't the responsible party in global warming.
Maybe Rolling Stone is full of shit.
Maybe that big, round, hot, shiny thing up there in the sky has more to do
with global warming than the global whining boys are willing to admit.
Especially since there is money to be made from promoting global warming via
global whining.
I am still waiting for the world's top climate scientists to explain why the
polar ice cap on Mars is receding at the same time the polar ice cap on
Earth is receding?
(Sound of seal flapping flippers)
Bill Ward
Dice are random from roll to roll, not chaotic. There's no feedback, and
no nonlinear element, like the climate system, involved. Big difference.
Bill Ward
Aren't you omitting the effect of water and its latent heats? The
obvious negative feedbacks and transport mechanisms may swamp the effect
of changing CO2 and other trace gases.
Eric Chomko
I was there in the summer of 91. The water level has risen from 1965
to 1991. I have seen it with my own eyes over a period of 26 years.
Wanna bet that the shore line is higher even still from 1991 to 2007?
Eric
Eric Chomko
It is interesting that you bring up Oetzi, because it was EXACTLY at
that time I was at the Eibsee the last time. August 1991, the same
time Oetzi was found in the Italian Alps and almost to the very day!
The point is the Oetzi could never have been found during the Little
Ice Age in Europe during the middle of the last millennium due to
already being under snow and ice. Certainly all of the snow and ice
that came from that time has melted and then some to have revealed
Oetzi.
Is it natural or are humans creating or at least accelerating the
warming trend?
Eric
Eric Chomko
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:29:45 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Peter
> Muehlbauer" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de> made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
> >"Eric Chomko" <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> > Core samples don't tell you anything about glacier movement, idiot.
> >> > Core sample are primarily indicative of past atmospher, by way of air
> >> > bubbles. Get a clue.
>
> >> > Read
>
> >> You YOU read! Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
>
> >You YOU read! Here:http://klimanotizen.de/html/newsletter_4.html
> >Look at the graph and whine!
>
Go away little man...
Eric Chomko
Perhaps you can take comfort that we humans were not to blame when all
the Earth's water turns into liquid and then into gas and then
disappears altogether like what appears to have happened on Mars.
Eric
Eric Chomko
More concerned about the "who" than the "what"? The damn dinosaurs
didn't have the option. We can at least try to do something rather
than trying to figure out who is to blame.
Let me ask you this, what do you propose we do about GW regardless
whether the problem came from the sun or from humans? Surely, you
wouldn't ask who sent an asteriod at the earth if one was coming. No,
you'd try to figure out what to do about it. If we could prevent it
from strinking the earth like in the film Armageddon.
Eric
Paul Cardinale
wrote:
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > >Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> > > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
>
> > > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > > effect on the troposphere?
>
> > > >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
> > > >to be detected. If you look at actual measured data[..]
>
> > > I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
>
> > > --Plus you continue to avoid the obvious about CO2 concentrations..
>
> >My "interpretation" is that since global temperature changes precede
> >the corresponding changes in CO2 level by several hundred years[//]
>
> Like I said, your 'interpretation' is faulty, and without merit..
>
> See the original poster's article at..
>
>
> >Please explain the fault.
>
> You're comparing global temperatures of the past to the figures
> of the present and trying to pretend that the dumping of millions
> of tons of CO2 and other pollutants isn't having an effect upon
> the atmosphere over the past 50 years..
>
So you think that even though CO2 levels in the past didn't affect
global temperature, they do now.
You're an idiot.
Paul Cardinale
Kurt Lochner
> >
> > >Please explain the fault.
> >
> > You're comparing global temperatures of the past to the figures
> > of the present and trying to pretend that the dumping of millions
> > of tons of CO2 and other pollutants isn't having an effect upon
> > the atmosphere over the past 50 years..
>
>So you think that even though CO2 levels in the past
I have yet to see three cites that corroborate your claim..
And, that has no bearing on the last 150 years of an
'industrial age' producing various "greenhouse gases"
and dumping such into the lower atmosphere. Why did
you fail to take that into account?
>You're an idiot.
Nope, I'm a physicist.. What's your academic background in?
--Because I severely doubt it was in amy discipline of science..
Lloyd
Lloyd
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
>
> > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > effect on the troposphere?
>
> > >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
> > >to be detected. If you look at actual measured data[..]
>
> > I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
>
Since dogs have 5 legs...
>that
> means that the CO2 changes can't be causing the temperature changes.
> Please explain the fault.
>
Your premise is in error. Try reading the graphs right-side up.
> Paul Cardinale
Lloyd
> report on global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they concluded, that the
> planet is heating up. Humans are directly responsible for the planetary heat
> wave, and only by taking immediate action can the world avert a climate
> catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging wildfires, decimated forests, dengue
> fever, legions of Katrinas - unless humans act now to curb our
> climate-warming pollution, warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, "we are in deep trouble."
> You would think, in the wake of such stark and conclusive findings, that the
> White House would at least offer some small gesture to signal its concern
> about the impending crisis..."
>
> ____________________________________
>
> Maybe they know more than they are letting on.
>
> Maybe the "world's top climate scientists" are not exactly the world's top
> climate scientists after all..
>
Maybe they know a LOT more than you.
> Maybe humans ain't the responsible party in global warming.
>
Maybe pigs can really fly.
> Maybe Rolling Stone is full of shit.
>
> Maybe that big, round, hot, shiny thing up there in the sky has more to do
> with global warming than the global whining boys are willing to admit.
Well, it does send earth the energy which gets trapped here. But if
you're arguing the sun is the cause of the warming, it can't be -- it
isn't changing.
> Especially since there is money to be made from promoting global warming via
> global whining.
OK, now you're an official idiot. Ask yourself who's getting rich:
Exxon or the scientists who work for, say, NASA?
>
> I am still waiting for the world's top climate scientists to explain why the
> polar ice cap on Mars is receding at the same time the polar ice cap on
> Earth is receding?
>
Ever hear of Google? That's been explained here about once a month.
Lloyd
can't kill people with guns now?
Alan Anderson
> Aren't you omitting the effect of water and its latent heats? The
> obvious negative feedbacks and transport mechanisms may swamp the effect
> of changing CO2 and other trace gases.
Water vapor is in equilibrium throughout the bulk of the atmosphere.
Any increase in evaporation is accompanied by an increase in
condensation. It moves heat around, but it doesn't do anything to
reduce the greenhouse effect.
And in fact it is a *positive* feedback at work here. Increased
temperature changes the equilibrium, letting the air hold more water
vapor. Since it's a very strong greenhouse gas itself, that holds in
more heat, and the temperature goes up more than you'd expect.
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Aren't you omitting the effect of water and its latent heats? The
>> obvious negative feedbacks and transport mechanisms may swamp the effect
>> of changing CO2 and other trace gases.
>
> Water vapor is in equilibrium throughout the bulk of the atmosphere. Any
> increase in evaporation is accompanied by an increase in condensation. It
> moves heat around, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the greenhouse
> effect.
It transports enormous quantities of latent heat up to an altitude where
it can radiate directly to cold space, bypassing lower layers of water
vapor, the main GHG. The more solar energy, the more convection through
the GHG layer, and the more cooling effect.
> And in fact it is a *positive* feedback at work here. Increased
> temperature changes the equilibrium, letting the air hold more water
> vapor. Since it's a very strong greenhouse gas itself, that holds in
> more heat, and the temperature goes up more than you'd expect.
See above, and some recent posts in other threads. Convection is the key.
Modelers seem to be concentrating on the CO2 flea, and ignoring the 800 lb
water gorilla it's riding on.
john fernbach
> There is incredible ridiculousness occurring around the issue of
> global warming, as if electing a President is going to solve the
> problem, or simply passing new laws, or arguing with dunderheads about
> the science of it.
>
> The alleged "pro-business" right wing does nothing to encourage the
> development and implementation of new energy technology, and the left
> wing does not know enough about business to bring any new ideas to the
> marketplace.
>
> We will do best to leave them all behind and get busy
>
> http://thelastgasstation.typepad.com/index/2007/06/we-live-in-a-ch.html
>
Robert - I guess I'm one of the people who's wasting time arguing
about GW rather than doing something, in your book.
And in self-defense, I'd like to suggest that sometimes arguments are
important -- at least attitudes are important, and I like to think
that I'm trying to defend the kinds of attitudes that will support
real progress being made ... not by me, maybe, but by people like you.
But that being said, I like what you say about the Right not being
interested in promoting new technology on this issue, and the Left
being too ignorant of business methods to bring new products to the
market.
Your slam at the Left sounds like a pretty accurate description of
"leftists" like me; I can't speak for all of us lefties. :-)
So - well, good luck to you. Here's to you and people like you
getting busy and fixing this problem. Go for it.
john fernbach
> On Jul 2, 11:40 am, john fernbach <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Who needs "global government" to curb global CO2 emissions?
>
> > One of the main point of the Kyoto TREATY was to get the different
> > governments of the world to do it by TREATY.
>
> Tell us about how well that worked out, ya fucking tard.
I guess you know a lot about fucking tards, eh, bawana?
Putting aside the usual stupid ass insult that you package in your
usual stupid response, I know some of the people who were lobbying for
US acceptance of the Kyoto Treaty.
And to them, it was always obvious that Kyoto was just a first step.
Changing world energy policies, if it can be done, can't occur by
magic -- it's going to take some trial and error, just like everything
else.
Kyoto as served as an initial try at tackling the climate problem --
and it hasn't been all that successful, but the idea was that people
could learn from it. The question is how to make the next step work
better than this one.
john fernbach
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > Paul Cardinale wrote:
>
> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > > >tom-bol...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
>
> > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > effect on the troposphere?
>
> > >The 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 on global temperature is too tiny
> > >to be detected. If you look at actual measured data[..]
>
> > I have, and your "interpretation" is faulty..
>
> means that the CO2 changes can't be causing the temperature changes.
> Please explain the fault.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul - Don't know if it's a "fault," but the popular science writers
on AGW that I've been reading are reasoning that CO2 buildup is
basically one link in a chain of events that leads to climate change.
And as far as I can understand them, they're saying it's an iterative
process.
I think the model of past "interglacials" connected with climate
change goes like this:
(a) initial slight warming of n. pole due to Milankovitch cycles
causes a slight warming of the planet. This slight warming might
continue for 800 years or so before any CO2 response is seen.
(b) Warmer planet means more photosynthesis, so the warming triggered
by Milankovitch factors leads to more vegetation growth, which means
more CO2 emissions. Atmospheric levels of CO2 rise.
(c) Added CO2 concentrations again trigger slight to modest increase
in average temperatures. This then causes more evaporation from
oceans, causing increased concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere == produces more warming.
(d) and/or warming climate causes polar ice caps, glaciers to shrink
in size, changing the earth's albedo. Darker ocean water, as it
replaces white ice, means darker albedo, more absorption of incoming
solar energy by earth/water surface. This accelerates warming process
again.
I believe I got this model from Robert Henson of NCAR, "The Rough
Guide to Climate Change." Henson indicates that on the average,
historic interglacial periods have continued for several thousand
years following the initial period of warmer temperatures with no CO2
increases. So - the process gets going without CO2 involvement,
Henson indicates, but then once the extra CO2 generation is triggered,
it accelerates the warming process for relatively long periods
afterwards.
CO2 = ONE FACTOR in climate change. But obviously not the only one.
john fernbach
energy absorption in the post below.
The argument of the AGW scientists has always been that CO2 is NOT
absorbent or relective of visible spectrum light.
So when sunlight strikes the earth's atmosphere, any CO2 (and also
water vapor, etc.) in the atmosphere should let it right through.
However, CO2 and water vapor and other "greenhouse" gases ARE
absorbent of, or opaque to, electromagnetic radiation at much lower
frequencies and longer wavelengths -- that is, they block infrared
energy ("heat waves") from escaping from the earth's surface into
outer space.
When visible spectrum light from the sun strikes the earth's surface
and warms it up, the earth gives off infrared radiation -- not visible
spectrum light. (At least the darker colored parts of the surface do
this.)
So the model goes:
a. visible spectrum light arrives from the sun, penetrates the
atmosphere, heats darker surfaces of the earth, oceans.
b. Upon being heated up, the dark earth and dark oceans emit infrared
radiation as "black body" radiation.
c. This infrared energy then shoots out in the direction of outer
space. But the presence of water vapor, CO2, methane and other
"greenhouse" gases in the air then absorps all or part of the IR
that's being emitted.
d. This means more electromagnetic energy is entering the lower
atmosphere than is leaving it -- at least until the lower atmosphere
heats up a great deal and some kind of energy equilibrium is re-
established with outer space.
The heating up of the atmosphere is the dread "greenhouse" effect.
There are all kinds of arguments about whether this process is
interrupted, modified or negated by other processes, but this is the
guts of the theory.
It rests on CO2 and other greenhouse gases being transparent to
electromagnetic energy at certain wavelengths (eg visible spectrum
light) but opague to EM energy at certain other wavelengths. (e.g.
infrared)
=============================
Whata Fool
wrote:
>Paul Cardinale wrote:
>> That would be easy because actual data shows that CO2 has no
>> detectable effect on temperature.
>
>The current climate of Earth is impossible to explain without
>taking the effects of CO2 into account.
So said one of the old timers before 1900.
>Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
>Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
The subject object is Earth.
>But maybe you mean that climate models show that as CO2 increases,
>temperature will not increase further.
The models do not even approach the problem from the
physics, they start with a theoretical model.
The result may be as dependable as the Farmer's Almanac.
>Oh, wait -- no climate
>models (that also conform to the observational evidence) show
>that, not even any from the oil or coal companies. Funny, I'd
>have thought they'd have been willing to spend millions to
>come up with such a model. I guess they've just be lazy.
> Paul
That sure is a lot of physics coming from a physics guy.
Try explaining how the top layer of CO2 can emit radiation
toward the surface when the black sky is colder, and thermal transfer by
IR radiation is from warmer to cooler.
The sky as seen from above 10 miles is always colder than
the surface of Earth.
Start from a wrong assumption, end up with meaningless
nonsense.
Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >>Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
> >>Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
> >
> > I'm very interested.
>
> Transport of radiation from the surface of Venus back out
> into space is strongly inhibited by absorption of IR photons
> in its atmosphere, overwhelmingly due to absorption by CO2
> (helped by pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption features).
Ah, I knew it... evil CO2 ...
> Without this absorption, the equilibrium temperature of
> Venus's surface -- which can be calculated from first principles
> -- would be much lower, even given that it is closer to
> the sun than is the Earth.
>
> This is textbook planetary science; denying it is flat-Earth
> level kookiness.
Yes, yers ... believe it or die.
Is that your scientific justification?
> The same effects exists on the Earth, although of course the absorption
> is weaker here, due to the thinner atmosphere and lower concentration
> of IR-active gases. The mean temperature of Earth's surface would be
> much lower than is observed without the effect of the greenhouse
> gases, including CO2.
Sorry, but there is a very big difference between Venus and Earth.
1) a Venus day is 2800 hours long
2) Venus has no magnetic field, that protects the planet
3) Venus surface is almost completely covered with active volcanoes
4) Venus axis is 179 degrees, Earth is 23.5 degrees
5) Venus is 1/3 lesser away from sun as Earth
If you're argueing with CO2, then tell me
a) about the atmospheric interaction with all gasses
b) why the Venus night (2800 hours long) does not show any relevant cooling.
c) tell me the atmospheric interactions on the night side of Venus.
Eric Swanson
says...
>
>
> That sure is a lot of physics coming from a physics guy.
>
> Try explaining how the top layer of CO2 can emit
radiation
>toward the surface when the black sky is colder, and thermal transfer
by
>IR radiation is from warmer to cooler.
>
> The sky as seen from above 10 miles is always colder than
>the surface of Earth.
I'll try to give an answer, but I'm only an engineer...
Anyway, start with a basic case beginning by assuming two surfaces close
together at different temperatures. Both radiate toward the other
according to Planck's Law. The colder surface radiates less than the
warmer surface, thus the net effect is a transfer of energy from the
warmer to the colder surface. I think the same applies in the case of
different layers within the atmosphere, except that the atmosphere
radiates at specific wave lengths and does so in all directions.
At the surface of the Earth, the radiation is that of a black body with
some emissivity. Thus, the energy lost may be greater than the downward
component of the IR from the atmosphere above, which radiates energy in
all directions. Roughly half the atmospheric IR goes up and can't warm
the surface below to replace the energy emitted by the surface. As a
result, the atmosphere above the surface can remain warmer than the
surface below on a clear night.
> Start from a wrong assumption, end up with meaningless
>nonsense.
I'd say you got that right.
Peter Muehlbauer
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote
The Sun's magnetic field is over 200 percent stronger now than it
was at the early 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably
increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass
NASA's official predictions.
Venus and Jupiter's moon Io now glow in the dark.
Since 1973, Earth's icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent.
Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted
from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more
pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even
bothered to try to explain this yet. Here is a link to NASA
http://tinyurl.com/z2r6g
The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing
50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen
by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997.
Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a
visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io.
The size of Jupiter's magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992.
Saturn's polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic
field strength increasing.
According to NASA's Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune
both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts - 60 degrees for
Uranus and 50 for Neptune.
Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and
is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune's moon
Triton has had a "very large percentage increase" in atmospheric
pressure and temperature, if the Earth went through the same percentage
of change it would extrapolate to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase.
As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase
in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming
noticeably darker in color.
2002: Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
2006. Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
2007: Mars: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
2006: Saturn: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20061109-022035-4126r/
1998: Neptune's moon Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
?: Venus: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bullock/Homedocs/SciAm99.pdf
Now we have 7 out of 8 planets affected by solar effects simultaneous
to earth.
If counting Pluto as dwarf planet (ok, I should not), we have 8 of 9
planets affected.
And I'm sure, Mercury is also affected, but unfortunately I can't find any data of this planet.
Rich
[...]
> Kyoto as served as an initial try at tackling the climate problem --
> and it hasn't been all that successful, but the idea was that people
> could learn from it.
One thing we've learned, the so-called developing world cares only about
their economies, greenhouse gasses are not even on their list of
priorities. China's already overtaken the US, lets see what they do
in the next 5 years.
> The question is how to make the next step work better than this one.
Get rid of the idea of a "common but differentiated responsibility",
since it simple denies all responsibility for most of the world. And
even if all signatories had met their targets, the increases in China
alone would probably be more than enough to make up for the reductions.
Cheers,
Rich
Rich
[...]
> (b) Warmer planet means more photosynthesis, so the warming triggered
> by Milankovitch factors leads to more vegetation growth, which means
> more CO2 emissions. Atmospheric levels of CO2 rise.
This part has me confused.
Don't plants consume CO2 and emit oxygen?
Cheers,
Rich
Bill Ward
Relax. It's just John - he doesn't have to make sense.
Humor him or he'll write more.
Karl Uppiano
<tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1183216185....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
>> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>>
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
>> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>>
>> It's a lot worse than I thought...
We don't need a secret campaign. We need a public one to actually discuss
the competing hypotheses rationally. The Goracles screaming "denier!" every
time someone mentions an alternative is stupid.
The hypothesis that global warming is man-made is debatable, but to suggest
that it will proceed without bound to cataclysmic proportions untestable
speculation.
The debate going on right now is more political/religious than scientific.
In fact, the religious zeal with which the more rabid global warmers
approach the subject should cause it to fall under the second amendment.
Congress should make no law...
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1183486839....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
There is no GW. It's all whackos seeing what they want to see. You do what
want to do. Don't try to dictate what others have to do.
Bob Cain
> [1] Global warming is real on Earth, Mars and other planetary bodies.
Credible cite? The other planetary bodies part.
>
> [2] Atmospheric CO2 is being released as a consequence of the
> additional heat.
This, if true, is called positive feedback.
> [3] Any CO2 molecule that reflects outgoing light back to the ground
> must also reflect incoming light back to the sun.
Absolutely, but that's completely beside the point. According to the theory
there is much more IR in the flux going out than in that coming in in. Why?
Because incoming light which is absorbed by the earth at all frequencies is
re-emitted outward within a narrower IR frequency band by the heating caused by
the broadband inward absorption. It is within that narrower re-emission band
that CO2 is particularly effective at scattering some back which would head on
out otherwise. It is the portion of that generated by the warm earth surface
which is scattered back by excess CO2 that causes the excess heating (at which
point your [2] can come into play.)
The effect is not debatable. The significance of it is.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:Ncednds-N-4GnhHb...@giganews.com...
>> [3] Any CO2 molecule that reflects outgoing light back to the ground
>> must also reflect incoming light back to the sun.
<snip>
> It is the portion of that generated by the warm earth surface which is
> scattered back by excess CO2 that causes the excess heating.
>
> The effect is not debatable. The significance of it is.
You are correct, the supposition that increases in CO2 will/can result in
significant warming is an unsupported conjecture. And those who suggest
otherwise are lieing.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The heating up of the atmosphere is the dread "greenhouse" effect.
>
> There are all kinds of arguments about whether this process is
> interrupted, modified or negated by other processes, but this is the
> guts of the theory.
Do you think other AGW advocates are forthright with respect to revealing to
the public that there are, as you staterd, "all kinds of arguments about
whether this process is interrupted, modified or negated by other
processes?"
schoenf...@gmail.com
> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > [1] Global warming is real on Earth, Mars and other planetary bodies.
>
> Credible cite? The other planetary bodies part.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/release_2001_236.html
> > [3] Any CO2 molecule that reflects outgoing light back to the ground
> > must also reflect incoming light back to the sun.
>
> Absolutely, but that's completely beside the point. According to the theory
> there is much more IR in the flux going out than in that coming in in. Why?
> Because incoming light which is absorbed by the earth at all frequencies is
> re-emitted outward within a narrower IR frequency band by the heating caused by
> the broadband inward absorption. It is within that narrower re-emission band
> that CO2 is particularly effective at scattering some back which would head on
> out otherwise. It is the portion of that generated by the warm earth surface
> which is scattered back by excess CO2 that causes the excess heating (at which
> point your [2] can come into play.)
But the spectrum of incoming sunlight covers that narrower spectrum of
reflected sunlight. If the CO2 is trapping the outgoing radiation,
then it's reflecting the equivalent incoming radiation, balancing it
all out. The scattering should be istropic on the average. It's a
basic geometrical argument.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Jul 3, 10:02 am, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 2:07 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 7:17 pm, talk-n-...@TALK-N-dog.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 10:43 am, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> > > > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> > > > > Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > > > The secret is how people can predict the weather 100 years in the
> > > > future when it comes to global warming, but when I want go to go to
> > > > the beach, they go two days out and get it's wrong.
>
> > > The evidence for global warming is not in the weather but in looking
> > > at sea ice and glaciers. Clearly glaciers are receding and sea ice is
> > > melting.
>
> > Yes, and they are receding on Mars too:
>
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>
> Perhaps you can take comfort that we humans were not to blame when all
> the Earth's water turns into liquid and then into gas and then
> disappears altogether like what appears to have happened on Mars.
There is enough solar energy to power a hundred Earth economies if not
more. Solar energy is in total abundance, it's cheap and practical.
All the chemical energies of today are ultimately sourced from the
Sun. That's a real solution.
Why aren't the UN and these "think tanks" promoting something
practical, useful and doable like Solar energy? Do you think they are
honest? Did you know John D Rockefeller donated the land the UN is
built on? You know Rockefeller the mega-oil baron turned banker. Do
you think they are legimately interested in "world affairs" and
promoting "democracy" and all that bullshit? When will you awaken from
your stupidity?
THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND CARBON TRADING IS TO CONTROL THE PRODUCTION OF
NATIONS
The bankers will buy up all the credit (as they print the money they
need) and then sell it back to nations under conditions. They get to
control who produces and doesn't.
schoenf...@gmail.com
schoenf...@gmail.com
john fernbach
I don't know if "carbon trading" is an especially good idea. It's
partly a concession being made to advocates of "market based"
environmental regulations in order to get them to agree to GW curbs.
As for carbon trading being some secret scheme by a banking elite to
"control global production," don't they partly or mostly do that
anyway, right now, through their ownership of the major oil and coal
companies?
Meanwhile, the different governments of this planet & the corporations
who control something like 70% of world trade as of today need to do
SOMETHING about CO2 pretty quickly -- or we're probably going to see
the destructive GW changes predicted by the IPCC scientists, and soon.
When you run down global carbon trading and say that direct investment
in solar and renewable energy would be preferable, then -- hey, sounds
good to me. ASSUMING that every other factor in the equation stays
the same.
But at the same time, aren't you basically introducing yet another
controversial issue into the politics of climate, so that the world
won't do anything significant to curb GW before it's too late?
------------
> There is enough solar energy to power a hundred Earth economies if not
> more. Solar energy is in total abundance, it's cheap and practical.
> All the chemical energies of today are ultimately sourced from the
> Sun. That's a real solution.
>
> Why aren't the UN and these "think tanks" promoting something
> practical, useful and doable like Solar energy? Do you think they are
> honest? Did you know John D Rockefeller donated the land the UN is
> built on? You know Rockefeller the mega-oil baron turned banker. Do
> you think they are legimately interested in "world affairs" and
> promoting "democracy" and all that bullshit? When will you awaken from
> your stupidity?
>
> THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND CARBON TRADING IS TO CONTROL THE PRODUCTION OF
> NATIONS
>
> The bankers will buy up all the credit (as they print the money they
> need) and then sell it back to nations under conditions. They get to
> control who produces and doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
BradGuth
> For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_
> of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
>
> It's a lot worse than I thought...
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
It's no big secret. Our government and of their global energy cartel
lies to us all the time. It's also why there's nearly a million dead
and/or soon to be dead Muslims, mostly those of the innocent, in order
to keep their oil spendy and/or off the global market.
When has our government not been a faith-based puppet?
-
Brad Guth
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Jul 5, 1:00 am, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't know if "carbon trading" is an especially good idea. It's
> partly a concession being made to advocates of "market based"
> environmental regulations in order to get them to agree to GW curbs.
These guys know that there are all these good intentioned people out
there, that want a "better world". They know these people full of
idealism and romanticism, eyes fixed on the stars, running like crazy,
but never getting there. They know that. They want to harvest that.
They mold the "moral causes" of the day so that idealists will just
serve to advance their agenda.
> As for carbon trading being some secret scheme by a banking elite to
> "control global production," don't they partly or mostly do that
> anyway, right now, through their ownership of the major oil and coal
> companies?
> Meanwhile, the different governments of this planet & the corporations
> who control something like 70% of world trade as of today need to do
> SOMETHING about CO2 pretty quickly -- or we're probably going to see
> the destructive GW changes predicted by the IPCC scientists, and soon.
> When you run down global carbon trading and say that direct investment
> in solar and renewable energy would be preferable, then -- hey, sounds
> good to me. ASSUMING that every other factor in the equation stays
> the same.
>
> But at the same time, aren't you basically introducing yet another
> controversial issue into the politics of climate, so that the world
> won't do anything significant to curb GW before it's too late?
> ------------
As long as you're stuck in the paradigm that these institutions are
somehow legitimate, or telling you the truth, then you will forever be
stuck. You seem to think people are inherantly honest and good,
because you are naively projecting an aspect of yourself onto them. It
is exactly this naivety which allows the wicked to execute this
monstrous conspiracy (which transcends these idiotic carbon trading
schemes), and get away with it.
THE CONSPIRACY REALLY IS TRUE
JFK warned about it before he was silenced. Just listen to his speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1710662559138481080
Androcles
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183496794.2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 2, 2:34 pm, Robert Run <attend...@lastgasstation.com> wrote:
: > There is incredible ridiculousness occurring around the issue of
: > global warming, as if electing a President is going to solve the
: > problem, or simply passing new laws, or arguing with dunderheads about
: > the science of it.
: >
: > The alleged "pro-business" right wing does nothing to encourage the
: > development and implementation of new energy technology, and the left
: > wing does not know enough about business to bring any new ideas to the
: > marketplace.
: >
: > We will do best to leave them all behind and get busy
: >
: > http://thelastgasstation.typepad.com/index/2007/06/we-live-in-a-ch.html
: >
: Robert - I guess
Only stupid specimens of homo neanderthalensis guess. Get off
your knuckles and walk upright.
Paul F. Dietz
> Dice are random from roll to roll, not chaotic. There's no feedback, and
> no nonlinear element, like the climate system, involved. Big difference.
No, die rolling certainly is chaotic. Also, the differential equations
describing the motion of a die certainly are nonlinear. Not clear
what you mean by 'feedback' -- there's certainly a feedback between
the die and the surfaces it strikes.
To be more concrete, consider a box being vigorously rythmically
shaken, with a die bouncing around inside. Sample the system by
determining the upward facing surface of the die at future moments.
What you are trying to think of is not chaos, or nonlinearity, but
rather correlation across time. It's quite possible for a chaotic,
nonlinear system to show no long-term temporal coreelations. In
such a system, the state at widely spaced intervals are essentially
independent random variables, and describing the statistical
properties of these random variables should often be feasible,
even if prediction of the actual state of the system over all
but a short period is not.
It's conceivable there are fairly long term correlations in the climate
system (for example, due to the large thermal inertia of the oceans)
but this just means that to get a good idea of the statistical
properties, you need to simulate the system sufficiently long
(so the correlations die away). Fundamentally, this is a different
problem than precise prediction of the actual state.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Aren't you omitting the effect of water and its latent heats? The
> obvious negative feedbacks and transport mechanisms may swamp the effect
> of changing CO2 and other trace gases.
What gave you the idea that I was omitting the effect of water vapor?
This seems to be an artifact of your own misunderstanding.
You seem to be saying here that water vapor feedback will compensate
for the increased IR forcing from CO2. This is dubious, for the simple
reason that in situations where the energy flux on the surface of
the earth is changed for *other* reasons (such as, seasons, or volcanic
eruptions), the feedback does not compensate. Indeed, post-Pinatubo
eruption measurements show the feedback from water vapor on Earth
is positive, not negative.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
>>The current climate of Earth is impossible to explain without
>>taking the effects of CO2 into account.
>
>
> So said one of the old timers before 1900.
So, you'll show me the research quantitatively predicting
the current surface temperature of the Earth, but with CO2
having no effect, right?
Didn't think so.
>>Oh, and how do you explain the temperature on the surface of
>>Venus, Mr. Cardinale?
>
> The subject object is Earth.
Ah, so according to Mr. Fool the laws of physics are different
on Venus?
> The models do not even approach the problem from the
> physics, they start with a theoretical model.
They most certainly do depend on the physics. How do you think
radiation transport is calculated?
There are empirical assumptions that go in when the physics is
not well understood (for example, aerosols), and these are indeed
major sources of uncertainty. However, the uncertainty cuts both
ways.
> The result may be as dependable as the Farmer's Almanac.
And yet the oil and coal companies cannot seem to come up with
a model that does what you say. If models were so maleable they'd
be able to do that, no?
Like I said, I guess they just must be lazy.
> Try explaining how the top layer of CO2 can emit radiation
> toward the surface when the black sky is colder, and thermal transfer by
> IR radiation is from warmer to cooler.
How could it not? A layer of the atmosphere emits radiation both up
and down, and this is independent of the temperature of what's
above or below it (those will affect the net energy transfer, of course).
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
>>Transport of radiation from the surface of Venus back out
>>into space is strongly inhibited by absorption of IR photons
>>in its atmosphere, overwhelmingly due to absorption by CO2
>>(helped by pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption features).
>
>
> Ah, I knew it... evil CO2 ...
Well, non-idiots base their scientific understanding on
little things called 'observations' and 'facts', not on
moral judgments about inanimate objects. How's that
primitive thought mode working out for you, Peter?
>>This is textbook planetary science; denying it is flat-Earth
>>level kookiness.
>
>
> Yes, yers ... believe it or die.
> Is that your scientific justification?
No, I'm just explaining to you how extremely silly it would
be to take another position. Some things in science are so
well determined that only an idiot would disagree, and the
cause of the high surface temperature of Vanus is one of them.
If you'd rather be an idiot, I can't stop you. I can mock
you, though.
> Sorry, but there is a very big difference between Venus and Earth.
>
> 1) a Venus day is 2800 hours long
> 2) Venus has no magnetic field, that protects the planet
> 3) Venus surface is almost completely covered with active volcanoes
> 4) Venus axis is 179 degrees, Earth is 23.5 degrees
> 5) Venus is 1/3 lesser away from sun as Earth
Yes, Venus is not a carbon copy of earth. You can cling to this
irrelevancy if you like. You're still an idiot, though.
Paul