Antarctic Ice Sets Record High

[El Castor]

“Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago” the New Zealand Climate
Science Coalition announced today. “It is also the fifth highest daily
value on record.”
Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica
averages. “The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres
above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the
area of New Zealand”. more ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-record-high.htm

[mg]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
<DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:

>�Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning

Is the climate changing? That's the question everyone is asking and if
were getting record ice accumulation in the Antarctic and record ice
loss in the Artctic, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the
climate is changing.

"Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming
by Natalie Wolchover
Date: 19 September 2012 Time: 06:01 PM ET

Distracting from the news that Arctic sea-ice extent reached a record
low on Sept.16 is a widely circulating blog article claiming that at
the opposite end of the Earth, Antarctic sea ice is more than making
up for the losses.

In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states
that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the
256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the
Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern
Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero).

The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice
using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has
weathered global warming more robustly than Arctic ice. Goddard
dismisses the explanation, concluding instead, "Antarctic and Arctic
ice move opposite each other. NSIDC's dissonance about this is
astonishing."

Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered
attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high
Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell
the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and
admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned
that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the
precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year � or the
mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really
happening.

"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the
Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark
Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well,
everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially
balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not
true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming
should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said.
"We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up,
the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic.
The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different.
Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly
to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica,
Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by
ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies
indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the
Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists
say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels
that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining
fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's
Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by
chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air
conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects
the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone
hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the
stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes
the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the
surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic,
and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have
increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models
suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences
and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped
40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic
ice expansion makes up for this � that heat is merely shifting from
the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global
warming must not be happening � is "just nonsense," Serreze said."

http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html

[Jean]

In article <ohio58tltrvs7pnis...@4ax.com>,

The oceans are up 2°.

--
canada-proves-conservatives-wrong-cutting-corporate-taxes http://goo.gl/0LvAz
Tax shelter busted: http://goo.gl/hTAEf http://www.comedycentral.com/
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) http://www.healthcare.gov
president-clinton-fact-checks-the-gop http://goo.gl/PE5MD

[Will Janoschka]

$45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
but instead say "more research is needed". How many
more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote in message

"Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't
Disprove Global Warming by Natalie Wolchover

BUT
Record low Arctic sea ice levels PROVE global warming.
hahahahahaha

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

news:ohio58tltrvs7pnis...@4ax.com...

[mg]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:32:49 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
<jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote in message
>"Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't
>Disprove Global Warming by Natalie Wolchover
>
>BUT
>Record low Arctic sea ice levels PROVE global warming.
>hahahahahaha

This is a very simple issue that presents a very simple question: Is
the climate changing or isn't it? With all the new records being set
in the last few years with temperatures and rainfall and snow, etc.,
it seems pretty obvious to me that the climate is changing and that
should be obvious to anyone who watches the news.

There are undoubtedly hundreds of examples one could mention. One that
comes to mind, for example, was in Jan 2008, when Iraq received the
first snowfall in 100 years.

So do you believe the climate is changing or don't you?

Here's another example that comes to mind. Last July wheat and corn
prices jumped more than 45% and reached record levels as a result of a
drought in Russia and the worst dry heat in more than 50 years in the
United States.

[Earl Evleth]

On 22/09/12 14:28, in article tiar58l44n8484d7c...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> This is a very simple issue that presents a very simple question: Is
> the climate changing or isn't it?

The last National Geographic deals with this issue. The answer it is
changing. Atmospheric water content is up 4% (satellite measurements)
and this results in, over all, more rain although not in all areas.
This increase of atmospheric moisture also generates more energy
in the sky, each gram of water will give up over 500 calories in
heat on condensation. Etc. Jerry does not project himself as being
intelligent, he says dumb things. Jeff tries to create diversions,
this posting is an example. He never sees things broadly and gives
the feeling he purposefully misinforms. I believe he was in banking
at one time so that figures.

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message The last National Geographic

deals with this issue. The answer it is changing. <<<<<<<<

The Earth's weather has been changing for a billion years or so.
That the weather is changing is NOT the question.
The question is whether man is making it change or not.
I vote for "not".
You seem to think we are the ones who are changing the weather, which is
ridiculous.
Who was changing the weather 1000 years ago or a 1,000,000 years ago ??????
You lefties just have to have something to whine about or you are not happy.
In the 1970's it was global COOLING that was going to doom the planet.
Today it's global warming.
I wonder what it will be 30 years from now....global stagnation ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Jean]

In article
<DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-236.dyn.centuryte
l.net>,

wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:23:52, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
> > <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> >

> > >?Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
> > >of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago? the New Zealand Climate
> > >Science Coalition announced today. ?It is also the fifth highest daily
> > >value on record.?

> > >Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
> > >is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica

> > >averages. ?The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres

> > >above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the

> > >area of New Zealand?. more ...
> > >http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-record

> > precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year ? or the

> > ice expansion makes up for this ? that heat is merely shifting from

> > the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global

> > warming must not be happening ? is "just nonsense," Serreze said."

> >
> > http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-
> > disprove-global-warming.html
>
> $45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
> but instead say "more research is needed". How many
> more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?

Today Fijians are moving a village because is GW driven sea
level rise.

[mg]

How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you hit
a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
happening with climate change.

Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate
changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway.

[Dan C]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:

> Is the climate changing?

Yes, it is.

It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change that
has happened before, and will happen again.

Nothing more than that.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he slipped his date a Purple Microdot.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 03:26:04, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:28:02 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
> <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"Earl Evleth" wrote in message The last National Geographic
> >deals with this issue. The answer it is changing. <<<<<<<<
> >
> >The Earth's weather has been changing for a billion years or so.
> >That the weather is changing is NOT the question.
> >The question is whether man is making it change or not.
> >I vote for "not".
> >You seem to think we are the ones who are changing the weather, which is
> >ridiculous.
> >Who was changing the weather 1000 years ago or a 1,000,000 years ago ??????
> >You lefties just have to have something to whine about or you are not happy.
> >In the 1970's it was global COOLING that was going to doom the planet.
> >Today it's global warming.
> >I wonder what it will be 30 years from now....global stagnation ?
>
> How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
> I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
> But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you hit
> a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
> happening with climate change.

Really? From where did you get such a thought?

>
> Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
> and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
> slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate
> changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway.
>

So you say!

[Earl Evleth]

On 23/09/12 5:26, in article asts5855445u6u3hm...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> How fast is it changing, though?

The climate change can be considered as starting about 30 years ago
but not particularly noticed. The increase in CO2 from 290 to about
320 ppm did not have any particular effect.

see figure http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

The summer sea ice excessive melt did not start until around 1990
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

West European climate change has been greater, until this last couple
years than in the US but the greatest temperature changes are in
Northern Russia and Siberia

Overall figures like
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201201-201208.gif
give the critical warming information.

[Earl Evleth]

On 23/09/12 7:21, in article pan.2012.09...@moria.lan, "Dan C"
<youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:

>
> Nothing more than that.

A posting from a know nothing.

[mg]

How long do you think modern humans have been on the planet?

[mg]

On 23 Sep 2012 05:21:46 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> Is the climate changing?
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change that
>has happened before, and will happen again.
>
>Nothing more than that.

How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you hit
a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
happening with climate change.

[Dan C]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:35:11 -0600, mg wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2012 05:21:46 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:
>>
>>> Is the climate changing?
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change
>>that has happened before, and will happen again.
>>
>>Nothing more than that.
>
> How fast is it changing, though?

Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes, and there's nothing that we
can do about it. Mother Nature does what she wants to.

> When I put on the breaks on my car, I'm not injured because I stop at a
> relatively slow rate of change.

Poor analogy, and your car does not have "breaks", you illiterate stooge.

Go slurp some more of Algore's koolaid.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.

[Earl Evleth]

On 23/09/12 17:00, in article pan.2012.09...@moria.lan, "Dan C"

<youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:

>> How fast is it changing, though?
>
> Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes,

A really dumb comment.

Republicans and their ilk have an anti-science prejudice, never
searching for reasons.

[mg]

On 23 Sep 2012 15:00:06 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:35:11 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep 2012 05:21:46 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the climate changing?
>>>
>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change
>>>that has happened before, and will happen again.
>>>
>>>Nothing more than that.
>>
>> How fast is it changing, though?
>
>Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes, and there's nothing that we
>can do about it. Mother Nature does what she wants to.

. . .

Has the world-wide climate on this planet ever changed this rapidly
before without some dramatic, large event occurring, like being hit by
an asteroid, for instance? If so, how many times and when?

[El Castor]

On 23 Sep 2012 15:00:06 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:35:11 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep 2012 05:21:46 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the climate changing?
>>>
>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change
>>>that has happened before, and will happen again.
>>>
>>>Nothing more than that.
>>
>> How fast is it changing, though?
>
>Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes, and there's nothing that we
>can do about it. Mother Nature does what she wants to.
>

One thing is for sure, sooner or later Mother Nature will wipe us all
out. The sun, comets, asteroids, gamma ray burst, passing black hole,
global pandemic, an advanced physics experiment gone awry, whatever.
Life on this planet is more fragile than we realize. Anyhow, there is
no science in global warming, it's all politics.

[El Castor]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>“Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
>>of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago” the New Zealand Climate
>>Science Coalition announced today. “It is also the fifth highest daily
>>value on record.”
>>Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
>>is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica
>>averages. “The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres
>>above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the
>>area of New Zealand”. more ...
>>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-record-high.htm
>
>Is the climate changing?

The climate is always changing. Dinosaurs once walked on the North
Slope of Alaska, when that Slope was even closer to the Poll than it
is now. We are in an unusually mild warm interval between periods of
extreme cold. When we drop into the next period of glaciation, Canada
will cease to exist -- buried under a sheet of ice up to three miles
thick. Brrrrrrr ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg

[mg]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:24:22 -0700, El Castor

How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,

I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.

But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you hit
a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
happening with climate change.

Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate

changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway. So, to merely
say that "the climate is always changing" isn't really relevant unless
you can point to some periods where the climate changed so quickly
without any obvious cause like an asteroid hit, for instance.

[Will Janoschka]

I was speaking of your gulability, on how fast or slowly things change
depending on the words of others with a political agenda.

[El Castor]

Look at the first link in my last post. Ice Age Temperature Changes:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

When the world drops into a period of glaciation, that drop is very
abrupt -- so abrupt that I've read speculation that one summer the
snow never melts, and it's all downhill from there. Look at the chart.
Increases in temperature seem to be just as abrupt. In our case, we
seem to have stalled at a maximum temperature lower than the previous
four maximums, although, at the present time ice volume is close to as
low as it ever gets.

[Dan C]

I don't know, and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Not everything that
happens is a repeat of what has happened before. Quit worrying about
shit that you can't control or affect.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he puked on Christopher Robin.

[Dan C]

<SNIP>

How many times are you gonna copy-n-paste the same old tired talking
points? LOL

I already told you, anyway. It doesn't matter how fast it's changing.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as the warp core breached.

[mg]

On 24 Sep 2012 02:43:50 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:56:58 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep 2012 15:00:06 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:35:11 -0600, mg wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23 Sep 2012 05:21:46 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the climate changing?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate change
>>>>>that has happened before, and will happen again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing more than that.
>>>>
>>>> How fast is it changing, though?
>>>
>>>Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes, and there's nothing that we
>>>can do about it. Mother Nature does what she wants to.
>> . . .
>>
>> Has the world-wide climate on this planet ever changed this rapidly
>> before without some dramatic, large event occurring, like being hit by
>> an asteroid, for instance?
>
>I don't know, and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Not everything that
>happens is a repeat of what has happened before. Quit worrying about
>shit that you can't control or affect.

I'm not worried. I'm 71 years old and I have more money than I'll ever
spend. I do believe in truth, honesty and facts, though, and I am
always trying to watch out for my children and grandchildren.

And speaking of truth, honesty, and facts, I don't see how you can say
that the current climate change situation is similar to others that
have happened in the past when that doesn't appear to be so.

[mg]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:37:09 -0700, El Castor

The earth is now warming much more rapidly than it used to.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/earth-warming-faster-than-expected.html
http://www.benefits-of-recycling.com/whendidglobalwarmingstart/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
http://www.nodeju.com/20177/the-planet-is-warmer-than-its-ever-been.html

The chart that you reference has tick marks on the horizontal scale of
50,000 years. So you can't tell with any useful degree of accuracy how
fast the changes occurred.

[mg]

On 24 Sep 2012 02:45:59 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:14:27 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:24:22 -0700, El Castor
>> <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:23:52 -0600, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
>>>><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>?Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
>>>>>of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago? the New Zealand Climate
>>>>>Science Coalition announced today. ?It is also the fifth highest daily
>>>>>value on record.? Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most

>>>>>remarkable aspect is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal

>>>>>Antarctica averages. ?The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square

>>>>>kilometres above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than

>>>>>twice the area of New Zealand?. more ...

>>>>>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-
>record-high.htm
>>>>
>>>>Is the climate changing?
>>>
>>>The climate is always changing. Dinosaurs once walked on the North Slope
>>>of Alaska, when that Slope was even closer to the Poll than it is now.
>>>We are in an unusually mild warm interval between periods of extreme
>>>cold. When we drop into the next period of glaciation, Canada will cease
>>>to exist -- buried under a sheet of ice up to three miles thick.
>>>Brrrrrrr ...
>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/
>Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>>>http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
>>
>> How fast is it changing, though?
>
><SNIP>
>
>How many times are you gonna copy-n-paste the same old tired talking
>points? LOL
>
>I already told you, anyway. It doesn't matter how fast it's changing.

First you said that the earth is going through a warming cycle like it
has done many times before.

Then I said that this isn't like previous warming cycles and one of
the differences is that the earth is warming much, much faster than it
used to..

And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.

Think about it. Does that make any sense?

[Earl Evleth]

On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>
> Think about it. Does that make any sense?

No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion
and only gathers facts which support that conclusion,

[Dan C]

What I said is that it doesn't matter that it's "changing faster". It's
changing, like it always has, and that's fine. Got it now?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as Lorena Bobbitt tied him to the bed.

[Dan C]

Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion,
and only post things here which support that position?

Can you answer that, honestly?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he called in an air strike.

[Dan C]

It's similar in that it's *changing*. That's what has always happened,
and will continue to happen.

Really, this isn't that complicated. You'll get it, eventually.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he put on the hockey mask and started the saw.

[Earl Evleth]

On 24/09/12 15:28, in article pan.2012.09...@moria.lan, "Dan C"

<youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:

>> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
>> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
>
> Is that any different than what you do?

Sure, I have a "lets look at it carefully" attitude and this
is based from my training in science. The methods employed
there is to do research gather the facts, develop an overall
understanding and then come to conclusions. That anti-scientific
approach is to already have a conclusion and to cherry pick the facts
to support an already reached conclusion. Sometimes scientists
also get caught in this sequence of conclusions reached before
the facts are collected.

As for the issue of global warming, the antis for a long time
discounted warming occurring, but being a shifty lot largely
accept warming as a reality but shift the argument over to
what causes it, moving as far was they can from the fact
that atmospheric CO2 has risen over the last 150 years to
values higher than in the last several hundred thousand years.

Comparing Arctic and Antarctic sea ice coverage is just another
diversion. They are apple and orange comparisons. Even though
Antarctic sea ice is not changing from season to season, other
things are, the major activity in the "south pole" area is
in the warming of the Antarctic peninsula and the ice shelf
breakups. The speeding up of the glacier flow feeding the ice
shelf is also occurring. The complication in that picture is
the discovery of lakes at the base of the glaciers which
speeds up the glacier movement when the ice shelves break up.
Greenland glacier movements have some of the same features
but the water-rock interface is created by surface melting
and percolation to the base, this is not seen in Antarctica.

The Antarctic sea ice plays no role in all of this whereas
the reasons for surface warming in Greenland is connected
with climate change and warming in the Arctic.

[mg]

On 24 Sep 2012 13:29:55 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

You're going around in circles and your reasoning just leads us back
to the original question which is why is the climate change that we
are experiencing now so different from the ones that occurred
previously?

It looks to me like the people who brought us voodoo economics are now
trying to sell us on the idea of voodoo climate change.

[mg]

On 24 Sep 2012 13:27:33 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The climate is not changing "like it
always has". The change we are experiencing now is different than the
changes that occurred before.

[El Castor]

On 24 Sep 2012 13:28:20 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:43:37 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg...@4ax.com,
>> "mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
>>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>>>
>>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
>>
>>
>> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
>> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
>
>Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion,
>and only post things here which support that position?
>
>Can you answer that, honestly?

Dan, liberalism is a religion, and global warming is an essential part
of MG's and Earl's catechism. May as well be arguing about how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. Warmer, colder, more ice, less
ice, it's all global warming and always will be.

[mg]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:34:30 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

The situation reminds me of the historic battle with the cigarette
manufacturers who claimed cigarettes weren't harmful. Who were
Americans supposed to trust during that debate? How would a person
decide who to trust and who not to trust?

As for me, when push really comes to shove on climate change, I trust
scientists who have written articles on the specific subject in a
peer-reviewed, scientific journal. What method do you use to decide
who to believe?

[mg]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:07:09 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

>On 23/09/12 5:26, in article asts5855445u6u3hm...@4ax.com,

>"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>
>> How fast is it changing, though?
>

>The climate change can be considered as starting about 30 years ago
>but not particularly noticed. The increase in CO2 from 290 to about
>320 ppm did not have any particular effect.
>
>see figure http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
>
>The summer sea ice excessive melt did not start until around 1990
>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
>
>West European climate change has been greater, until this last couple
>years than in the US but the greatest temperature changes are in
>Northern Russia and Siberia
>
>Overall figures like
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201201-201208.gif
>give the critical warming information.

Those are all good charts, I think. Another one I like is at the
bottom of the page at the following website:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[mg]

On 24 Sep 2012 13:28:20 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:43:37 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg...@4ax.com,
>> "mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
>>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>>>
>>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
>>
>>
>> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
>> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
>
>Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion,
>and only post things here which support that position?
>
>Can you answer that, honestly?

When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal and ignore the rest of the stuff. For a very quick,
non-rigourous overview of a subject, I often look at Wikipedia and
here's what they say about climate change:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[mg]

When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal and ignore the rest of the stuff.

What sources to you give credibility to when you do research?

For a very quick, non-rigourous overview of a subject, by the way, I

often look at Wikipedia and here's what they say about climate change:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Do you believe that the person(s) that wrote the article referenced
above is a liberal with Global Warming being an essential part of
their religion?

[Dan C]

Yes. Without a doubt. Wake up.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.

[Dan C]

Yeah, I know. Sometimes I foolishly think they can learn. Silly me.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as a vole stole his honey

[Dan C]

That's not what I said. You removed a comma, and that changes the entire
meaning of the sentence. Go back and read what *I* wrote again, and then
read how you mis-quoted me, and see if you can tell the difference
between the two. Seriously.

> The change we are experiencing now is different than the changes
> that occurred before.

No, it isn't. Change is change. It's normal and expected.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he puked on Christopher Robin.

[Dan C]

OK, so maybe you *won't* get it eventually... <shrug>

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he dropped the razor on his gonads.

[Will Janoschka]

I actually read those articles and other articles falsifing the claims
of those
first articles. When I see articles peer reviewed by only the
authors
employees, I grow suspicious. When the same articles make only vague

claims in the passave voice such as "A strongly suggests B" with no
further
data, I grow more suspicious. When the same articles consistantly
make
predictions that turn out to be false and have to be corrected after
the fact
I grow convinced of nonsense, and try to find out who is funding the
nonsense.

All of the articles of Dr. James Hansen et-al, NASA Goddard fall in
this catagory.

The warmists blaim everything on CO2. They claim that only the CO2
from oxidizing
coal is bad CO2, therefore needs a $20 per ton tax on coal. This
will make the price
of so called natural gas competitive. CO2 and dirty H2O from
oxidizing natural gas
however is OK. The warmists seem not interested in more efficient use
of energy,
but only in eliminating the competing coal industry. You go guess
who is funding!
Of course the coal industry is funding the opposing view, all of both
sides scientific
and peer reviewed of course!

It is the lobbyists that make a bundle keeping this going.

Here is an abstract from a real mathimatical physicist.

ABSTRACT
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace
back
to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius
1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially
describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts

as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively
interacting
with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According

to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can
never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)

The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.

The whole PDF is available on line.
There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.

The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"

Max, Please read both sides to this political football
than decide.

For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business
plans, that need government intervention or not.

God help us all!!!

[Will Janoschka]

Max, If you read those endorsements all they really say is
"mabe, but more research is required"!

The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?

I am not in any way saying that earthlings are not to blame
for lotsa crap. However the research continues to be flawed
and has provided no answers, only claims. I think the problem
is using research rather than search. Get those NASA heat
transfer engineers that design the back heat radiators for the
SS solar panels. These are the folk that do heat transfer
equations in their sleep and when they have an "answer",
then they check with others for "aw shits".
Scientists seem to do that backwards.

This planet's thermal control system seems to work in spite
of 7 billion earthlings, and if need fixing, it will not be done
by the "alls ya gosta do" of some scientist. Scientists are
great to explain how something works, AFTER it works.

They still have a hard time explaining how a vacuum
tube works. That device pretty much won WWII.
Solid state semiconductors are much easier to explain.
Can you imagine some scientist conceving even the
thought of a 3 color CRT before it was built?

[Earl Evleth]

On 25/09/12 8:45, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will

Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:

> The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
> 25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
> How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?

Where did you get that figure of 45 billion?

And who are you to claim that the results are or are not`
conclusive? Where have you published this work?

[Earl Evleth]

On 25/09/12 3:19, in article h8126898qecdjncjn...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> Do you believe that the person(s) that wrote the article referenced
> above is a liberal with Global Warming being an essential part of
> their religion?

Jeff diverts attention is using those kinds of political labeling.


His original posting demonstrates diversion. I already pointed out
that the Antarctic does not resemble the Arctic. The positing
that " Antarctic Ice Sets Record High" implies increased cooling
where in fact the variations occurring are normal. As for
cooling or warming itself the map of the coastal regions show
mainly warming

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg

which matches the ice melt data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Ice_Melt-First_Year.jpg

Eastern Antarctic is mainly at high altitudes, The North pole is at sea
level and the South pole itself at 9100 feet. Apple and Oranges.

The center of Antarctic is possibly cooling and the ozone hole
may contribute to that. But in anycase the situation is more complicated
that looking only at the sea ice formation and melting. Jeff is a grab
and runner, scientists who are also of this ilk don't get published.

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:36:23, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 25/09/12 8:45, in article
> DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
> Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
> > 25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
> > How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?
>
> Where did you get that figure of 45 billion?

Check with the CBO on "Climate Research"

>
> And who are you to claim that the results are or are not`
> conclusive? Where have you published this work?

I publish nothing! Show any results that are conclusive
to those with more money to spend on a useless endevor!
Even the "natural" gas folk now think this is a mistake.

[mg]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:30:12 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann. They say that his "most significant
errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
atmosphere."
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
be interesting if he did.

Other sources have also released refutation of his paper. For example,
see the following which references a paper by Jochen Ebel:
http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Gerhard_Gerlich

[mg]

Since I'm not a climate expert, and I don't want to claim that I'm
something that I'm not, I believe that the only reasonable approach I
can take is to listen to those who are climate experts and Wikipedia
reports that the GW theory has been endorsed by EVERY national science
academy that has issued a statement on the subject.

Do you believe that Wikipedia is wrong? Or can you name any national
science academies that have not endorsed GW theory?

[Dan C]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:20:00 -0600, mg wrote:

> Since I'm not a climate expert,

...your opinion on "global warming" means.... absolutely nothing.

Thanks for playing.

NEXT!

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he stepped into the acceleration chamber.

[Earl Evleth]

On 25/09/12 11:04, in article

DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:

> Check with the CBO on "Climate Research"

I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
the sun).

We know from data gathering that atmospheric CO2 has
been rising, and we know the global temperatures are
too. We know there is no significant change in solar
energy so the finger only points at the CO2.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:45:02 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

The government can't even conclude that the earth
wasn't created by Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it
fills up the "recommended diet list" with carbohydrates,
due to pressure from the food industry, which has
resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the
USA. Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics
or of amoral financial outfits who see a tremendously
profitable source of revenue are involved, we're likely
to be fed lies.

I bought some diet soda yesterday, because I could
buy two twelve-packs and get two free except for
shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit).
That meant I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus
$3.71 shenanigans, I also got a pack of Chips-Ahoy
for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not going to
eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the
package. I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area
where the riffraff hang out. They can always use food,
though I'm a bit concerned that I won't be doing them
any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around,
it will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious
health detriment.

[mg]

On 25 Sep 2012 13:39:17 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:20:00 -0600, mg wrote:
>
>> Since I'm not a climate expert,
>
>...your opinion on "global warming" means.... absolutely nothing.
>
>Thanks for playing.
>
>NEXT!

Actually, I have no "opinion" like you do; opinions are like assholes,
everybody has one. I merely accept the mainstream scientific position
on Global Warming and here's what Wikipedia says on the subject:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[Jean]

In article
<DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@portia.nereid.centurytel.net>

So why are the scientists so far behind the curve? 'If you
live on an island, move now,' wasn't the message of the
IPCC. So instead, the sea takes their homes and creates a
crisis.

--
canada-proves-conservatives-wrong-cutting-corporate-taxes http://goo.gl/0LvAz
Tax shelter busted: http://goo.gl/hTAEf http://www.comedycentral.com/
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) http://www.healthcare.gov
president-clinton-fact-checks-the-gop http://goo.gl/PE5MD

[High Miles]

On 9/25/2012 9:19 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> The government can't even conclude that the earth wasn't created by
> Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it fills up the "recommended diet list"
> with carbohydrates, due to pressure from the food industry, which has
> resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the USA.
> Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics or of amoral financial
> outfits who see a tremendously profitable source of revenue are
> involved, we're likely to be fed lies. I bought some diet soda
> yesterday, because I could buy two twelve-packs and get two free
> except for shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit). That meant
> I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus $3.71 shenanigans, I also got
> a pack of Chips-Ahoy for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not
> going to eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the package.
> I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area where the riffraff hang
> out. They can always use food, though I'm a bit concerned that I won't
> be doing them any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, it
> will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious health detriment.

><

Heh
When running a job down in the city, I used to carry sacks of fresh
fruit to share out with the homeless guys.
They all accepted the stuff gladly, except for one old dude who always
asked why the hell I didn't bring donuts, or something else good.

[rumpelstiltskin]

There was a group of five when I walked by and gave them the
cookies this morning, so at least no single one of them will
make a meal out of the whole package. My alternative was to
feed the cookies to the pigeons, but it would take a whole lot
of carrying the cookies around to do that. The pigeons would
appreciate it though. They are very appreciative birds,
generally more lovable than hairless apes.

If I were a homeless guy and somebody gave me a piece of
fruit, I'm not sure how I would react. I don't like most fruit.
I do like bananas, though I haven't had any for a while, and I
like frozen strawberries and blueberries, mostly with ice cream
and frozen orange juice concentrate and vodka in smoothies.
I haven't had those for a very long time, but the fruit is frozen
so it will they'll last forever or until we have a major
earthquake and the power is out for a couple of days.

In fact, I can't remember when I last had a piece of fruit.
It must have been a banana, since I buy one of those
occasionally, but it's been at least two months, maybe as
much as six months, since I've done that. I pay no
attention whatsoever to dietary rules. This morning I had
ground beef fried up with cut-up onion and spinach,
flavoured with MSG, Montreal Steak seasoning, salt,
teriyaki sauce, Worcestershire sauce, and mixed with
boiled peas after it was fried. Scrumptious, as always!
I meant to eat half of it on the spot and half later, but it
was so delicious that I ate the whole thing. That will
probably do me for the whole day, though I might have
a hot-link or two later on.

[mg]

On 25 Sep 2012 02:40:07 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

So you say there are precedents for the current global warming
situation and the scientist say the situation is unprecedented. So, I
do get it now; you want me to take your word over the word of the
scientists. I don't think so.

[mg]

On 25 Sep 2012 02:39:04 GMT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid>

Nope. That's wrong. There are a lot of different kinds of changes that
have different results. If you believe that "change is change", then
explain to me why the term di/dt is present in the following formula:

V = L * di/dt

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:09:04, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:30:12 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
>
>The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
> >"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
> >by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
> >
> >The whole PDF is available on line.
> >There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
> >
> >The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
> >1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
> >
> >Max, Please read both sides to this political football
> >than decide.
> >
> >For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
> >thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business
> >plans, that need government intervention or not.
> >
> >God help us all!!!
>
> Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
> background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
> Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann.

What does it take to be a so called Climate Scientist?
A box of Crackerjacks?

Gerlich has been a Mathimatical Physics Professor for a long tim.e
He is noted for teaching how to use mathimatics to show how your
own assumptions are wrong. If Math cannot show error, your OK.
The paper shows how the climate clowns are wrong in their assumptions

The Climate Clown claim:

>They say that his "most significant
> errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
> Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
> rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
> non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
> atmosphere."

If you read the Gerlich Paper you see that the "errors" are not!!!,
but instead just what Gerlich pointed out as a mathematical error
in the climate clown assumptions. The Climate Clowns are those
that do radiative heat transfer incorrectly, thus violating the 2nd.

The Climate Clowns systematically ignore all the convective heat
transfer between earth and atmosphere. To consider this would
demonstrate that the CO2 effect is trivial.

Gerlich pulls no punches when dealing with the bad science
of the Climate Clowns. It is no wonder that they hate him.
You would enjoy reading his well writen paper. When he gets to
the Navier- Stokes stuff, your eyes will likely glaze over, but with
my limited knowledge, I could find no error.

> http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
>
> As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
> be interesting if he did.

He has some newer versions, but just how do you respond to folk
that only claim you are wrong. with no evidence of error on your part?

>
> Other sources have also released refutation of his paper. For example,
> see the following which references a paper by Jochen Ebel:
> http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Gerhard_Gerlich
>

Go read all, then decide. Do not rely on the interpretation of others
Max, you can find many holes tn the thinking of Climate Clowns.

[Will Janoschka]

No crisis, living below sea level has alwas been a problem.
Ask the Dutch, or those in New Orleans.
There has been no measurable sea level rise!

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:12:45, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 25/09/12 11:04, in article
> DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
> Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Check with the CBO on "Climate Research"
>
> I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
> runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
> not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
> and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
> is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
> the sun).

OK $2 Billion x 24 years equals $48 Billion, I was low.
For $48 Billion I would like some provable result, or
gove up the nonsence (non-science).

>
> We know from data gathering that atmospheric CO2 has
> been rising, and we know the global temperatures are
> too. We know there is no significant change in solar
> energy so the finger only points at the CO2.

The Climate Clowns have never shown a realizable
method for CO2 to cause the changes they claim.
Now today, CO2 level rise, but temperature drops.

Please get the Clowns to say what the word "warming"
might mean? Ice melting with no temperature change?
The Clowns have not a clue.

They only have the radiative forcings of the week!
>

[Will Janoschka]

Each and everyone of those only claim "more research
is requited" Understandable as research is their money.

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:19:43, rumpelstiltskin <rumpels...@x.com>

How much does diet water cost in SF?
I have my own well.
>

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:10:00, rumpelstiltskin <rumpels...@x.com>
wrote:

Umm! Fat pigeons!

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:59:45 -0500, (Will Janoschka) wrote:
<snip>


>Umm! Fat pigeons!


I recall hearing that Hemingway had a recipe for pigeon pie.
I guess maybe he was poor once. (I don't know, I've never
read anything of his.)

[Earl Evleth]

On 26/09/12 3:46, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-185.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will

Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:

>> I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
>> runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
>> not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
>> and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
>> is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
>> the sun).
>
> OK $2 Billion x 24 years equals $48 Billion,

We are in 2012 and 1998 is 14 not 24 years.

[mg]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:45:46 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:23:52, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
>> <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>>

>> >ÂDay 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
>> >of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago÷ the New Zealand Climate
>> >Science Coalition announced today. ÂIt is also the fifth highest daily
>> >value on record.÷

>> >Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
>> >is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica

>> >averages. ÂThe sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres

>> >above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the

>> >area of New Zealand÷. more ...
>> >http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-record-high.htm
>>
>> Is the climate changing? That's the question everyone is asking and if
>> were getting record ice accumulation in the Antarctic and record ice
>> loss in the Artctic, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the
>> climate is changing.
>>
>> "Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming
>> by Natalie Wolchover
>> Date: 19 September 2012 Time: 06:01 PM ET
>>
>> Distracting from the news that Arctic sea-ice extent reached a record
>> low on Sept.16 is a widely circulating blog article claiming that at
>> the opposite end of the Earth, Antarctic sea ice is more than making
>> up for the losses.
>>
>> In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states
>> that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the
>> 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the
>> Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern
>> Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero).
>>
>> The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice
>> using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has
>> weathered global warming more robustly than Arctic ice. Goddard
>> dismisses the explanation, concluding instead, "Antarctic and Arctic
>> ice move opposite each other. NSIDC's dissonance about this is
>> astonishing."
>>
>> Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered
>> attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high
>> Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell
>> the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and
>> admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
>>
>> But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned
>> that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the
>> precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year ż or the
>> mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really
>> happening.
>>
>> "Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the
>> Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark
>> Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well,
>> everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially
>> balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not
>> true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']
>>
>> Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming
>> should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said.
>> "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up,
>> the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic.
>> The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different.
>> Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."
>>
>> The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly
>> to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica,
>> Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by
>> ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies
>> indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the
>> Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists
>> say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels
>> that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.
>>
>> "Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining
>> fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's
>> Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by
>> chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air
>> conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects
>> the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone
>> hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the
>> stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes
>> the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the
>> surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic,
>> and that keeps the sea ice extensive."
>>
>> But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have
>> increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models
>> suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences
>> and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.
>>
>> The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped
>> 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic
>> ice expansion makes up for this ż that heat is merely shifting from
>> the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global
>> warming must not be happening ż is "just nonsense," Serreze said."
>>
>> http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html
>
>$45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
>but instead say "more research is needed". How many
>more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?

I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.

[mg]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:19:43 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

In doing just a quick search, it looks like a lot of universities
offer degrees in climate science. The first one that I noticed with
the Google search results was Northern Arizona University.
http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Climate-Science-Solutions/

Typically what happens with GW deniers is that they rarely write
articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, or when they do they
are quickly refuted. Then the denier never responds to their criticism
in the magazine. Or, he claims he hasn't been alloted enough space by
the magazine and he directs the reader to go to his website. Both of
those ploys are obviously an admission that he screwed up.

In the case of Gerlich, I don't know whether he has properly responded
to the criticism from Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Smith, and
Zimmermann, or not. So finding out should be an interesting project
for someone who is very interested in his paper, like you are, for
instance.

We are all capable of self-deception and we can easily deceive
ourselves into believing almost anything from talking ourselves into
believing that our canary loves us to believing that Iraq really did
have WMDs or Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I make an effort not to
do that and with only a BSEE, I'm not going to deceive myself into
thinking that I have the ability to critique any scientific paper in a
scientific journal.

[Will Janoschka]

Thanks Max for your reply.

> In doing just a quick search, it looks like a lot of universities
> offer degrees in climate science. The first one that I noticed with
> the Google search results was Northern Arizona University.
> http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Climate-Science-Solutions/

Climate Science is the only "research" funded since 1998
lots of wanabes!

>
> Typically what happens with GW deniers is that they rarely write
> articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, or when they do they
> are quickly refuted. Then the denier never responds to their criticism
> in the magazine. Or, he claims he hasn't been alloted enough space by
> the magazine and he directs the reader to go to his website. Both of
> those ploys are obviously an admission that he screwed up.

Those so called scientific journals will publish nothing that
disagrees
with has been published by that journal. There are indeed gobs of
bullshit in blogs on both sides.

>
> In the case of Gerlich, I don't know whether he has properly responded
> to the criticism from Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Smith, and
> Zimmermann, or not. So finding out should be an interesting project
> for someone who is very interested in his paper, like you are, for
> instance.

Gerlich has not responded to that, because they only claim Gerlish
is wrong and, I am correct, with no real critique.

Gerlich has published Ver 1,2,3,4 in answer to critciisim for his
views
that the thing cannot be done via computer modeling which is his
opinion.

In the latest, hard to read, Gerlitch identified 122 different
coefficents
all dependent on each other, none orthoginal, that need be considered
in the massive partial differential equations. I think his opinion
that the
computer will fail before an answer, is correct.

>
> We are all capable of self-deception and we can easily deceive
> ourselves into believing almost anything from talking ourselves into
> believing that our canary loves us to believing that Iraq really did
> have WMDs or Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I make an effort not to
> do that and with only a BSEE, I'm not going to deceive myself into
> thinking that I have the ability to critique any scientific paper in a
> scientific journal.
>

I think you do your self a disservice Anyone with a BSEE and some
experiance knows much more about heat transfer, always a bitch,
than any or all climate scientists. They talk of theory, you had to
do
things to get rid of the heat before the puppy melted.

Please quickly read any of the alarmist, peer reviewed papers, an also
quickly read a Gerlitch, peer reviewed paper. You decide which
is trying to explain things, and which is trying to confuse you with
FUD.
All are available on the internet. Please read the papers, rather
than
what someone says about the papers.


One other thing to consider, the alarmists rely only on radiative
heat transfer from the earth which is the only way entropy can get out
from this isolated body, the earth. Please calculate the average
rainfall
in terms of years, hours, or seconds. Each gram of water must
radiate
between 2,200 and 3,000 Joules of latent heat, depending on rain, or
ice,
before that water can participate. This the alarmists all ignore as
that
cannot prove that Anthropoids are at fault.

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:38:09, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:45:46 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:23:52, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
> >> <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> >>

> >> >¶Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
> >> >of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years agoö the New Zealand Climate
> >> >Science Coalition announced today. ¶It is also the fifth highest daily
> >> >value on record.ö

> >> >Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
> >> >is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica

> >> >averages. ¶The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres

> >> >above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the

> >> >area of New Zealandö. more ...

> >> precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year ¨ or the

> >> ice expansion makes up for this ¨ that heat is merely shifting from

> >> the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global

> >> warming must not be happening ¨ is "just nonsense," Serreze said."

> >>
> >> http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html
> >
> >$45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
> >but instead say "more research is needed". How many
> >more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?
>
> I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
> gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
> how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
> better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
> knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
> the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
> reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.
>

That is true, but after $45 billion, with no answers, 'tis time to
fire
those fuckers and find others that can do the work!

[Earl Evleth]

On 26/09/12 23:38, in article f1t668lo653ekfnsn...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
> gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
> how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
> better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
> knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
> the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
> reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.

Some things are understood almost completely, for instance Evolution.
The mystery exists for me in forces like magnetism, which operates
across "empty space", a north pole of a magnetic attracting the south
pole. Things like the procession of a gyroscope also has a mysterious
aspect.

For humans forces work via contact, if one pushes an object it moves.
So we have no intuitive feeling for forces occurring through space.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:21:27 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

I understand the precession of a gyroscope much better than I
understand magnetism. A professor I had once said that "a force
is a name for something we don't understand", and I still think
that's the most illuminating definition of a force that I've ever
understood.

As I've mentioned, I wear a bracelet of nickel-coated neodymium
cubes and spheres, because the power of the magnetism
fascinates me. I read that neodymium is capable of holding the
most powerful permanent magnetism of any element or compound,
though some of the other rare-earths are competitors. Of course,
that can't compare with the power of electromagnets, but you
need a continuous supply of electricity to run those.

Of course, gravity is no longer a "force", now that Einstein has
revealed (or redefined) it to be a function of the curvature of space
in a fourth dimension. We're still completely at a loss as to why
there should be time and dimensions at all and what they are,
but at least gravity is no longer quite an utter mystery like
Jehovah or Allah. We can feel better for knowing a little about
the structure of gravity, even if we still can't explain the
components.

Heisenberg, when he came up with his "uncertainty principle"
said "At last we know, that we shall never know". He turned
out to be a bit premature about that, because we are starting
to understand something about quantum uncertainty with the
help of the many-worlds conjecture, but we're still left with the
ultimate problem of where did it all come from, and in my
opinion we are we can never get to the root of that because
by its very nature it's inaccessible to logic, since logic can
only explain how Y comes from X, not where the ultimate
X ( whatever it is) comes from.

I know the religious loonies are going to pop in and say
"X is GOD! How can anything be more obvious! Problem
solved!!!" To that I say "No, idiots, problem not solved.
Where did this God come from?" "He created himself" you
say? Why not just say the universe created itself? That
makes exactly the same sense, and has the great
benefit that we know that there is something we call a
"universe" in our experience though we may not know what
it is, whereas the very existence of this "God" is naked
conjecture without any evidence whatsoever to support it.
An alternate idiotic assertion, that "God always existed"
suffers from the same debility, since one could just say
that the potential for the universe always existed and
thereby stick to things we know, without interposing into
the mix a "God" which sounds all-too-suspiciously like
Santa Claus.

[mg]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:21:27 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

Before I retired, I had the opportunity to visit an HP, workstation
design facility. One of my big interests was in learning some of their
techniques for controlling emissions in order to comply with FCC
regulations in the U.S. and VDE and CE requirements in Europe.

I was hoping that maybe they could give me some free tips and advice.
So, I asked one of the design engineers about it. His response was,
"we use Maxwell's equations". Yah, right. Maxwell's electromagnetic
equations are so damned complicated that I sometimes doubt if anybody
understands them and certainly no one with only a BSEE does. As a
matter of fact, if memory serves, there are only two universities in
the U.S. that offer degrees in electromagnetism. That guy was just
trying to get me to shut up and get me off his back. And he succeeded.

[Earl Evleth]

On 28/09/12 4:57, in article ve3a68dsois3l0esa...@4ax.com,

"mg" <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:

> His response was,
> "we use Maxwell's equations". Yah, right. Maxwell's electromagnetic
> equations are so damned complicated that I sometimes doubt if anybody
> understands them and certainly no one with only a BSEE does.

A discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Some of the equations employ vector operators and for that knowledge
of vector algebra is necessary. Calculus is also required.

I don't think their understanding can be self-taught but a good
teacher would convey their meaning and application. I assume
the such courses are part of a college physics course requirement.

One thing I remember is that if you clench your hand and hold the
thumb upwars, the fingers are the electric wires and the thumb
the direction of the magnetic field. Mathwise is the expressed
by the operator "del", a greek letter.

[Will Janoschka]

Please use your right hand in "this" chiral world.

My courses for BSEE included several on electromagnetism.
My understanding of Maxwells Equations was limited at the
time "because" of the "simplification" by Heavyside and Gibbs
of Maxwells 24 quaternon equations to the 4 scalar and vector
diferential equations taught today.

Maxwell himself explained much better in his lengthy 1873
" A Treatise on Electricy and Magnetism" still avalible on
Amizon, 2 volumes-$26. I think Maxwell was trying to assist
understanding rather than the professors "how to do complex
diferential equations" without understanding.

Later I read "A Dynsmical Theory of the Electromagnitic
Field", The original, with quaternons, to learn about
quaternons. Then used those concepts speed up 6
DOF guidance solutions by not having to check for
problems like "gimbal lock", introduced by the vector
diferentail equations.

This brought up other problems, like convincing
those that think they know, that when the missile
decides it "cannot", it is truely time to self distruct.

[Glenn]

"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-234.dyn.centurytel.net...

It's been way too long for me to claim any but limited knowledge
in understanding Maxwell equations but my biggest complaint was
the use of vectors when partial differential equation,
especially with numerical analysis solutions, were both more
understandable and easier to solve. Something has gone wrong
because the numerical analysis path hasn't been followed.

--
Don't Dump on Me,
Glenn

[mg]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 01:10:56 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

I didn't stay at the Village Inn Express last night. So I'm not an
expert on climate change. :-) I believe that someone our age could
easily spend the rest of his life trying to become an expert and as a
retiree, I don't necessarily have all that much time left and I have
no interest in trying to refute a strong scientific consensus. If you
want to see an hilarious Holiday Inn Express commercial, by the way,
there's one at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgX7i0C-IK4

I remember many years ago, there was a raging argument on the
audiophile groups about speaker cords and some companies were selling
all sorts of weird cables at prices going into the hundreds of
dollars. They were selling water-filled cables and they were selling
cables designed to work in only one direction and there was a big
argument about the number of oxygen bubbles in the copper, as I
recall. In addition, there was a professor with impressive credentials
supporting these odd-ball theories and he had written some Maxwell
equations to prove it that were as long as your arm.

At the time, I read two articles that I considered pretty scientific.
In the one article, the author took a car-battery, jumper cable, and
compared that with an array of the expensive, exotic cable, and found
that they all looked the same on an oscilloscope and he provided
photos on the O-Scope screens in his article. The science deniers
didn't care, though. They claimed that there were things going on in
the cable that didn't show up on an oscilloscope pattern.

Then there was another article that I considered pretty scientific. In
that article, the author took a bunch of people and did "blind"
listening tests with ordinary cable vs. the exotic cable and found
that the listeners couldn't tell the difference. The science deniers
claimed, though, that they sure could tell the difference.

With my audio system, I have 3 speakers that cost $1000 each, 2 that
cost $500 and a subwoofer that cost about $1800, and I use ordinary
zip cord for speaker cables on all of them because I prefer to go with
the scientific approach to things.

[Will Janoschka]

I agree, I think that understanding must proceed "method"
something our universities have failed to provide.

BTW, I hope that Universities get folk that want to
understand, rather than those that need a place to
go after high school, that gave them nothing useful.

[Planet Visitor II]

ROTFLMAO --

<sarcasm> Is that with the left hand or the right hand, Earl??? </sarcasm>
See --
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/handrules/index.html


Planet Visitor II

[Earl Evleth]

On 29/09/12 6:12, in article v9tc68lsd9udu9ltu...@4ax.com,

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

> <sarcasm> Is that with the left hand or the right hand, Earl??? </sarcasm>

PV, master of disinformation. It is known as the right-hand-rule,
a picture is given at
http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/resource/rhr/CNB.JPG

There is a similar rule for angular momentum used for gyroscopes

http://np-apphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/right-hand-rule.gif/229553712/r
ight-hand-rule.gif

Note in this case that Vector B also involves the middle digit, which made
me think of you.

[Will Janoschka]

Quite spendy for someone that is loosing their hearing!.

You seem confused between those that misuse science for profit,
and those like yourself that say this is bullshit Ohmic losses in
wire
are important if you have a 100 megawatt power generating plant.
There @ 10 KV out, one extra ohm is a loss of one megawatt to
heat. Those same losses in a hi-fi are easly corrected with a tweek
of one knob!! 100 megawatts of power is neglible in terms of
power transfer this planet does at all times.

You Max, understand most, but not all. The Climate Clowns do not
understand at all, but will stand together and will allow no one that
is not a certified Climate Clown, like me or yourself, to question
in peer review, or elsewhere, because you and I sometimes
refuse to believe the nonsense, as you have demonstrated.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:15:37, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 29/09/12 6:12, in article v9tc68lsd9udu9ltu...@4ax.com,
> "Planet Visitor II" <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
> > <sarcasm> Is that with the left hand or the right hand, Earl??? </sarcasm>
>
> PV, master of disinformation. It is known as the right-hand-rule,
> a picture is given at
> http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/resource/rhr/CNB.JPG
>
> There is a similar rule for angular momentum used for gyroscopes

Depends os spin and which way is "up".

>
> http://np-apphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/right-hand-rule.gif/229553712/r
> ight-hand-rule.gif
>
> Note in this case that Vector B also involves the middle digit, which made
> me think of you.
>

Earl, tell us all about your knowledge of chirality and parity in this
world.

BTW: Mens briefs are not chiral, only right handed. Have they parity?
Why?

[Earl Evleth]

On 29/09/12 12:40, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-246.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will

Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:

> Earl, tell us all about your knowledge of chirality and parity in this
> world.
>
> BTW: Mens briefs are not chiral, only right handed. Have they parity?
> Why?

Never thought about men's briefs. Molecules yes.

[mg]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:28:39 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

I remember the hand and thumb rule also and a few formulas like
I=dv/dt. I didn't have any trouble with vector algebra, but to be
honest, I did quite a bit of cheating with calculus and never did
completely understand it. I was working full time and going to school
full time and I used to use my trusty HP41CX calculator, loaded up
with memory and advantage pacs. That was in the days before
instructors ever realized the power of a programmable calculator like
that one.

[mg]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:49:59 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

You got that right and I can't think of any good excuse to give you.

>
>You seem confused between those that misuse science for profit,
>and those like yourself that say this is bullshit Ohmic losses in
>wire
>are important if you have a 100 megawatt power generating plant.
>There @ 10 KV out, one extra ohm is a loss of one megawatt to
>heat. Those same losses in a hi-fi are easly corrected with a tweek
>of one knob!! 100 megawatts of power is neglible in terms of
>power transfer this planet does at all times.
>
>You Max, understand most, but not all. The Climate Clowns do not
>understand at all, but will stand together and will allow no one that
>is not a certified Climate Clown, like me or yourself, to question
>in peer review, or elsewhere, because you and I sometimes
>refuse to believe the nonsense, as you have demonstrated.
>

As I said, I go with the scientific consensus and there is an
extremely large scientific consensus. In addition, my experience has
been that the deniers rarely write articles in scientific journals and
the few that do, do not respond appropriately to criticism. One can,
of course, claim that it's all a conspiracy, but I haven't seen any
convincing evidence of that.

[Planet Visitor II]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:15:37 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>On 29/09/12 6:12, in article v9tc68lsd9udu9ltu...@4ax.com,
>"Planet Visitor II" <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>> <sarcasm> Is that with the left hand or the right hand, Earl??? </sarcasm>
>
>PV, master of disinformation.

Earl, master of the lie. You never mentioned which hand, and your
explanation was as juvenile as one could imagine regarding the
connection of electric current and magnetic flux.

Let's look at your exact words, before you called ME a "master of disinformation."

Quote -- "One thing I remember is that if you clench your hand and hold the
thumb upwars (sic), the fingers are the electric wires and the thumb the direction
of the magnetic field." -- Unquote.

Two things are clear... you should keep a rock in one of your hands so you'll know the
difference between your left hand and your right hand, since your comment shows
a belief that there is no difference between them. And secondly, placing either
the left or the right hand into your description is a murky ghetto of misinformation.

>It is known as the right-hand-rule, a picture is given at
>http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/resource/rhr/CNB.JPG
>

Why do you clip my explanation and then try to offer one of your own, as if
it had not already been explained in my link? See --
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/handrules/index.html

If you meant the "right hand" in your juvenile explanation, the thumb points
in the direction of CURRENT FLOW!! Which is NOT... I repeat NOT... "the
magnetic field," as your comment stated. Magnetic flux flows out perpendicular
and counter-clockwise to the current flow through the current-carrying wire.

>There is a similar rule for angular momentum used for gyroscopes
>
>http://np-apphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/right-hand-rule.gif/229553712/r
>ight-hand-rule.gif
>
>Note in this case that Vector B also involves the middle digit, which made
>me think of you.

You're just a poor loser, Earl. Now don't forget that rock, so you'll be able to
tell which hand is which the next time you try to explain something concerning
hands. But this one is almost as good as your claim that atoms and molecules
do not vibrate at absolute zero (insisting that there is no such thing as quantum
mechanical effects, and meaning we could violate the uncertainty principle).


Planet Visitor II

[Earl Evleth]

On 30/09/12 7:19, in article qrjf68le9snrn3efd...@4ax.com,

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

>> Note in this case that Vector B also involves the middle digit, which made
>> me think of you.
>
> You're just a poor loser, Earl.

I continue to salut you with my middle digit.