Weird weather

[Cindy Wells]

The mid-western US is having weird weather. I'm further south than some
so the snow accumulation tonight will be light. It will be the latest
recorded snow here. The past few weeks, the local weather is switching
from winter to early summer and back regularly.

Most of the seedlings are still waiting to go into the garden.
Similarly, the corn planting is delayed.

Cindy Wells
(it's easy to enjoy highs in the 70s to 80s; going back to days with
highs 30+ degrees below average is much harder.)

[Barry Gold]

On 5/2/2013 7:29 PM, Cindy Wells wrote:
> The mid-western US is having weird weather. I'm further south than some
> so the snow accumulation tonight will be light. It will be the latest
> recorded snow here. The past few weeks, the local weather is switching
> from winter to early summer and back regularly.
>
> Most of the seedlings are still waiting to go into the garden.
> Similarly, the corn planting is delayed.

Fire season in the LArea usually starts in late August or early
September. The hot summer dries out the local vegetation (adapted to
near-desert conditions), turning it into a huge pile of tinder. Then
along comes a Santana (hot, dry offshore winds), and the all it takes is
one little spark to burn 10s of 1000s of acres.

This year we have already had two wildfires, and it's only May. We've
had 3.4" of rain this year ("average" is around 13") and a very mild
winter. The last two summers were also mild, but if this week is any
indication, we may have a real scorcher this year.

[Fred Brown]

"Cindy Wells" <lcwel...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:klv78e$9tf$1...@dont-email.me...

The weather is unseasonal all over the US.
Tourist season started May 1 here in Myrtle Beach, ocean front condos
and beach houses renting from $1,000 to $4,000 a week and the temperatures
hardly reaching 70F.
All this week rainy, heavy overcast and temps in the high 50s mid 60's.
Today at 10:50 AM temp is 59F with strong winds.
No Beach Bunnies is sight.
I'll wager the rental agents are getting a lot of "I want my money back"
calls.

[Cindy Wells]

On 5/3/2013 9:53 AM, Fred Brown wrote:
>

<snip of weird mid-west weather>

> All this week rainy, heavy overcast and temps in the high 50s mid 60's.
> Today at 10:50 AM temp is 59F with strong winds.
> No Beach Bunnies is sight.
> I'll wager the rental agents are getting a lot of "I want my money back"
> calls.
>

Rain with temps in the 50s would be closer to normal here. We've been
getting 35-40 degree temperatures with our persistent rain events.

Cindy Wells
(To me, rain on the east coast is pretty common. I don't understand
those who'd complain about that weather in the tourist destinations.)
>
>
>

[Cindy Wells]

On 5/3/2013 2:17 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

<snip of weird mid-west weather and L.A. normal fire season>

> This year we have already had two wildfires, and it's only May. We've
> had 3.4" of rain this year ("average" is around 13") and a very mild
> winter. The last two summers were also mild, but if this week is any
> indication, we may have a real scorcher this year.

I hope your neighborhood has good xeriscaping. That at least limits the
fire season damage.

Cindy Wells

[Bookwyrm]

It's currently snowing here in Minneapolis. <sigh>

'wyrm

[invalidd]

Fred Brown wrote:

>
>
>
> The weather is unseasonal all over the US.
> Tourist season started May 1 here in Myrtle Beach, ocean front condos
> and beach houses renting from $1,000 to $4,000 a week and the temperatures
> hardly reaching 70F.
> All this week rainy, heavy overcast and temps in the high 50s mid 60's.
> Today at 10:50 AM temp is 59F with strong winds.
> No Beach Bunnies is sight.
> I'll wager the rental agents are getting a lot of "I want my money back"
> calls.
>

Where I live it's a typical Spring, hot and sunny one day, freezing cold
the next.

[Frank McCoy]

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[JimP.]

Snow has happened in the late spring. And later on. I was in
Albuquerque some years ago. It snowed in June.

JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 4:47:47 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>
> Snow has happened in the late spring. And later on. I was in
>
> Albuquerque some years ago. It snowed in June.

Thinking back, about half the ice storms I've worked have been in the spring. And I remember a cold snap in June twenty-five years ago. To date that's the coldest June I remember.

[Cindy Wells]

On 5/3/2013 3:47 PM, JimP. wrote:
>
> Snow has happened in the late spring. And later on. I was in
> Albuquerque some years ago. It snowed in June.
>

You can expect that at times in the mountains or in the northern plains.
When I lived in the NE, I've seen snow on the last week of April. When
you are living near the Ozarks, it's a very weird phenomenon.

> JimP.
>


Cindy Wells
(Dad claims that his uncle was blamed for a snowfall in June. This was
long before dad was born and I'm not sure where his family lived at
time. My great-uncle apparently asked for snow one year for his birthday
(in November); the next summer they got a bit of snow that melted in
minutes.)

[Cindy Wells]

On 5/3/2013 3:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:

> http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg

There's a reason some people refer to the state as Minne-snow-ta.

Cindy Wells

[MajorOz]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:41:05 PM UTC-5, Cindy Wells wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 3:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:

> > http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg

> There's a reason some people refer to the state as Minne-snow-ta.

I'm about 170 miles east and 50 miles south.....deeeeep in the Ozarks.

It's snowing bloody hell right now ( 10 pm ), with low going to 32 tonight.

Buzzards (turkey vultures) roosting out in a dead tree by the house today had a puzzled look on their faces....."WTF?"

Just down the road in Arkansas, first May snow since 1903.

When I lived, most of my adult life, in Wyoming, shit like this happened. Coming from from #2 son's wedding three years ago, I got blown all to hell by a blizzard ON I-80 near Rock Springs.

But......here ????

[MajorOz]

....ooops....

The Rock Springs blizzard was on 6 June.

[Tesseract]

On 03-May-13 8:09 PM, MajorOz wrote:
> On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:41:05 PM UTC-5, Cindy Wells wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 3:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>>> http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg
>
>> There's a reason some people refer to the state as Minne-snow-ta.
>
> I'm about 170 miles east and 50 miles south.....deeeeep in the
> Ozarks.
>
> It's snowing bloody hell right now ( 10 pm ), with low going to 32
> tonight.

Wash some of the blood off and tell us what pieces of hell look like.

> Buzzards (turkey vultures) roosting out in a dead tree by the house
> today had a puzzled look on their faces....."WTF?"
>
> Just down the road in Arkansas, first May snow since 1903.
>
> When I lived, most of my adult life, in Wyoming, shit like this
> happened. Coming from from #2 son's wedding three years ago, I got
> blown all to hell by a blizzard ON I-80 near Rock Springs.

So that's how you know what hell looks like. Why were you allowed to
come back?

> But......here ????
>


--
Tesseract

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Cindy Wells wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 3:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>> http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg
>
> There's a reason some people refer to the state as Minne-snow-ta.
>
> Cindy Wells

and to "migrating" people as snowbirds ...

[Fred Brown]

"Cindy Wells" <lcwel...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:km0m9u$dnc$1...@dont-email.me...

Rain with temps at 75 and above is welcome.
It's the unseasonable cold weather we don't like.

[Fred Brown]

"invalidd" <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
news:km0v93$i1j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

55F here, still heavy overcast and windy. Brrrrrrr.
And my brother wants me to visit him in upstate NY,
think I'll wait for warmer weather.

[Frank McCoy]

Cindy Wells <lcwel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 5/3/2013 3:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>> http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack050213.jpg
>
>There's a reason some people refer to the state as Minne-snow-ta.
>
>Cindy Wells

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Chris Zakes]

Blame Al Gore. He's been so successful at stopping global warming that
we're verging on a new ice age now.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.

-Mayland Long in "Tea With the Black Dragon" by R.A. MacAvoy

[Barry Gold]

On 5/4/2013 5:46 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Blame Al Gore. He's been so successful at stopping global warming that
> we're verging on a new ice age now.

Oh, really? Maybe you should take a compare these charts:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/468

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html

And look at the first chart on this page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Then decide if you still think it's just the "full employment for
climate scientists" scam.

Note that these are actual measurements, not the results of computer
models that often depend on what assumptions you put into them.

I'll note that the climate scientists have once again been wrong: they
underestimated how soon CO2 concentrations would reach 400ppm. That's
right: they predicted it would happen around 2020, and we've reached it
in 2013.

[invalidd]

Barry Gold wrote:

> On 5/4/2013 5:46 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> Blame Al Gore. He's been so successful at stopping global warming that
>> we're verging on a new ice age now.
>
>
> Oh, really? Maybe you should take a compare these charts:
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/news/468
>
> http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html
>
> And look at the first chart on this page:
> http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Interesting that the Met Office says that there has been a net decline
in global temperatures since 1998, but only one of those two links
actually shows that - the other claims the Met Office 'broadly agrees'
with the assertion that global temperatures have risen.

And since they've been measuring global temperatures since 1880, imagine
Amundsen's surprise when he arrived at the South Pole and found a thirty
year old thermometer.

> Then decide if you still think it's just the "full employment for
> climate scientists" scam.

Climate scientists are paid by results. The worse the results look, the
bigger the budget they get.

[Jette Goldie]

oh for goodness sake - who do you think is paying these "climate
scientists"?



--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[invalidd]

We are.

East Anglia University didn't have a climatic research department 30
years ago. Now it does, led by the infamous Professor Jones.

BTW, earlier this week I watched a bio of Richard Feynman. I didn't
realise that NASA actually tried to cover-up the cause of the Apollo
disaster, and that it took an inside whistle-blower to leak the
information. My impression of NASA has sustained massive damage points.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:10:45 PM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
> BTW, earlier this week I watched a bio of Richard Feynman. I didn't
>
> realise that NASA actually tried to cover-up the cause of the Apollo
>
> disaster, and that it took an inside whistle-blower to leak the
>
> information. My impression of NASA has sustained massive damage points.

Cover up? How? The launch-pad fire causes were pretty well known at the time, and the Apollo 13 disaster was initially attributed to a micrometeroid. Later it was determined to be a component that, IIRC, heated the tank. I didn't remember that, but it turned out to be in publications of the era.

As to climate, I for one can't categorically state that no warming exists, and that if it does it is caused by human activity. Maybe there's temperature fluctuations and maybe there's not; maybe it's caused by humans and maybe it's natural. This I do know: I'm not impressed by what passes for research in the Global Warming camp, which seems to be more devoted to pressing an agenda than doing real science.

For example, "Climategate" showed all sorts of questionable methodology, including fudging computer programs to produce the desired output. It showed problems with collecting temperature data, as well as e-mails that put motivation to question. The logical thing to do would be to start from scratch and scrupulously document everything, from the source of the data to adjustment of data readings and why it was done to rebuilding models without fudgefactors. If the point is science, and there's possible flawed data, then that's really the only option.

That didn't happen, though. No, what we saw was a circling of the wagons and attacks on critics. The latter is most instructive to their view on science, for all of science can be summed up with once sentence: Prove it. You cannot conduct science where questions are not tolerated.

The Anthropomorphic Global Warming could be right. They could also be wrong. But the only way to find out is to actually do the science instead of blaming every blip of the weather on their pet hypothesis and smearing critics who point out flaws in their arguments.

[invalidd]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:10:45 PM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
>
>> BTW, earlier this week I watched a bio of Richard Feynman. I didn't
>>
>>
>> realise that NASA actually tried to cover-up the cause of the
>> Apollo
>>
>> disaster, and that it took an inside whistle-blower to leak the
>>
>> information. My impression of NASA has sustained massive damage
>> points.
>
>
> Cover up? How? The launch-pad fire causes were pretty well known at
> the time, and the Apollo 13 disaster was initially attributed to a
> micrometeroid. Later it was determined to be a component that, IIRC,
> heated the tank. I didn't remember that, but it turned out to be in
> publications of the era.

According to the bio, a rubber O-ring didn't expand as it should after
being subject to freezing temperatures. On the night of the launch there
was a frost. The O-ring didn't expand so there was a fuel leak and kaboom.

Allegedly NASA engineers had concerns about the O-ring but they were
ordered to proceed. Concerns for their jobs kept them quiet until the
inside whistleblower contacted the public enquiry.

<snip cos I'm using a restrictive news server>

> The Anthropomorphic Global Warming could be right. They could also be
> wrong. But the only way to find out is to actually do the science
> instead of blaming every blip of the weather on their pet hypothesis
> and smearing critics who point out flaws in their arguments.

The current hiatus in global warming despite the continued increase in
CO2 levels shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.

Science is good, but there's so much bad science out there that trying
to work out the truth is like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes.

[Cindy Wells]

On 5/15/2013 6:07 AM, invalidd wrote:

> According to the bio, a rubber O-ring didn't expand as it should after
> being subject to freezing temperatures. On the night of the launch there
> was a frost. The O-ring didn't expand so there was a fuel leak and kaboom.
>
> Allegedly NASA engineers had concerns about the O-ring but they were
> ordered to proceed. Concerns for their jobs kept them quiet until the
> inside whistleblower contacted the public enquiry.
>

That was the Challenger, not Apollo 13, incident. BTW: even non-NASA
engineers knew about the O-ring material. Management discounted the
problem like so many others because it hadn't caused a critical failure
yet. Of course, the continuation of that mindset doomed Columbia.

The whistle-blower merely made sure that a member of the panel got the
specs for the O-ring material.

Cindy Wells
(my sister and I were in high school at the time of the Challenger
explosion. When we got home and saw the replays, she pointed directly to
the small flame. "That O-ring failed".)

[invalidd]

Cindy Wells wrote:

> On 5/15/2013 6:07 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
>> According to the bio, a rubber O-ring didn't expand as it should after
>> being subject to freezing temperatures. On the night of the launch there
>> was a frost. The O-ring didn't expand so there was a fuel leak and
>> kaboom.
>>
>> Allegedly NASA engineers had concerns about the O-ring but they were
>> ordered to proceed. Concerns for their jobs kept them quiet until the
>> inside whistleblower contacted the public enquiry.
>>
>
> That was the Challenger, not Apollo 13, incident.

Thank you. My bad.

I wasn't paying too much attention until the bio mentioned the NASA coverup.

I'm not actually sure why the incident took up so much of the bio. I
guess Feynman scored because of the ice water in front of the enquiry,
but without the tipoff he would never have figured it out himself.

[saa...@sympatico.ca]

There was no coverup. The launch was being televised live. We were all watching it at work on various monitors around the building. My first thought, uh..well my *first* thought was a very still and quiet "Uh-oh". My next thought was "O-ring deformation". The launch had already been delayed by rainstorms. They had torrential rain the night before, and freezing temperatures. There was talk of another launch delay, but it was overridden.
The O-ring was built for the rigors of sub-zero temperatures but not the rigors of deformation by ice. It was a tragedy and a shocking setback for NASA as a civilian agency.

[JimP.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:20 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>The current hiatus in global warming despite the continued increase in
>CO2 levels shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.
>
>Science is good, but there's so much bad science out there that trying
>to work out the truth is like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes.

Lets see, current CO2 is 385-400 ppm. Iin the Precambrian era it was
7000ppm. Its cooler now than the Pre-Cambrian. So yeah, a rise in CO2
is bad.

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:28 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> to write:

>On Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:20 +0100, invalidd
><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>The current hiatus in global warming despite the continued increase in
>>CO2 levels shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.
>>
>>Science is good, but there's so much bad science out there that trying
>>to work out the truth is like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes.
>
>Lets see, current CO2 is 385-400 ppm. Iin the Precambrian era it was
>7000ppm. Its cooler now than the Pre-Cambrian. So yeah, a rise in CO2
>is bad.
>
>JimP.

According to the Pastafarians, global warming is due to a lack of
pirates. There has been an increase in pirate activitiy (specifically
off the coast of Somalia) in the past ten-to-fifteen years and, oddly
enough, a noticable lack of further global warming during that same
period.

QED.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.

-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein

[MajorOz]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:54:26 AM UTC-5, invalidd wrote:
> Cindy Wells wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/15/2013 6:07 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> According to the bio, a rubber O-ring didn't expand as it should after
>
> >> being subject to freezing temperatures. On the night of the launch there
>
> >> was a frost. The O-ring didn't expand so there was a fuel leak and
>
> >> kaboom.
>
> >>
>
> >> Allegedly NASA engineers had concerns about the O-ring but they were
>
> >> ordered to proceed. Concerns for their jobs kept them quiet until the
>
> >> inside whistleblower contacted the public enquiry.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > That was the Challenger, not Apollo 13, incident.
>
>
>
> Thank you. My bad.
>
>
>
> I wasn't paying too much attention until the bio mentioned the NASA coverup.
>
>
>
> I'm not actually sure why the incident took up so much of the bio. I
>
> guess Feynman scored because of the ice water in front of the enquiry,
>
> but without the tipoff he would never have figured it out himself.

yeah......he would.......

[Frank McCoy]

JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:20 +0100, invalidd
><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>The current hiatus in global warming despite the continued increase in
>>CO2 levels shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.
>>
>>Science is good, but there's so much bad science out there that trying
>>to work out the truth is like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes.
>
>Lets see, current CO2 is 385-400 ppm. Iin the Precambrian era it was
>7000ppm. Its cooler now than the Pre-Cambrian. So yeah, a rise in CO2
>is bad.
>

The sun was in its youth in that period; there was no life on Earth;
and the atmosphere had a completely different content. Even the ORBIT
of the Earth has changed in the 4+ BILLION years since the beginning.
In no way can you compare THAT Earth with the Earth of today.

Try something smaller for comparison: Like a few hundred thousand
years ago, or even a few dozen *million* years or so.

When you go clear back to the early birth-pangs of the Solar System,
all bets are off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian
Even going back to before life fully settled the land is being dumb.

[Cindy Wells]

Indeed, the tip merely shortened the time to prove the point of failure.
They'd have had to spend extra time getting the specs for that material
and then do the confirming test once they had the correct O-ring
supplied. Feynman had no love for idiots, including managers/bureaucrats
who would have wanted to claim "trade secrets" on the material
specifications.

Cindy Wells
(The routine is pretty typical considering some Chemical Safety Board
reports I've seen in C&EN. One of the most recent was a refinery where
the management had received a report about corroded pipe about 10 years
before the accident (refinery explosion with loss of life). The pipe was
only replaced after the accident made it non-reusable. Of course, they
couldn't upgrade to a less likely to corrode pipe.)

[Tesseract]

The Precambrian period covers the first four billion years of our
planet's existence. There's no evidence of life for the first billion of
those years, though the Wikipedia article that you provide a link to
mentions some interesting findings that may eventually show otherwise.
It also mentions that, for the next three billion years, the place was
teeming with life. Among its lasting legacies was eventually evolving
into us, and providing an oxygen rich atmosphere.

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

I wouldn't dispute that Feynman was a genius, but the bio gave the
impression that he was dying of cancer and long past his best when he
was chosen to be the token 'independent scientist' on the inquiry.

I regret not paying more attention, but the tipoff allegedly went from
NASA insider to a brass hat who was interviewed about his dilemma about
how to pass on the tip to Feynman without compromising his source.

[Barry Gold]

invalidd wrote:
> The current hiatus in global warming despite the continued increase in
> CO2 levels shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.

What hiatus? Look at the first chart I posted, global surface
temperatures. Yes, there was a big spike around 1998 and then a drop,
with temperatures just about reaching the top of the spike.

*But* if you smooth out that curve, you _still_ see a rising
temperature. Now... if we get through another 3 years without
significant rise, _then_ I'll grant a hiatus. Not so far. Looks like a
fractal whose running average (say, average each year's figure with the
previous and following 4 years) still shows a rising trend.

[Frank McCoy]

http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

[invalidd]

Isn't that rather arbitrary? No rise for 15 years but if it goes for
another three you'll start to believe it?

That seems to me even less justifiable than my opinion that only data
points a decade apart are sufficiently independent, so I would have
chosen five years, not three.

[invalidd]

Wow, there's one biased blogger :(

[Barry Gold]

On 5/16/2013 3:01 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
> http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

Thanks. I find that highly useful.

[Barry Gold]

On 5/16/2013 4:12 PM, invalidd wrote:
>> *But* if you smooth out that curve, you _still_ see a rising
>> temperature. Now... if we get through another 3 years without
>> significant rise, _then_ I'll grant a hiatus. Not so far. Looks like a
>> fractal whose running average (say, average each year's figure with
>> the previous and following 4 years) still shows a rising trend.
>
> Isn't that rather arbitrary? No rise for 15 years but if it goes for
> another three you'll start to believe it?
>
> That seems to me even less justifiable than my opinion that only data
> points a decade apart are sufficiently independent, so I would have
> chosen five years, not three.

I said "start". Not that I'll be convinced that GW in in hiatus, but
that I'll be willing to grant some credence to the notion.

And if you want to use five years, go ahead. I think you will _still_
see a rising trend. In fact, the longer the time period you average
over, the more obvious the warming trend will be (up to about 20 years,
so you don't make it so long that you start including data points before
1950 in post-1970 averages).

Btw, I recall you cited "Climate Gate" as a reason for doubting GW. I'd
also suggest that you look up that term in Wikipedia and read the
section headed "Content of the Documents".

[Frank McCoy]

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting
on its shoes." -- Mark Twain, (attributed)

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:13:52 PM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:

> Btw, I recall you cited "Climate Gate" as a reason for doubting GW. I'd
>
> also suggest that you look up that term in Wikipedia and read the
>
> section headed "Content of the Documents".

Given the cult-like nature of the AGW crowd and the ability to edit Wikipedia articles, that isn't exactly a reliable source in this instance. The documents themselves are to be trusted more than a digested and possibly spin-doctored account. The presence of fudge factors to make models yield a particular result should be enough to raise eyebrows.

Here's the thing: It's clear that the data and the methodology is tainted. For real science to occur, you must make certain both that your data is good and your methodology doesn't contain any sort of bias. I'll say again: I don't know if GW is happening or not, or, if it is, whether it's man-made or natural. But I respectfully submit that unless the AGW crowd has the guts to put their hypothesis on the line and scrupulously document everything, then we won't ever know.

For instance, what's the margin of error for given readings? How to you compensate for sea temperature readings taken in a canvas bucket vs a wooden bucket vs a metal one vs at an intake manifold? How to you allow for heat island effect? How do you allow for moving stations or stations not functioning at all? And that's just some things off the top of my head.

We see enough contradictory information to know this isn't settled, not by a long shot. For instance, how CO2 concentrations follow rises in temperature and not the other way around. Or let a model make a prediction and see how it stacks up. I'd love to see someone put together a neural network type of system and see what it spits out.

[Frank McCoy]

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
Reading your criteria for what you'd ACCEPT as "real science", there
isn't a single "scientific theory" ever proposed that you'd find
valid.

You give no valid data; only criticize anybody who presents any ... IF
it supports "Global Warming". Any comparative data suggesting
otherwise, you accept blindly without 1/100 the scrutiny.

So ... Given THAT, why should we pay attention to YOU?

You obviously don't want to believe, for one reason or another; so you
won't; no matter WHAT the evidence, it won't be enough ... as long as
it supports a theory you don't like.

The seas are warming and rising ... measurably.
Just because you can't SEE them rise day-by-day, you don't accept it.
The ice-caps are melting.
Again, you aren't there looking at it; so you scoff at those who do.
I presume that in about five to ten years when the Arctic is ice-free,
you'll say, "So ... What does THAT prove?"
The glaciers are almost all gone in the USA ... But you never visited
them; so again you feel free to ignore the data.
The ice-shelves in Antarctica are shattering and about 75% gone ...
But again, you aren't there; and those who report such things are
obviously "alarmist".

"According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), sea levels
have been rising about 3 mm per year since 1993 – totalling a 200 mm
increase (7.87 inches) in global averaged sea level since 1870."

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/qthinice1.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php

Where is YOUR data?

[David Simpson]

The thing I see is not what models there are but what actual data
shows. No predictions but the data shown in the "Elevator" images
clearly shows a hindsight reading of global warming.
--
David
No email replies please.
17/05/2013

You will be run over by a beer truck.

[Jette Goldie]

No more biased as "skeptics" who ignore the information available.

[invalidd]

If I'm driving a car at 30mph and I brake suddenly because a kid runs
out in front of me, I hope the driver behind me is a skeptic ("He's
stopped so I'd better stop too or I'll run into his rear") rather than
the emotively named 'realist' ("If I take a moving average he hasn't
really stopped but is doing 25mph, therefore I'll be safe to continue
driving at 25mph too").

Moving averages are for when you've already proved the concept and you
want to make extrapolations and interpolations as accurately as possible.

Using moving averages to 'prove' something when you don't get the
results you want is a math 101 fail.

[invalidd]

Barry Gold wrote:

> On 5/16/2013 4:12 PM, invalidd wrote:
>
>>> *But* if you smooth out that curve, you _still_ see a rising
>>> temperature. Now... if we get through another 3 years without
>>> significant rise, _then_ I'll grant a hiatus. Not so far. Looks like a
>>> fractal whose running average (say, average each year's figure with
>>> the previous and following 4 years) still shows a rising trend.
>>
>>
>> Isn't that rather arbitrary? No rise for 15 years but if it goes for
>> another three you'll start to believe it?
>>
>> That seems to me even less justifiable than my opinion that only data
>> points a decade apart are sufficiently independent, so I would have
>> chosen five years, not three.
>
>
> I said "start". Not that I'll be convinced that GW in in hiatus, but
> that I'll be willing to grant some credence to the notion.
>
> And if you want to use five years, go ahead. I think you will _still_
> see a rising trend. In fact, the longer the time period you average
> over, the more obvious the warming trend will be (up to about 20 years,
> so you don't make it so long that you start including data points before
> 1950 in post-1970 averages).

One of the mainstays of scientific method is that you make predictions
and then confirm or refute them by experiment or measurement.

Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The global warming
industry is already levying huge taxes without awaiting confirmation.

In the financial section of my paper, it reports that a company
operating windfarms in the UK is launching on the stock market. It has
promised to pay dividends of 6% per year for the foreseeable future.

Wind farms are a very expensive method of energy generation. Without
huge government subsidies they wouldn't be viable. And the subsidies are
so huge they can afford to pay 6% when base rates are 0.5%! That money
is coming straight out of the pockets of taxpayers like myself.

[John W. Vinson]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:36:34 +0100, invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd>
wrote:

>Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The global warming
>industry is already levying huge taxes without awaiting confirmation.

Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel industry
is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they can
whatever the consequences.
--

John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com

[invalidd]

John W. Vinson wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:36:34 +0100, invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The global warming
>>industry is already levying huge taxes without awaiting confirmation.
>
>
> Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel industry
> is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they can
> whatever the consequences.

I wish they'd pay my global-warming-industry taxes for me :(

[Barry Gold]

> John W. Vinson wrote:
>> Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel industry
>> is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they
>> can whatever the consequences.

On 5/17/2013 9:33 AM, invalidd wrote:
> I wish they'd pay my global-warming-industry taxes for me :(

Actually, I saw an interesting proposal in an LA Times op-ed a week or
so ago. The idea was to enact a "carbon tax,"(*) but _decrease_ income
taxes the same amount. So the government would be taking the same amount
out of the economy as it does now, but in a way that indirectly
encourages the use of alternate fuels (by raising the price of fossil
fuels).

This still distorts the economy, of course. _Any_ tax except Henry
George's single tax distorts the economy. But unlike the current
system(+), it would not be "choosing winners and losers" among the
alternative fuels. On the contrary, it would be a simple discouragement
of the use of fossil fuels.(@) Not a ban, not a "cap and trade" (how do
you decide what the right cap is?), but a simple rise in the price of
carbon fuels. Then let the economy do what it does best: figure out the
best way of dealing with the new price structure.

If that results in us using less energy, that helps solve the problem.
If it means people switch to wind or solar or ocean-thermal or
geothermal or tidal power, that helps too. And any combination, with
the economy automatically finding the optimal solution.

(*) Actually, a tax on fossil fuels when either (a) extracted from the
ground in the US, or (b) imported into the US.

(+) specific subsidies for wind farms, for corn-to-ethanol conversion, etc.

(@) If I were designing it, I would probably include a rebate if the
fuels were converted into non-fuel forms, e.g., plastics, aniline dyes,
etc. Plastics (even -- or especially -- if they end up in landfills)
sequester carbon almost as well as the original coal, oil, & natural gas
when left in the ground.

[invalidd]

Barry Gold wrote:

>> John W. Vinson wrote:
>>
>>> Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel
>>> industry
>>> is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they
>>> can whatever the consequences.
>
>
> On 5/17/2013 9:33 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
>> I wish they'd pay my global-warming-industry taxes for me :(
>
>
>
> Actually, I saw an interesting proposal in an LA Times op-ed a week or
> so ago. The idea was to enact a "carbon tax,"(*) but _decrease_ income
> taxes the same amount. So the government would be taking the same amount
> out of the economy as it does now, but in a way that indirectly
> encourages the use of alternate fuels (by raising the price of fossil
> fuels).

I find it extremely ironic that the Greens first became a respectable
political movement in Germany, which is currently shutting down its
nuclear reactors (because they think Germany is in the Pacific
ring-of-fire?), and switching to coal-fired power stations instead.

>
> This still distorts the economy, of course. _Any_ tax except Henry
> George's single tax distorts the economy. But unlike the current
> system(+), it would not be "choosing winners and losers" among the
> alternative fuels. On the contrary, it would be a simple discouragement
> of the use of fossil fuels.(@) Not a ban, not a "cap and trade" (how do
> you decide what the right cap is?), but a simple rise in the price of
> carbon fuels. Then let the economy do what it does best: figure out the
> best way of dealing with the new price structure.

Nuclear power would be a big loser because, as the UK is proving, it's
beyond the capability of private enterprise to cope with the costs and
the risk.

>
> If that results in us using less energy, that helps solve the problem.
> If it means people switch to wind or solar or ocean-thermal or
> geothermal or tidal power, that helps too. And any combination, with
> the economy automatically finding the optimal solution.

After three unusually hard winters in a row, using less energy isn't an
option for me.

I'd like to see the US repeat what they did in order to develop the atom
bomb - round up their best scientists and stick them somewhere remote
and away from distractions and not let them out again until they'd
worked out an affordable, clean, renewable energy source. As it is, the
best brains are picked off by industries which have little or no
interest in the long-term future of the planet.

[Frank McCoy]

John W. Vinson <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:36:34 +0100, invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd>
>wrote:
>
>>Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The global warming
>>industry is already levying huge taxes without awaiting confirmation.
>
>Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel industry
>is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they can
>whatever the consequences.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/

[Jette Goldie]

what taxes?

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>I'd like to see the US repeat what they did in order to develop the atom
>bomb - round up their best scientists and stick them somewhere remote
>and away from distractions and not let them out again until they'd
>worked out an affordable, clean, renewable energy source. As it is, the
>best brains are picked off by industries which have little or no
>interest in the long-term future of the planet.

Well ... THERE they had a war going on; so they could just preempt
people and resources. More-important though, they KNEW exactly what
they wanted; and it was mainly an engineering challenge, not a
scientific one: They needed a method to purify isotopes of heavy
metals. They ended up with not just one, but THREE methods that would
do the job.

Here, about the only hope is hydrogen-fusion.

It's not just an engineering challenge, or they would have solved it
decades, even half-a-century ago. Some doubt that it's really
economically possible.

Actually, it IS possible ... It's just incredibly expensive, HUGE, and
politically almost-impossible.

People WANT a compact power-source that they can put down anywhere,
especially near the main loads like cities. So, all the research goes
into things you can fit into a (reasonably) small building, like
Tokamaks and laser confinement. Those all have confinement problems
and return-on-investment (of energy) problems.

ONE method doesn't have any of those problems; and we could build it
tomorrow. But it would require billions, probably close to a trillion
to build; and would be HUGE. So, we couldn't put it near any major
city because of the incredible expense of buying land. That also
means we'd have to ship the resulting energy long distances. (That
also is merely engineering, what with DC lines and developing
superconductor technologies.)

But it's the cost; and particularly the *political* cost that's the
killer. Being miles in length and probably in the middle of nowhere,
what congresscritter is going to support the project except the one in
whose state it's going to end up? "Why should the state of <FITB>
with only a population of XX millions get THIS project, when with the
same money we could build a hundred or more ZZZ projects around HERE?"

Oh yes ... the method:
LINEAR confinement. Just build the tube LONG enough; and don't even
bother to worry about losses out the end. No instabilities, pure
superconducting magnetic confinement methods already developed for
other uses, and the open-ends can even be used for fuel-injection.

But who, even among scientists, is going to support THAT?
The only HOPE is for some incredibly rich person to start building it
on his/her own. Bill Gates might; except he's on a
save-the-world-from-communicable-diseases kick.

Which, I might note, is ALSO very important.

[Frank McCoy]

Well, there WILL eventually BE such taxes.
Right now we pay taxes that are used to support rich idiots who build
their private mansions or vacation-homes right along the seashore ...
and expect the government (us) to bail them out every time they get
washed away. This will tend to get worse ... slowly ... but
eventually MUCH worse.

Of course, the sea-rise, increase in BIG storms, and such things can't
be blamed on Global Warming ... Can they? Well, even so, you can't
blame HUMANS for affecting something as huge as Global Climate!

Sometime look at the damage ants can do.
Right around here, probably 95% of the damage to the roads near where
I live *originated* from ants tunneling under the roads and making
cracks ... Which, of course, water and ice soon expand into potholes.

The Romans had a cure for that: Lye in the roadbed.
Now we just flatten the road and pour asphalt over it.
Then we wonder why the road only lasts ten years.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[invalidd]

There are loads of them, many of them by stealth.

The green tax you pay whenever you fly anywhere. The green tax you pay
on petrol. And because companies have to pay them too, your food and
clothes cost more than they need to.

Then there's carbon credits, and companies which by their nature aren't
very clean (chemical companies and power companies, for example), have
to pay to buy extra credits which pushes shop prices up still further.

Since you're a big fan of the Daily Mail, I thought you'd appreciate the
following link to an article in today's paper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325840/Green-energy-folly-600-bills-Annual-charges-hit-living-standards-says-report.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

:)

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

Your post pretty much highlights why I find it hard to take the AGW crowd seriously. I say I'm open to proof if the AGW supporters can provide documented data and methodology; you respond by attacking my question and then with argument by assertion. You could have presented argument by authority as well; that's also part and parcel of AGW Toolkit*.

Really, now. Documented data is not that hard. If a man in a hard hat can do it, so can a real scientist. The same with methodology. Certainly it's not your argument that a red neck in a hard hat can do what a scientist with a Phd cannot.

I had a friend who was a surveyor and he was "boots on the ground" in all sorts of out-of-the-way places from deserts to the Arctic. He had quite a collection of links to things like sea ice - which, the last time I looked some years ago, wasn't following the claims of the AGW crowd. He was particularly amused by an AGW team who couldn't travel to an area where the snow and ice had supposedly melted because of . . . wait for it . . . snow and ice.

I've seen contrary data that remains unanswered. If you'll do a web search, you'll find a paper that examined climate models and found that random data had a better match. If you'll do further searching you'll discover that CO2 concentrations rise *after* a warming trend instead of *before,* which is completely opposite. If you search you'll find that there was some initial denial by the AGW crowd over anomalies such as the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. If you'll search, you'll find that the initial AGW predictions have failed miserably. And if you'll search, you'll find this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/ice-tsunamis/

The observation of long time residents that this last happened in the 1950s is interesting, given there was a cooling period in that decade. Among other things, it wiped out what was known as the Lupine Belt in the South and brought a return to chemical fertilizers across that region.

Here's a particularly irritating example: The AGW crowd seized on the tornado outbreak a few years ago as "evidence" of climate change, even as meteorologists downplayed the idea. And they downplayed it for good reason: In my childhood I rode through several tornadoes, enough to recognize the roar and to tell the difference in damage from regular storm damage (I don't think we knew about downbursts then, or called straight-line winds by that name). Yet you'll find *none* of them on a map of recorded tornadoes. Why? Because we didn't have Doppler Weather Radar back then, and if no one told the NWS about it, they didn't know. And most of the time we never thought about notifying the NWS. As a consequence, it was the tornadoes that hit populated areas that tended to be be reported. Therefore, *we don't have enough data from the pre-Doppler Radar years to form a solid baseline.*

That didn't stop the AGW crowd from seizing on this as "proof" of Global Warming. A few warned about the data gap, but that tended to get downplayed. And my opinion of what passes as AGW "science" dropped another notch.

And so forth and so on. Document the data and do real science, and I'll listen. Otherwise my SkeptoMeter pegs out.

*Back when the infamous hockeystick was questioned by Congressional committee, the reaction by AGW True Believers wasn't to explain why they thought it was right, but to condemn those who dared to question an "expert." Interesting response there.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:26:48 PM UTC-4, John W. Vinson wrote:
> Pro-science people like me don't have twenty years. The fossil fuel industry
>
> is funding denialists so they can continue to emit as much CO2 as they can
>
> whatever the consequences.

Denialists? Please. A more accurate term is heretic.

BTW, could you please pass along to the fossil fuel industry that I haven't receive my checks?

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:20:13 PM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
> If that results in us using less energy, that helps solve the problem.
>
> If it means people switch to wind or solar or ocean-thermal or
>
> geothermal or tidal power, that helps too. And any combination, with
>
> the economy automatically finding the optimal solution.

Oh, it'll result in less energy use, all right. Less people will be able to afford it. Kind of ironic that my parents saw the government work to bring electricity to everyone, and now it seems to be trying to limit it to the well heeled. If you're going to ban fossil fuels, as the EPA seems committed to doing, then either you're going to have to supply an affordable replacement, or people are going to be sitting in the dark. And that solution isn't going to be solar or wind. Weather plays havoc with photocells and wind generation, wind generation works well in some places but not in others, and both have the problem of lack of power storage.*

There *is* a solution we can do right now, but you may not like it: Promote nuclear power. Nuclear reactors can replace coal burning plants right now. In contrast, without a form of power storage, you must bill an equivalent amount of traditional generation to make up for shortfalls in wind and solar.

[Frank McCoy]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>*Back when the infamous hockeystick was questioned by
>Congressional committee, the reaction by AGW True Believers
>wasn't to explain why they thought it was right,
>but to condemn those who dared to question an "expert."
>Interesting response there.

As is YOUR response. Talk about "True Believers"!!!!!

You question EVERY expert in the field; and dismiss anything they say;
if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions; while at the same time
accepting any contrary argument by non-experts as Gospel.

Geesh.

Sometime just LOOK at the credentials of those people making up the
anti-global-warming crowd; and see where their real expertise IS.

Then go look, just for comparison, at the credentials of those
scientists you denigrate because they are convinced global-warming is
a fact we have to live with.

Not that I'm saying that people outside the field in contention can't
have valid points to make. They can, and often do. It's just that
who do you trust to pull your teeth ... The dentist, or the plumber
who knows how to use a pair-of-pliers?

And who would you trust to prescribe your medication? Your doctor or
pharmacist ... or the salesman for a drug-manufacturer who swears that
his company's new product will cure your shakes.

Right now, the anti crowd "scientists" are being funded about the same
way that salesman for AstraZeneca is.

Sorry, but I'd rather get MY prescriptions done by somebody *I* pay
the salary of and might just have MY interest at heart, rather than a
"representative" of some big company with a product to sell ... and
who pay their salesmen on commission.

Your anti-global-warming "experts" remind me all too well of the old
TV commercial back when I was young:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0tWONdhyO0
When the "study" is funded by the company selling, THEN I take the
information with a whole block of salt.
And yes, probably over 90% of the anti-global-warming studies are
funded ... directly or indirectly ... by guess-who?

(I'll give you a hint: The name starts with an 'E' and ends with an
'n'.) Don't believe me? Do a little research of your own.

[invalidd]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Where is YOUR data?
>
>
> Your post pretty much highlights why I find it hard to take the AGW
> crowd seriously. I say I'm open to proof if the AGW supporters can
> provide documented data and methodology; you respond by attacking my
> question and then with argument by assertion. You could have
> presented argument by authority as well; that's also part and parcel
> of AGW Toolkit*.
>
> Really, now. Documented data is not that hard. If a man in a hard hat
> can do it, so can a real scientist. The same with methodology.
> Certainly it's not your argument that a red neck in a hard hat can do
> what a scientist with a Phd cannot.

<snipped cos of crappy news service>

> Document the data and do real science, and
> I'll listen. Otherwise my SkeptoMeter pegs out.

Sadly we're in a scientific dark age when scientific methodology seems
to have fallen by the wayside.

As a group of investigators recently reported, in up to 90% of
peer-reviewed, published medical research, the conclusions of the
authors isn't supported by the underlying data. The climate reearch
papers I've read in detail are at least that bad.

Formulate the theory, make the predictions, and if the theory is valid
the predictions should prove accurate. Don't revise the data or use
mathematical trickery to fudge the results - if the theory is wrong,
ditch it and formulate new ones.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:19:20 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:

> You question EVERY expert in the field; and dismiss anything they say;
>
> if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions; while at the same time
>
> accepting any contrary argument by non-experts as Gospel.

All of science hangs on two small words: prove it. Science not only allows questioning authority, but demands it. And I respectfully submit that you do not follow your own dictum, for otherwise you would accept the word of all authority without complaint.

I do note instead of refuting my points you continue with an attack on me. No comment on how global warming models fare worse than a random data; no dismissal of the claims of a surveyor who's worked in the Arctic; no refutation how the last time we had ice tsunami was during the last cooling period, one significant enough to change American agriculture; not the first denial that historically CO2 increases *after* a rise in temperature. If the facts are in your favor, it should be trivial to do so for all the points I've mentioned.

Your sort of argument might have a place in dogma, but whatever it is it certainly isn't science.

[JimP.]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:19:20 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>*Back when the infamous hockeystick was questioned by
>>Congressional committee, the reaction by AGW True Believers
>>wasn't to explain why they thought it was right,
>>but to condemn those who dared to question an "expert."
>>Interesting response there.
>
>As is YOUR response. Talk about "True Believers"!!!!!
>
>You question EVERY expert in the field; and dismiss anything they say;
>if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions; while at the same time
>accepting any contrary argument by non-experts as Gospel.
>
>Geesh.

I'll remind everyone of a documentary I watched on television several
years ago. I posted here about this in the past.

There were 20 climatologists in the documentary. None of them agreed !
One said GW was coming. One said GW wasn't coming. Both were
absolutely certain. The rest were somewhere in between (perchantage
chance it would or wouldn't happen) and mostly said things like 'so
and so is a good guy and my friend but he is also a bleeeep idiot and
wrong'. Twenty climatologists couldn't agree it was happening or not
happpening !

And I'll also mention the deletion of raw data by the Pro-GW people.
Everytime a scientist deletes data and refuses to share it so the
conclusions can be tested by other scientists, turns out to be hiding
something.

What could the Pro-GW scientists be hiding ?

That there is no global warming.

And don't forget. We are between Ice Ages. The previous one was about
10-12 thousand years ago. Another one is on the way. They average
25000 years apart.

JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009

[JimP.]

To me, heretic is a religious putdown used as an excuse to commit
pogrom or jail unbelievers. But I've seen Religious Fervor from the
Pro-GW television shows, so maybe it is apropos after all.

[Frank McCoy]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:19:20 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>> You question EVERY expert in the field; and dismiss anything they say;
>>
>> if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions; while at the same time
>>
>> accepting any contrary argument by non-experts as Gospel.
>
>All of science hangs on two small words: prove it.
>Science not only allows questioning authority, but demands it.
>And I respectfully submit that you do not follow your own dictum,
>for otherwise you would accept the word of all authority without complaint.
>

I don't "accept the word of all authority without complaint"; because
A. Sometimes *I* am the authority; it being my line-of-study.
I've known SOME "authorities" to be dead-wrong.
B. That term "all authority".
Anytime you include either "all" or "none" in such a statement,
the statement itself is usually provably false.

What I *DO*, in fields where I'm not one of the experts (which, like
in "Global Warming" I'm not, in by far the majority of cases) is
listen to the experts in the field, read their arguments, look at
their data and see if it matches; and if there *IS* any real
controversy amongst the majority, I look at THEIR arguments in the
same manner.

HERE, in THIS case I find:
A. Most of the climatologists, weathermen, statisticians, and data I
can access myself, all tend to agree that we ARE getting warmer; and
that humans are *probably* considerably to-blame.
B. Most of those DENYING global-warming are experts in OTHER fields.
C. Most of the deniers tend to use short-term and specifically-
selected terms or only go so long-term that our present-day
data seems too small to be counted.
C. I look at satellite photos of the arctic ice-caps.
I don't have to be an expert to see the incredible shrinkage in
only half my lifetime.
D. I've been to Glacier-National Park; and seen the tiny remnants of
what USED to be huge glaciers.
E. I'm almost 70 years old; and have SEEN the world grow warmer ...
not just over the whole period; but in each DECADE!

Then to have people who are barely out of training-pants, most of
whose so-called "experts" are funded by Exxon, tell me that THEY don't
see any such warming, makes me almost SICK.

>I do note instead of refuting my points you continue with an attack on me.
>No comment on how global warming models fare worse than a random data;

Um ... Sorry, but "random data" fails miserably in comparison.
Random-Data does fairly well in month-to-month or sometimes even
year-to-year weather "forecasts".
It does *miserably* in day-to-day or decade-to-decade forecasts.
Which is about what you'd expect.
The first: Day-to-day, the amount of data coming in along with
satellite information, combined with increasingly sophisticated
computer-models makes my local weather-forecast almost uncannily
accurate ... especially compared to only a decade or two ago.
Heck, only 10 years ago, they were hard-put to get an accurate
estimate for the local CITY, let alone all the town around it.
NOW they show maps of the whole STATE; and their "future radar
forecast" is incredibly close to what we actually experience in the
next day or two.
Similarly (but different) with long-term forecasts. It's EASY to plot
the fact that *on average* each year gets slightly warmer, slightly
more energetic, and yes, slightly more *extreme* in both warm and
cold. http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/climate.plot.2.gif
At the same time, predicting WHICH year, especially locally, will be
hotter, colder, more-humid, dryer, have more or less storms, etc., is
actually getting HARDER; because ... of well, Global Warming.
So, there, your "random data" probably wins.

>no dismissal of the claims of a surveyor who's worked in the Arctic;

"A surveyor".
A. Just how OLD is that surveyor?
B. What gives a surveyor who once-upon-a-time "worked in the arctic"
such specialized knowledge of the whole top of the world?
C. What knowledge does one surveyor have that Climatologists don't?
D. Who NEEDS a surveyor?!?!?!!!
Look at any satellite photo of the region yourself, for Cripe's
Sake!!!! Geesh.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/qthinice1.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php
I posted those pictures before; but YOU claim I present no data.
That's pretty convincing "data", I'd say!
"Data" isn't just rows of numbers or one person's experience of local
weather.

>no refutation how the last time we had ice tsunami was during the last cooling period,

Can't even see how that is even relevant.
Disasters such as huge tsunami, whether ice-generated or not,
generally don't happen on ANY schedule. Around the world there are
about a half-dozen or more such events likely to happen at any time.
Similarly if you add in volcanoes, seafloor subsidations, large
meteorites, and probably as many other things that could throw our
tiny world into Hell. Some, such as a large-enough meteorite or huge
enough eruption could completely cancel out Global Warming in a few
days. Others could throw the switch completely to *HOT* in not much
more than the same amount of time.

Dust from a large meteor-strike or a huge volcanic eruption could
suppress global temperatures from a few days to several decades. (See
"The year without a summer" or any documentation about 1816.)
http://suite101.com/article/the-year-without-a-summer-1816-a54675

A similar strike or vulcanism in the *arctic* however could release
untold tons of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere, which would send
us on our merry way to Hell ... only ten times as fast.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-12-15/methane-burps-ticking-time-bomb

>one significant enough to change American agriculture; not the first
>denial that historically CO2 increases *after* a rise in temperature.

I call bullshit on THAT one as an argument.
You forget (or don't want to notice) that CO2 levels (and temperature)
are in a positive-feedback cycle. If you raise one, the other WILL
follow ... and increase! That's what's so dangerous about our present
global-warming!

WE shift the world from slipping into an ice-age (probably a good
thing) by upping the CO2 in the atmosphere. But, it's a
positive-feedback thing; and with global-warming, MORE CO2 is released
from bogs and tundra and other causes *while at the same time* we also
continue adding far more).

So ... things get hotter and release more CO2 ... which makes things
get hotter and ....

Probably WAY too late for humans to stop, even if we could.
There AIN'T no easy way to shift things back towards the ice-age model
... well ... OK ... Yes, there is: "Nuclear Winter"
I'm not too fond of THAT option.

In summary, the argument of, "Which came first, the chicken or the
egg," isn't really an argument at all. They BOTH develop together.
If one goes up (or down) drastically enough, they BOTH do.
That's what makes this such a disaster.

So, yes, as the world gets hotter, even if men don't continue pumping
more CO2 in the atmosphere, as the world gets hotter from the
present-levels, likely the CO2 levels will CONTINUE to go up without
our addition. Not a fun thought, is it?

In any positive-feedback system, the whole thing generally oscillates
wildly out-of-control until limits are reached. In our world that
generally means ice-ages or hothouse-planet. We've been incredibly
lucky in the past 3000 years or so.

>If the facts are in your favor, it should be trivial to do so for all
>the points I've mentioned.
>

It is; and I have.
YOU choose to ignore any and all information not to your liking.

>Your sort of argument might have a place in dogma,
>but whatever it is it certainly isn't science.

Pot, Kettle, Black.
You don't WANT to believe; therefore nothing anybody can say or any
data they might present to you will convince you differently.

ME?
I *WANT* to be wrong. I *HOPE* I am.
Sadly, just like watching my car spin out-of-control on an ice-covered
highway in the middle of winter, I can see what's coming; but don't
think there's damn-all I can do about it.

YOU seem to think that, "If I just close my eyes and ignore the data,
this terrible disaster everybody else is talking about, will go away."

It won't.

On the other hand, our actions as-a-result are markedly similar:

YOU think, "This isn't going to happen; so I don't have to DO anything
about it!" A comforting thought; and reasonable if you were right.

*I* think, "This is going to happen; and there isn't damn-all that I
can do to stop it." A scary thought, and also reasonable.

The end-result for both of us is pretty much the same:
We don't do anything.

YOU don't, because you choose not to believe in man-made disasters.

I don't, because there ain't squat I CAN do.

(No ... I don't think ANY of the suggested "solutions" will do a
damned bit of good. It's WAY too late. We'll either have to learn to
live on a hot planet or do something really DRASTIC to cool it off.)

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

Well, Frank, I was going to quote your post, but since it was more of the same there wasn't any real point. I do find your use of the word "believe" interesting. Science isn't about belief; it's about what *is.* And that is why you can call me a heretic. Or heathen. Or agnostic. I care not one whit. Nor am I troubled if AGW turns out to be true or false; I do, however, care very much when the scientific method is replaced with ideology.

I also find it interesting you have not fact-checked a single point, but have, instead, dismissed it out of hand. Otherwise you would have known of the CO2 lag; otherwise you would have known that back-to-back cold winters in the 1950s destroyed the "Lupine Belt" in the Southeastern US; otherwise you would have known that predictions made years and sometimes decades ago haven't held up; otherwise you would have found the paper where climate models have fared no better than a random data. You *believe* they cannot be; therefore you do not accept that it *could,* to the point of ignoring people who have actually been to the Arctic.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I have a hard time taking the AGW crowd seriously. Practice real science and I'll pay attention.

BTW, I'll toss you a freebee. The paper on climate models appeared in an issue of _Forecasting Journal._ Whether or not you bother to find it and read it is up to you.

[Frank McCoy]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>BTW, I'll toss you a freebee.
>The paper on climate models appeared in an issue of _Forecasting Journal._
>Whether or not you bother to find it and read it is up to you.

This one?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
You might read it yourself.
READ it, instead of decide it fits your bias without understanding
what he's talking about.

WEATHER forecasting models ARE pretty much worthless for predicting
future climate. They require WAY too much data that simply isn't
available for our chaotic system where the "Butterfly Effect" is
almost real.

But you don't NEED accurate forecasts of WEATHER years into the
future, what some people are accused of doing in this article.

You don't need a "model" at ALL!!!!

All you really need is a piece of graph-paper and data from years
past. THEN it becomes OBVIOUS to even the casual observer that the
trend is *UP*. It HAS been going up for the past 100 years.

That doesn't mean that this year or next year the local temperature,
precipitation, or anything else for that matter will go up ... or down
either. Who knows? Next year the temperature *might* be colder than
anything we've had in the past ten years! Or, like last year (locally
anyway) we have record heat-waves and many new high-temperature
records set. Day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, the system is
WAY too chaotic to make a valid guess (though some people DO try)!

Well ... OK ... I'll take that back. Day-to-day, the weather
forecasts are becoming incredibly accurate. SOME idiots TRY to extend
that to month-to-month and beyond. They're incredible optimists.

But we CAN fairly reliably predict:

A. The next decade *ON AVERAGE* will be warmer than this one ... As it
was warmer than the last; and the last was warmer than the one before;
and the one before was warmer than any previous.

B. The ice-caps will continue to melt.
Previous estimate of how FAST they were-going-to-melt/are-melting,
were incredibly inaccurate ... on the LOW side. Ten years ago, the
most aggressive estimate had the Arctic ice being free in the summer
by the year 2020. NOW they're predicting ice-free summers by 2016!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
http://www.dw.de/arctic-melts-faster-than-ipccs-forecasts/a-15164746

Me? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's even sooner!
I'm a bit more skeptical about Greenland suddenly becoming ice-free.
OK ... A LOT more skeptical. The land there is high, and an
incredible heat-sink. Add in increased precipitation (snow) in the
higher elevations caused by the global-warming and ....

C. Glaciers are ... well, vanishing, except in selected spots; most of
which are in Antarctica where the increase in snow in high elevation
cancels out the increase in loss at the base. Actually, that's
considered "normal" in a higher-temperature world because more water
evaporates from the ocean; leading to more snow in some cold spots.

To make THOSE predictions, you/we/I don't need a fancy computer-model.
A piece of graph-paper, a pencil, and a straight-edge work just FINE.
Actually, your eyeball without the straight-edge probably works even
better.

Oh yeah ... AND some raw data.
Here's a good start:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Notice: *NO* "climate models"! Just raw data.
If you prefer Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
or:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+%231.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

[Frank McCoy]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>I also find it interesting you have not fact-checked a single point,
>but have, instead, dismissed it out of hand.

Haven't.

> Otherwise you would have known of the CO2 lag;

The CO2 lag makes SENSE.

>otherwise you would have known that back-to-back cold winters
>in the 1950s destroyed the "Lupine Belt" in the Southeastern US;

And your point about THAT is?
Having two cold years in a row (or two hot ones, for that matter) is
pretty normal yearly variation. Often there's carryover from the
previous year; especially when it comes to precipitation. If one year
is dry, the next year *tends* to be dry also; because there's not as
much moisture in the *soil* to be put back into the atmosphere.

Similarly, if one year is particularly cold, especially in the fall,
then the next year can have a slow start warming up.

On the other hand, you get winters like the last two here in
Minnesnowta, where last year we had 80-degree weather in March; while
this year we had snow and ice-covered lakes on the 8th of May!

The variation year-to-year is *almost* random; but not quite.
Decade-to-decade though, the trend is UP.
Slowly; but enough that longtime residents notice.

> otherwise you would have known that predictions made years
> and sometimes decades ago haven't held up;

SOME predictions.
Like all science, you TOSS the models that don't work; and keep the
ones that do. In the following example, the idiots toss the models
that WORK, and then complain about the ones that don't!

> otherwise you would have found the paper where climate models
> have fared no better than a random data.

Ones like THIS idiocy?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032813-649780-climate-models-so-wrong-they-cant-even-reconstruct-history.htm

Climate models *shouldn't* be able to predict year-to-year local
precipitation accurately ... YET anyway.
There's too much variation in the things that effect them.

As stated before, they should predict *decade to decade* temperature
rise and fall.

Besides, in the article itself it says, '"Only a few climate models
were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation
in China over the last 50 years," says the university's Department of
Earth Sciences."

Note the words: "Only a few".
That means several models WERE able to reproduce the changes.
Those models, in THIS article, were conveniently ignored and tossed
out as irrelevant, because they don't fit the bias of the person doing
the comparison.

Also from the article:
'That the climate models have defects and are severely limited
shouldn't be a surprise. Four years ago NASA climate modeler Gavin
Schmidt acknowledged that the "chaotic component of the climate system
... is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically."'

Well, yeah!
If you're trying to predict WEATHER, then climate-models are pretty
much worthless "beyond two weeks"; and, as-you-claim, not much better
than random data. I've never argued THAT.

Over DECADES however, when things smooth out, you get consistent rise
in temperature. Not day-to-day. Not month-to-month. Not even
year-to-year, but decade-to-decade. Every valid model shows that!
If they don't, they don't match the very real data of Global Warming!

>You *believe* they cannot be;

Bullcrap!!!

>therefore you do not accept that it *could,* to the point of
>ignoring people who have actually been to the Arctic.
>

I don't *ignore* them.
I just say they don't have any more expertise in *climatology* than
you or I do.

Why do YOU ignore people like ME who have been to Glacier National
Park and SEEN the vanishing glaciers?????

Think about it. Your answer to my ignoring ONE person's private
observation of a purely local area up North, you say shouldn't apply
to HIM, but does apply to ME. Why?

BTW: YOU completely ignore far more telling satellite pictures I've
posted, showing our vanishing arctic ice-cap. Tell me why?

They say a LOT more than local people telling stories ... like your
surveyor ... or me either, for that matter.

>And that, in a nutshell, is why I have a hard time taking the AGW crowd seriously.

Because, in a nutshell, you don't WANT to believe what they have to
say.

>Practice real science and I'll pay attention.

Pay attention to REAL scientists instead of quacks and
Oil-company-paid spokespersons, and you might learn something.

[JimP.]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:04:14 -0500, JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net>
wrote:

No comments on what actual live climatologists have said ? Ya know,
only one of the 20 climatologists on the documentary was 100 percent
certain GW was happening.

[invalidd]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

The way humans had to fight their way tooth-and-claw to the top of the
food chain may well have left us with an innate need for stress. The
recent development of leisured middle-classes has left us with a large
proportion of population lacking stress in their lives. The result is a
continuous succession of stress-producing scares:

cold war
ice age
nuclear proliferation
ozone layer
global warming

Even with the fillip it received by being rebranded as climate change,
the writing appears to be on the wall for the global warming scare.

The predictions of its adherents are proving wrong, popular support is
crumbling, subsidies to the global warming industry are being cut
(although still providing an income of 6% pa to investors), Germany is
switching back to coal, the USA has decided its energy needs in the bear
future will be supplied by fracking.

My guess is that global warming will be replaced by a global pandemic
scare. The prospect is already rated more serious in China, where people
in densely populated areas routinely wear masks. It might even be a
self-fulfilling prophecy since Chinese scientists are manipulating the
genes of Sars strains to produce one which is contagious to humans.

> Nor am I troubled if AGW turns out to be true or false

The planet has been warmer within human recorded history, and CO2 levels
have been far higher since life evolved on this planet. The chance of
anything deleterious happening to humanity is miniscule.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:48:07 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
> No comments on what actual live climatologists have said ? Ya know,
>
> only one of the 20 climatologists on the documentary was 100 percent
>
> certain GW was happening.

Something illustrative of the entire debate is how, when I give a cite to a paper, the reply addresses an article about the paper and not the paper itself. It doesn't bother me there are those who believe in AGW; I'm only irked when they call it science without following the scientific method.

[JimP.]

That bothers me about this entire discussion.

[Tesseract]

On 19-May-13 5:34 AM, invalidd wrote:
...

> My guess is that global warming will be replaced by a global pandemic
> scare. The prospect is already rated more serious in China, where people
> in densely populated areas routinely wear masks. It might even be a
> self-fulfilling prophecy since Chinese scientists are manipulating the
> genes of Sars strains to produce one which is contagious to humans.

That statement definitely needs something to back it up.

...

--
Tesseract

[Frank McCoy]

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/environment/coal/debate-over-97-percent-climatologists-agree-global-warming-real
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/climatologists-and-tv-wea_n_518592.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

I'm *guessing* you're talking about this sort of balony:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-ever-happened-to-global-warming-2011-7
Funded and supported by ... Guess Who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/07/02/174370/exxonmobil-continues-funding-denier/

[Barry Gold]

On 5/18/2013 8:04 AM, JimP. wrote:
> I'll remind everyone of a documentary I watched on television several
> years ago. I posted here about this in the past.
>
> There were 20 climatologists in the documentary. None of them agreed !
> One said GW was coming. One said GW wasn't coming. Both were
> absolutely certain. The rest were somewhere in between (perchantage
> chance it would or wouldn't happen) and mostly said things like 'so
> and so is a good guy and my friend but he is also a bleeeep idiot and
> wrong'. Twenty climatologists couldn't agree it was happening or not
> happpening !

I wonder who made the said documentary. If somebody showed me one like
that, I'd look up the producers and the funding source (usually fairly
easy with Wikipedia). Then look at who funds the "nonprofit" that funded
the film.

It's easy to make something like that if you choose the _right_ 20
climatologists... I'd offer to bet dollars-to-donuts that the funding
source is Exxon or some other fossil-fuel company, but donuts cost
around a dollar nowadays.

[invalidd]

Drat. It was a snippet in my newspaper. I don't have a cite for it.

It quoted reactions from Western Scientists along the lines of "Why the
hell are they doing that?" and "I hope their laboratory procedures are
sufficient that it can't escape."

I got the impression the Chinese were so worried about a natural
mutation occurring which would be contagious to humans that they were
trying to get the jump on it.

[invalidd]

I don't want to get into a 'my expert is bigger than your expert'
pissing contest, but my personal experience amongst the scientific
community is very much in line with the 1 in 20 - the one publishes
papers and gets the publicity.

[Frank McCoy]

JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 06:36:31 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:48:07 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>> No comments on what actual live climatologists have said ? Ya know,
>>>
>>> only one of the 20 climatologists on the documentary was 100 percent
>>>
>>> certain GW was happening.
>>
>>Something illustrative of the entire debate is how, when I give a cite to a paper, the reply addresses an article about the paper and not the paper itself. It doesn't bother me there are those who believe in AGW; I'm only irked when they call it science without following the scientific method.
>
>That bothers me about this entire discussion.
>
>JimP.

What bothers ME, is when skeptics argue that most climatologists don't
believe in Global Warming and then justify it by picking out the fact
that there's HUGE differences of opinions on MODELS explaining and
trying to predict WHY and HOW MUCH the Earth is warming; not the fact
that it IS warming.

The scramble is to explain the actual dynamics enough to predict
year-to-year variations ... Which would be very USEFUL; but has little
or nothing to do with the fact that the Earth *IS* getting warmer!

So different models give incredibly different predictions?
So most climatologists don't put much faith at all in said models.
BFD!
They know we're getting warmer.
They know the basic underlying cause.
But, trying to predict the WEATHER a year or two in advance is ....
Well, optimistic at best; idiocy at worst.

But that's why far less meteorologists are as certain about Global
Warming than climatologists. Meteorologists predict the weather using
computer-models ... which work just FINE up to about a week out.
They're about as reliable as rolling dice for anything over a couple
of months away; and not even that for several years.

On the other hand, climatologists look at TRENDS.
The TREND of CO2 is going nowhere but UP.
It's now over 400ppm ... Something not seen in millions of years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/400-ppm-atmospheric-co2_n_3179617.html
CO2 *IS* a greenhouse-gas; and saying it has no effect on our planet's
temperature is ignoring reality at best, and criminal at worst.
http://tinyurl.com/acjbr2e
You don't need a stupid MODEL that will predict next years
temperature, snowfall, precipitation, or similar bullcrap to see
what's going on.

Geesh!

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Frank McCoy wrote:


> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/99-of-
climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/environment/coal/debate-over-97-
percent-climatologists-agree-global-warming-real
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/climatologists-and-tv-
wea_n_518592.html
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-

intermediate.htm
>
> I'm *guessing* you're talking about this sort of balony:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/what-ever-happened-to-global-warming-2011-7
> Funded and supported by ... Guess Who?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/07/02/174370/exxonmobil-continues-
funding-denier/

I wonder whether people in that last group still smoke. After all, the same
spinmeisters said that smoking was perfectly healthy...

I lost the link, but saw a graph related to the scepticalscience site, it
showed three lines: One flat low line representing the peer-reviewed papers
not admitting AGW, one rising representing AGW papers, and one even faster
rising about paper taking no stand. One author from the third group said,
"AGW? Saying AGW is real is like a geographer saying the Earth is round!"

[Barry Gold]

On 5/17/2013 6:44 PM, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:20:13 PM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
>> If that results in us using less energy, that helps solve the problem.
>>
>> If it means people switch to wind or solar or ocean-thermal or
>>
>> geothermal or tidal power, that helps too. And any combination, with
>>
>> the economy automatically finding the optimal solution.
>
> Oh, it'll result in less energy use, all right. Less people will be able to afford it. Kind of ironic that my parents saw the government work to bring electricity to everyone, and now it seems to be trying to limit it to the well heeled. If you're going to ban fossil fuels, as the EPA seems committed to doing, then either you're going to have to supply an affordable replacement, or people are going to be sitting in the dark. And that solution isn't going to be solar or wind. Weather plays havoc with photocells and wind generation, wind generation works well in some places but not in others, and both have the problem of lack of power storage.*

On what basis do you make that assumption. Remember, we are talking
about a _revenue neutral_ change, so that the government ends up sucking
the same amount out of the economy as it does now.

And, btw, I have no objection to nuclear power, even though it, too,
receives a government subsidy in the form of a liability cap. That is,
the nuclear plants are required to carry only $375 million(*) in
liability insurance, which is much less than the potential damage from,
say, a Chernobyl-sized incident. After that, the nuclear industry as a
whole will be required to contribute up to $111,000,000 per reactor to
the Price-Anderson fund, which would amount to $12.22 billion in 2011.
But in fact the actual contribution required of the industry is limited
to $17,500,000/year until the $111,000,000 maximum (or the claim has
been met). The fund administrators are supposed to "have contingency
plans" to borrow money to pay claims. I'm guessing that the interest
will be paid by the Federal Government (aka you and me).

(*) The maximum amount currently available in the insurance market

For those who point to Chernobyl as a bad example, I will point out that
Chernobyl occurred under a Communist government, not under a system
where the operators face both civil liability and -- in the event of
gross negligence -- possible criminal charges. AFAIK the biggest
nuclear accident to date was Fukushima Daiichi. I think the
Price-Anderson fund would cover an accident like that quite adequately.
(And off-shore oil drilling can lead to liabilities greater than that,
witness the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where damages may be $17.6
billion or more.)

As always, it's not about absolute safety, it's about the relative costs
and environmental impacts of different methods of producing and
delivering energy -- and of course the cost of trying to get by on less
energy, which I suspect is largely a non-starter.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:37:28 PM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
> On what basis do you make that assumption. Remember, we are talking
>
> about a _revenue neutral_ change, so that the government ends up sucking
>
> the same amount out of the economy as it does now.

Well, it's based on coal being the next cheapest form of energy. The cheapest, IIRC, is hydropower. Coal fueled electricity is cheap because there's so much of it and because it's very dense energy-wise. Even natural gas isn't as cheap as coal, which is why it's used in peaking stations; gas turbine generation that comes on-line during peak demand - it's the only time it's affordable.

Since it's based on energy density and availability, no about of declarations of revenue-neutral is going to make other fuels as affordable as coal. If you get rid of coal generation, you either have to replace it with something of equal cost or electric costs *will* go up, or you won't have enough electricity to go around, or both.

Some think that solar and wind will fill the gap, but that's wishful thinking for three reasons:

1. Solar systems, even those that tie to the grid instead of having their own back-up power, are still more expensive than grid power.

2. Wind power, in the right locations and at the right time, can be cost effective, but unfortunately those areas are somewhat limited. Do a search for a wind power potential map and you'll see what I'm talking about. And transmission tech, while good, still isn't perfect and getting power from where it's produced to where it's needed is limited; for example, transmitting power halfway across the US isn't feasible, not even for HVDC.

3. Lack of storage. Solar and wind has variable outputs. You either have to have a way to store the power or have sufficient back-up to replace shortfalls when they occur. To complicate this, depending on the load curve, which varies regionally and by time of year and day of the week, you might have peak output production at times of low demand, and hardly any production when it's needed.

Currently the only way to store vast amounts of electricity are duel reservoir schemes, which pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper when power is plentiful, and run it back through the turbines when needed. There's schemes such as forms of high-temperature batteries, but they're still not suited for large-scale energy storage. This is why I thought the DOE should have made energy storage it's top project, and while the DOE does fund some research, IIRC, it doesn't get as much as more glamorous solar and wind, even though an energy storage breakthrough would suddenly put wind on the same footing as what's known as base generation.

Right now the only reliable forms of non-CO2 production power generation is hydropower, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. Hydro is established and proven tech, and is preferred where you can build it, even though it's affected by drought. I'm a fan of geothermal, but my surveyor friend had info on pipe corrosion which implied there were some issues. Tidal is more limited than wind in that the larger the tide fluctuations the more power you get out of it, and not everywhere has phenomenal differences between low and high tides.

That leaves nuclear. Nuclear works, and has worked for decades. You mentioned Chernobyl, yet that's a bad example because that type of reactor isn't used in power generation in the West. Chernobyl types use graphite blocks, which caught on-fire at the plant and spread radioactivity. The Soviets preferred that design both because it was cheap and was a good design if you wanted to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. A US nuclear power plant doesn't use graphite blocks, and thus cannot have a Chernobyl type failure.

I don't fear US plant designs. However, when the Russians offered to build a Chernobyl type reactor way down in Cuba, *that* gave me the willies, even as far away as it was.

[JimP.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:26:30 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 06:36:31 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:48:07 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>>> No comments on what actual live climatologists have said ? Ya know,
>>>>
>>>> only one of the 20 climatologists on the documentary was 100 percent
>>>>
>>>> certain GW was happening.
>>>
>>>Something illustrative of the entire debate is how, when I give a cite to a paper, the reply addresses an article about the paper and not the paper itself. It doesn't bother me there are those who believe in AGW; I'm only irked when they call it science without following the scientific method.
>>
>>That bothers me about this entire discussion.
>>
>>JimP.
>
>What bothers ME, is when skeptics argue that most climatologists don't
>believe in Global Warming and then justify it by picking out the fact
>that there's HUGE differences of opinions on MODELS explaining and
>trying to predict WHY and HOW MUCH the Earth is warming; not the fact
>that it IS warming.

I haven't mentioned climate models even once.

The documentary I keep mentioning one climatologist who believed
global warming was happening. The other 19 climatologists didn't agree
with him.

One climatologist was 100 percent sure GW wasn't going on. The other
19 diagreed with him.

That isn't a model, that is a group of climatoloists not agreeing.

>The scramble is to explain the actual dynamics enough to predict
>year-to-year variations ... Which would be very USEFUL; but has little
>or nothing to do with the fact that the Earth *IS* getting warmer!
>
>So different models give incredibly different predictions?
>So most climatologists don't put much faith at all in said models.
>BFD!

Your mention of models appears to me to a be non-sequiter. Or a
deliberate obfuscation of my points.

>But that's why far less meteorologists are as certain about Global
>Warming than climatologists. Meteorologists predict the weather using

The documentary didn't talk to meteorologists. Not even once. So, it
is immaterial what the meteologists have to say as far as I'm
concerned.

[JimP.]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:46:12 -0700, Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 8:04 AM, JimP. wrote:
>> I'll remind everyone of a documentary I watched on television several
>> years ago. I posted here about this in the past.
>>
>> There were 20 climatologists in the documentary. None of them agreed !
>> One said GW was coming. One said GW wasn't coming. Both were
>> absolutely certain. The rest were somewhere in between (perchantage
>> chance it would or wouldn't happen) and mostly said things like 'so
>> and so is a good guy and my friend but he is also a bleeeep idiot and
>> wrong'. Twenty climatologists couldn't agree it was happening or not
>> happpening !
>
>I wonder who made the said documentary. If somebody showed me one like
>that, I'd look up the producers and the funding source (usually fairly
>easy with Wikipedia). Then look at who funds the "nonprofit" that funded
>the film.

Interestingly. The documentary was made and shown before the GW
coverage became so much it is on practically every tv channel.

And I saw the documentary not on a 'right wing denier' channel but on
National Public Television.

>It's easy to make something like that if you choose the _right_ 20
>climatologists... I'd offer to bet dollars-to-donuts that the funding
>source is Exxon or some other fossil-fuel company, but donuts cost
>around a dollar nowadays.

They stated they all knew each other. They also stated they disagreed
with each other. Since the interviews showed what exactly each one
said, with only cut being the bleeping of the four letter words, their
statements were not edited.

GW/AGW was barely being mentioned on the televsion channels when this
was shown.

I consider it a much better indicator than all the shows and
documentaries since then.

And in the 1970s science was warning of a fast approaching ice age.
And yet less than 10 years later, same data, it became the opposite.

I don't believe either side. I think it has becomme a political
football, and both sides are screwing with the data to push a
political agenda, not facts.

So if folks are going to be upset with me, at least be upset for what
I actually believe.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>The way humans had to fight their way tooth-and-claw to the top of the
>food chain may well have left us with an innate need for stress.

We didn't fight our way, tooth and claw to the top of the food chain.
Nearly everything else is better equipped for that. We fought our
way, stone axe and fire to the top of the food chain.

>The
>recent development of leisured middle-classes has left us with a large
>proportion of population lacking stress in their lives. The result is a
>continuous succession of stress-producing scares:
>
>cold war
>ice age
>nuclear proliferation
>ozone layer
>global warming

Right idea, wrong starting point.

Sumarrian wars of conquest, Hittite wars, Egyptian wars of conquest
(and defense). The beginnings of that "continuous succession of
stress-producing scares is (as far as we know) slightly before the
beginnings of recorded history.

The trouble with you're apparent theory is that just because they're
stress producing and scary, doesn't mean they're not real.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:26:30 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

> that's why far less meteorologists

Jumping up and down and screaming in frustration.

You know better, Frank!

FEWER! FEWER! FEWER!

[invalidd]

Tim Merrigan wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>

>>
>>cold war
>>ice age
>>nuclear proliferation
>>ozone layer
>>global warming
>
>
> Right idea, wrong starting point.
>
> Sumarrian wars of conquest, Hittite wars, Egyptian wars of conquest
> (and defense). The beginnings of that "continuous succession of
> stress-producing scares is (as far as we know) slightly before the
> beginnings of recorded history.

I'm not sure the leisured middle-classes who needed the scares were
around at those times.

> The trouble with you're apparent theory is that just because they're
> stress producing and scary, doesn't mean they're not real.

All those scares had a grain of truth behind them, that's what made them
so credible and scary.

There were communist spies operating in the west.
The next ice age is 'due', on the basis that the time since the last one
is now longer than average interval.
There was, and probably still is, enough atomic weaponry to wipe out the
human race several times over.
There was a hole in the ozone layer allowing harmful radiation free access.
In the latter half of the last century, global temperatures did rise.

The possibility of a pandemic fits that criterion because bird flu is
causing problems again in the far east, and if it mutates so that it can
easily be transferred between humans, a pandemic is possible.

[invalidd]

Okay, now I can use copy and paste again, I've done a quick google.

I believe this article is talking about the same research, but bear in
mind what I read was in a downmarket left-wing rag so it was dumbed down.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/h5n1-h1n1-reassortment/

[David Simpson]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

A citation for this?

>> Nor am I troubled if AGW turns out to be true or false
>
>The planet has been warmer within human recorded history, and CO2 levels
>have been far higher since life evolved on this planet. The chance of
>anything deleterious happening to humanity is miniscule.
>

And that is the attitude that has landed us in this mess in the first
place. Big oil and coal have spent their money convincing people of
the need for their products and profits and who cares if we all die in
the process.

This random .sig seems very apropos.
--
David
No email replies please.
20/05/2013

You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:33:30 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
>> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>cold war
>>>ice age
>>>nuclear proliferation
>>>ozone layer
>>>global warming
>>
>>
>> Right idea, wrong starting point.
>>
>> Sumarrian wars of conquest, Hittite wars, Egyptian wars of conquest
>> (and defense). The beginnings of that "continuous succession of
>> stress-producing scares is (as far as we know) slightly before the
>> beginnings of recorded history.
>
>I'm not sure the leisured middle-classes who needed the scares were
>around at those times.

Any time an economy evolves beyond subsistence a leisured middle (and
upper) class develops.

>
>> The trouble with you're apparent theory is that just because they're
>> stress producing and scary, doesn't mean they're not real.
>
>All those scares had a grain of truth behind them, that's what made them
>so credible and scary.
>
>There were communist spies operating in the west.
>The next ice age is 'due', on the basis that the time since the last one
>is now longer than average interval.
>There was, and probably still is, enough atomic weaponry to wipe out the
>human race several times over.
>There was a hole in the ozone layer allowing harmful radiation free access.
>In the latter half of the last century, global temperatures did rise.

And the Earth's mean temperature has been rising noticeably since the
beginning of the industrial revolution (at least).

[invalidd]

Tim Merrigan wrote:

> And the Earth's mean temperature has been rising noticeably since the
> beginning of the industrial revolution (at least).

Has it?

We've only been measuring the temperature at more than a tiny fraction
of the surface for the past thirty years or so.

And England was certainly warmer than it is now during the Roman
occupation.

[invalidd]

David Simpson wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>

>>My guess is that global warming will be replaced by a global pandemic
>>scare. The prospect is already rated more serious in China, where people
>>in densely populated areas routinely wear masks. It might even be a
>>self-fulfilling prophecy since Chinese scientists are manipulating the
>>genes of Sars strains to produce one which is contagious to humans.
>>
>
> A citation for this?
>

Posted not long ago in another branch of this thread.

>>
>>The planet has been warmer within human recorded history, and CO2 levels
>>have been far higher since life evolved on this planet. The chance of
>>anything deleterious happening to humanity is miniscule.
>>
>
> And that is the attitude that has landed us in this mess in the first
> place. Big oil and coal have spent their money convincing people of
> the need for their products and profits and who cares if we all die in
> the process.

What mess?

Mary, Queen of Scots, are you dead yet?

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:34:28 +0100, invalidd
>> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>cold war
>>>ice age
>>>nuclear proliferation
>>>ozone layer
>>>global warming
>>
>>
>> Right idea, wrong starting point.
>>
>> Sumarrian wars of conquest, Hittite wars, Egyptian wars of conquest
>> (and defense). The beginnings of that "continuous succession of
>> stress-producing scares is (as far as we know) slightly before the
>> beginnings of recorded history.
>
>I'm not sure the leisured middle-classes who needed the scares were
>around at those times.
>
>> The trouble with you're apparent theory is that just because they're
>> stress producing and scary, doesn't mean they're not real.
>
>All those scares had a grain of truth behind them, that's what made them
>so credible and scary.
>
>There were communist spies operating in the west.
>The next ice age is 'due', on the basis that the time since the last one
>is now longer than average interval.

Our contributions to the atmosphere wiped that out.
Probably a good thing.

>There was, and probably still is, enough atomic weaponry to wipe out the
>human race several times over.
>There was a hole in the ozone layer allowing harmful radiation free access.
>In the latter half of the last century, global temperatures did rise.
>
>The possibility of a pandemic fits that criterion because bird flu is
>causing problems again in the far east, and if it mutates so that it can
>easily be transferred between humans, a pandemic is possible.
>

It's a problem we have with so many people and such good
transportation.

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> And the Earth's mean temperature has been rising noticeably since the
>> beginning of the industrial revolution (at least).
>
>Has it?
>
>We've only been measuring the temperature at more than a tiny fraction
>of the surface for the past thirty years or so.
>

You don't NEED a million thermometers all observed by men scattered
around the globe to tell what the temperature is/was.

There are a gazillion life-forms and other things that leave records
of what the temperature is/was, if you know how to read them.

As for accuracy: Check what they do when you know the temperature and
calibrate by that.

>And England was certainly warmer than it is now during the Roman
>occupation.
>

Then there was the "Medieval Warm period", followed by the "Little Ice
Age". None of which compare to the present spike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[Frank McCoy]

OK ... Point.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:21:14 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
> I don't believe either side. I think it has becomme a political
>
> football, and both sides are screwing with the data to push a
>
> political agenda, not facts.

Amen to that.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:02:39 PM UTC-4, David Simpson wrote:
> And that is the attitude that has landed us in this mess in the first
>
> place. Big oil and coal have spent their money convincing people of
>
> the need for their products and profits and who cares if we all die in
>
> the process.

Did you ever contact big oil about my checks? I've seen nary a one.

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:06:37 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
> You don't NEED a million thermometers all observed by men scattered
>
> around the globe to tell what the temperature is/was.
>
>
>
> There are a gazillion life-forms and other things that leave records
>
> of what the temperature is/was, if you know how to read them.
>
> As for accuracy: Check what they do when you know the temperature and
>
> calibrate by that.

Well, in order to calibrate for that, you have to know how they respond to temperature, and for that you need accurate measurements. It's particularly important in calibrating satellites to return accurate information. There was an issue some years back about calibration on actual vs returned data, one that got resolved, IIRC, but it was an interesting view of the calibration process.

The thing to keep in mind is that calculation by what critter lived where and when isn't as precise as taking a reading from a thermometer. That, of course, it obvious. But this means there's a margin of error of known amount. This, too, is obvious. The "gotcha" is attempting to use the data to higher precision than exists. That's a problem that exists in other fields as well, but one that tends to slip under radar. If, for example, we can determine historic temperature within a range of plus or minus 2 degrees Celsius, it's ridiculous to produce projections using that data of less than this amount.

This also shows up in human measurement. How accurate was the average person jotting down the temperature? Some are pretty danged accurate; others, not so. And the aforementioned issue of how ships took sea temperature. This gives us a range of accuracy, just like anything else. How close is another question.

How is this important? Because if it's not addressed and the numbers are to a higher precision than the data, someone really hasn't thought about the problem like they should.

[Frank McCoy]

kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:06:37 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> You don't NEED a million thermometers all observed by men scattered
>>
>> around the globe to tell what the temperature is/was.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a gazillion life-forms and other things that leave records
>>
>> of what the temperature is/was, if you know how to read them.
>>
>> As for accuracy: Check what they do when you know the temperature and
>>
>> calibrate by that.
>
>Well, in order to calibrate for that, you have to know how they respond
>to temperature, and for that you need accurate measurements.

Some things aren't all that important for "how they respond to
temperature"; while others are. Some things (I know they're there;
but would have to research just which ones they are.) are pretty much
independent of the organism in how they respond to temperature.

>It's particularly important in calibrating satellites to return accurate information. There was an issue some years back about calibration on actual vs returned data, one that got resolved, IIRC, but it was an interesting view of the calibration process.
>
>The thing to keep in mind is that calculation by what critter lived where and when isn't as precise as taking a reading from a thermometer. That, of course, it obvious. But this means there's a margin of error of known amount. This, too, is obvious. The "gotcha" is attempting to use the data to higher precision than exists. That's
a problem that exists in other fields as well, but one that tends to slip under radar. If, for example, we can determine historic temperature within a range of plus or minus 2 degrees Celsius, it's ridiculous to produce projections using that data of less than this amount.
>
>This also shows up in human measurement. How accurate was the average person jotting down the temperature? Some are pretty danged accurate; others, not so. And the aforementioned issue of how ships took sea temperature. This gives us a range of accuracy, just like anything else. How close is another question.
>
>How is this important? Because if it's not addressed and the numbers are to a higher precision than the data, someone really hasn't thought about the problem like they should.

The old, "Garbage in, Gospel out," problem.
We measure the diameter of a hole with a ruler, to an accuracy of
1/16" (if good at it) to be 5" across. Then using a calculator we
multiply by pi, and get the circumference of the hole to be
15.707963268 inches around. Yeah, right!

Similarly, as you say, with the implied temperatures.
"Accurate to within two degrees" is about the BEST you ever get; and
that's with an experienced operator with GOOD equipment. Half that
accuracy is "good enough" for most people.

Still, that's more accurate than most of my guesses as to what the
outside temperature is on most days.

AND, take enough measurements; and the data smooths out to give more
accuracy than single measurements. Yes, really! (Try it sometime.)
Take ten measurements from different spots or items, and you get two
to three times the accuracy of a single item.
(Of course, it takes about 500 such measurements to increase your
accuracy again by the same amount. Eventually you reach the point of
diminishing returns at about 8 to 10 times the accuracy of a
single-point-item.)

So ... Using my example above, with two or three "normal people"
taking about 1000 measurements and averaging them, you go from a BEST
CASE of an expert within 2 degrees, to a combined-average of a bunch
of non-experts to within about half-a-degree. Not a huge improvement
for all the extra effort. Sometimes it's worth it though.

Like you say though, some bright idiot will punch the 1000 numbers of
+-5 degrees into a calculator, average them, and come out with
something like: 77.26453 degrees, on average! GAAAHHHH!
72.3 +-.5 degrees is the true answer.
AND, they (almost) always forget to even mention the margin-of-error.
;-{

That's the HUGE advantage of satellite measurements though.
Sadly, those haven't been available all that long.
Still, bright idiots make the same mistake THERE, as well.