Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT - Global warming not as warm as first thought shocker
16 views
Skip to first unread message
David.WE.Roberts
Jan 26, 2013, 1:31:23 PM1/26/13
to
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/>
"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as
"truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's
carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so
much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper
safe limit of 2°C for many decades."
Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on
the subject.
Cheers
Dave R
--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.
newshound
Jan 26, 2013, 1:58:26 PM1/26/13
to
oxymoron, just as much as the term "climate change" is tautologous.
dennis@home
Jan 26, 2013, 3:37:20 PM1/26/13
to
terrorists.
Gib Bogle
Jan 26, 2013, 4:11:40 PM1/26/13
to
On 27/01/2013 9:37 a.m., dennis@home wrote:
> I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as
> terrorists.
I wonder how long it will be before you are recognized as a duckwit.
> I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as
> terrorists.
bob.sm...@googlemail.com
Jan 26, 2013, 5:47:31 PM1/26/13
to
On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/>
>
An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science, for that matter...).
In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done, but climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.
This is what the project lead actually says (from http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):
"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/>
>
An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science, for that matter...).
In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done, but climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.
This is what the project lead actually says (from http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):
"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."
Brian Gaff
Jan 26, 2013, 5:59:06 PM1/26/13
to
Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
"David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:amilnr...@mid.individual.net...
amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
"David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:amilnr...@mid.individual.net...
dennis@home
Jan 26, 2013, 6:01:24 PM1/26/13
to
On 26/01/2013 22:47, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/>
>>
>
>>
> An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be
> taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles
> in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science,
> for that matter...).
>
> In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of
> misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is
> that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done,
Well they would have to say that.
> On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/>
>>
>
>>
> An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be
> taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles
> in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science,
> for that matter...).
>
> In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of
> misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is
> that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done,
If they didn't the alarmists would be all over them calling them dukwits
and stuff like that.
> but
> climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent
> with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.
>
> This is what the project lead actually says (from
> http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):
>
> "Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be
> construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced
> global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more
> within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously
> thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing
> substantial climate measures within the next few years."
>
Gib Bogle
Jan 27, 2013, 2:27:02 AM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/2013 12:01 p.m., dennis@home wrote:
> Well they would have to say that.
> If they didn't the alarmists would be all over them calling them dukwits
> and stuff like that.
>
>
>> but
>> climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent
>> with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.
>>
>> This is what the project lead actually says (from
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):
>>
>> "Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be
>> construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced
>> global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more
>> within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously
>> thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing
>> substantial climate measures within the next few years."
>>
>
> State that the models are wrong and then toe the party line.
>
Quack quack
> Well they would have to say that.
> If they didn't the alarmists would be all over them calling them dukwits
> and stuff like that.
>
>
>> but
>> climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent
>> with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.
>>
>> This is what the project lead actually says (from
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):
>>
>> "Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be
>> construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced
>> global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more
>> within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously
>> thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing
>> substantial climate measures within the next few years."
>>
>
> State that the models are wrong and then toe the party line.
>
harry
Jan 27, 2013, 2:43:11 AM1/27/13
to
On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>
> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>
> Brian
Not so.
> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>
> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>
> Brian
Clue.
The vikings named Greenland and lived there.
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 27, 2013, 2:48:24 AM1/27/13
to
On 26/01/13 22:59, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>
> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>
> Brian
>
I don't think you understand the bcakground from which Le2wis Page emerges.
> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>
> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>
> Brian
>
There is a view that says that, yes, CO2 emissions were raising and
yeas, it was almost inconceivable that that wouldn't have SOME effect on
something, globally.
And it was, of and by itself, a subject worthy of a slim grant and some
effort...
What it was not, was settled science. Nor did any of it predict alarming
climate change of sufficient size to warrant pouring billions into
futile attempts to stop it.
That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally
unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate
directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate
change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it
would :
(a) account for late 20th century warming as being down to CO2 ALONE.
(b) push energy into the political sphere in a huge way
(c) make a lot of money for those on the bandwagon early.
(d) imply that the earth's climate in the past would have oscillated
wildly over *short* time-scales between freezing and baking - for which
there is simply zero evidence in the geological records.
The sole justification for this feedback system was the 30 years of
warming between 1970 and 2000 and the concomitant rise in CO2 over the
same period. Plus the absolute unshakeable assumption that the one
'caused' the other.
CO2 is still rising, temperatures broadly have stabilised in the last
decade. Its still warm, but its not rising very much, if at all. SE
levels are rising a few mm each year, but there is no sign of
acceleration. So called extreme weather is not that extreme - its been
seen before and worse. Yes, its still half a degree or so warmer than
the 50s and 60s and that's effecting Arctic ice a bit but the overall
trend is towards a levelling off.
Now this absolutely blows a hole in the AGW model. Or at least the
simple 'science is settled' one.
It doesn't men climate change isn't happening. But it does means that
its not happening the way the model says it should, and that calls into
question the model in its entirety. Its getting well past the point
where the 'corrections' can account for the discrepancies without
someone actually saying that in effect, the corrections are more
important than the CO2 ever was. And if those corrections are not man
made, WTF are we spending so much money on CO2 reduction - which isn't
having any effect on CO2 levels anyway?
The IPCC and its fanbois of course are desperately trying to divert
attention away and say that its still happening, its still CO2, its
still important and therefore the IPCC and its funding and all the green
technology shite is still of vital importance.
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
BUT the growing suspicion is that, after all, it isn't.
And that we have all been right royally had, because the science never
was settled at all. It was shaky as hell but papered over in order to
provide a political and marketing platform for some very greedy men who
subverted and fooled the environmental movement into being allies in the
vast scam.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
Bob Martin
Jan 27, 2013, 3:48:46 AM1/27/13
to
bob.sm...@googlemail.com
Jan 27, 2013, 12:12:14 PM1/27/13
to
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally
>
> unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate
>
> directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate
>
> change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it
>
> would :
>
Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
>
> That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally
>
> unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate
>
> directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate
>
> change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it
>
> would :
>
Jo Stein
Jan 27, 2013, 12:47:32 PM1/27/13
to
On 27.01.2013 08:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/01/13 22:59, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a
>> growing
>> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
>> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>>
>> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the
>> planet
>> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
>> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and
>> lots
>> of arid areas depending on when you are talking about. We have been
> On 26/01/13 22:59, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a
>> growing
>> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
>> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>>
>> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the
>> planet
>> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
>> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and
>> lots
>> here a
>> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>>
>> Brian
>>
> I don't think you understand the background from which Le2wis Page emerges.
>> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>>
>> Brian
>>
some basic skills in science and is a philosopher of the religious type.
As I told you in a previous message, and quoted below:
>>>>>> Religious people can never be trusted.
Religious people are always looking for some alternative explanation.
They have the idea that there is no scientific truth in this world.
Let me show you exactly what The Natural Philosopher say:
> On 21.01.2013 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/01/13 07:02, John Rumm wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2013 20:44, Jo Stein wrote:
>>>> On 20.01.2013 17:21, John Rumm wrote:
>>>>> On 20/01/2013 08:05, Jo Stein wrote:
...
>>>>>> Religious people can never be trusted.
>>>>>
>>>>> and bold emphatic statements on usenet also...
>>>>>
>>>> England can be proud of their eminent biologist Lewis Wolpert:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/10/arts.highereducation
>>>>> Science is about understanding how the world works, there being only
>>>>> one correct explanation for any observed phenomenon.
>>
>> There speaks a man who doesn't even understand science. Suffering from a
>> bad case of Physics Envy.
>>
>> There are an infinite set of explanations which explain, and smaller but
>> infuriate set of explanations that explain ACCURATELY and are
>> verifiable, a still smaller set, but still infinite of useful scientific
>> theories that explain and are accurate and reasonably economical.
>>
>> What none of them have, is *provable truth content*.
>>
>> There is not, and never has been such a thing as scientific Truth.
>>
This YouTube video has a very good explanation how we arrive
at a scientific truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad
at science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. A very bad idea,
as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
Now The Natural Philosopher can do a Wikipedia search and find that the
earth is round, an answer that is good enough for most practical
purposes. If he do not trust Wikipedia, which is a very solid source on
any topic like the shape of the earth or global warming,
he can study it himself. He can go away in a steady direction for
40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
I published a paper on how to find that direction in nov 1975.
--
jo
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".
--Robert Pirsig
Message has been deleted
ARW
Jan 27, 2013, 1:02:19 PM1/27/13
to
Jo Stein wrote:
>He can go away in a steady direction for
> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
Is that the posh way to say "go fuck yourself"?
>He can go away in a steady direction for
> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
--
Adam
polygonum
Jan 27, 2013, 1:32:42 PM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/2013 17:47, Jo Stein wrote:
<>
>
> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad
> at science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. A very bad
> idea, as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
> the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
>
Do you have any evidence for this?
<>
>
> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad
> at science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. A very bad
> idea, as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
> the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
>
Implications of first sentence:
Humans are no longer religious and are not very bad at science.
You have evidence that they were religious and bad at science for a very
long period of time.
Implication of second sentence:
An indeterminate "they" had an idea that you assert was that the earth
is flat. Maybe the majority of pre-"we realise the earth is not flat"
people did not think in the way that many (most?) now do of a spherical
earth, but does this mean that they all believed in a totally flat earth?
Implication of the third sentence:
Had "they" known the earth was not flat, they would have known what
would be found if they explored...
I strongly suspect that the impression of where they lived depended very
much on where they lived. Must be very different living on an island in
the Pacific rather than Timbuktu. I do NOT have any evidence of this.
--
Rod
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 27, 2013, 2:16:54 PM1/27/13
to
That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean, but
what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air rises..bloody
high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher, clouds form both
from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation to space. Ice forms,
falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the surface..
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 27, 2013, 2:23:15 PM1/27/13
to
> Let me show you exactly what The Natural Philosopher say:
>> On 21.01.2013 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/01/13 07:02, John Rumm wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/2013 20:44, Jo Stein wrote:
>>>>> On 20.01.2013 17:21, John Rumm wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/01/2013 08:05, Jo Stein wrote:
> ...
>>>>>>> Religious people can never be trusted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and bold emphatic statements on usenet also...
>>>>>>
>>>>> England can be proud of their eminent biologist Lewis Wolpert:
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/10/arts.highereducation
>>>>>> Science is about understanding how the world works, there being only
>>>>>> one correct explanation for any observed phenomenon.
>>>
>>> There speaks a man who doesn't even understand science. Suffering from a
>>> bad case of Physics Envy.
>>>
>>> There are an infinite set of explanations which explain, and smaller but
>>> infuriate set of explanations that explain ACCURATELY and are
>>> verifiable, a still smaller set, but still infinite of useful scientific
>>> theories that explain and are accurate and reasonably economical.
>>>
>>> What none of them have, is *provable truth content*.
>>>
>>> There is not, and never has been such a thing as scientific Truth.
>>>
> This YouTube video has a very good explanation how we arrive
> at a scientific truth:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
>
It says the same as what I have been saying.
There is no Truth, only less wrong ways of drawing pictures of the world.
But of course that went right over ytour head..
> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad at
> science.
They had the idea that the earth was flat.
they knew it couldn't be.
A very bad idea,
> as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
> the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
>
> Now The Natural Philosopher can do a Wikipedia search and find that the
> earth is round, an answer that is good enough for most practical
> purposes. If he do not trust Wikipedia, which is a very solid source on
> any topic like the shape of the earth or global warming,
> he can study it himself. He can go away in a steady direction for
> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
> I published a paper on how to find that direction in nov 1975.
arguing about the religious idea, unsupported by the evidence that
climate change happens as a result of man's sinful burning of fossil fuel.
Which is odd, because it happened before man even existed.
Nightjar
Jan 27, 2013, 2:49:35 PM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/2013 17:47, Jo Stein wrote:
...
The flat earth is primarily a European / Hebrew view. Other beliefs held
that it was bowl shaped, domed or pyramid shaped. The idea of a
spherical earth can be traced back to Pythagoras in 570BC and the
Zoroastrians around the same time. As that is about half way through
recorded history and we know nothing of earlier beliefs, you cannot even
claim that it was an idea for most of our time on earth.
Colin Bignell
...
> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad at
> science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. ...
The flat earth is primarily a European / Hebrew view. Other beliefs held
that it was bowl shaped, domed or pyramid shaped. The idea of a
spherical earth can be traced back to Pythagoras in 570BC and the
Zoroastrians around the same time. As that is about half way through
recorded history and we know nothing of earlier beliefs, you cannot even
claim that it was an idea for most of our time on earth.
Colin Bignell
Rod Speed
Jan 27, 2013, 2:58:52 PM1/27/13
to
polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote
> Implications of first sentence:
> Humans are no longer religious and are not very bad at science.
There is no such implication.
> You have evidence that they were religious
Yes, very few had no belief in any god or anything like that.
> and bad at science for a very long period of time.
Yes, very few even cared about whether there was
any evidence to substantiate what they believed
about all sorts of stuff their claims about what
was causing crops to fail or the rains to fail etc.
Let alone whether there was ever a shred of
evidence that grovelling to some god or other
ever made a blind bit of difference to anything.
> Implication of second sentence:
> An indeterminate "they"
It isnt indeterminate, he clearly was talking
about 'for most of the time on this earth'
> had an idea that you assert was that the earth is flat.
It’s a rather dubious proposition with the ones like the
vikings that moved over quite surprising distances.
Dunno what the sagas have to say about a flat earth tho.
I think its more likely that most didn’t even consider the question at all.
> Maybe the majority of pre-"we realise the earth is not flat" people did
> not think in the way that many (most?) now do of a spherical earth, but
> does this mean that they all believed in a totally flat earth?
No one said anything about totally flat. Most would
have been aware of hills and some of mountains too.
The flat earth line implys more that there is an edge you can get to.
> Implication of the third sentence:
> Had "they" known the earth was not flat, they would have known what would
> be found if they explored...
That’s wrong too. The arabs particularly had worked out
that the earth was at least curved where they were from
the question of the angle of the sun at midday etc.
That doesn’t say anything about what its like
where no one has ever been and returned that
you know about.
> I strongly suspect that the impression of where they lived depended very
> much on where they lived.
But its less clear how much knowledge of where they
came from was retained by those who had after all
moved over immense distances from Africa to say
end up in south america before europeans showed
up there much later.
Likely fuck all, but its less clear with some like the
chinese how much knowledge was retained about
what things were like in africa after they had gone
there and basically decided that while it was worth
going there at one time, it was of no further interest
and they went further and scrapped the fleet used to
do that for various political reasons.
> Must be very different living on an island in the Pacific rather than
> Timbuktu.
Yes, but those pacific islanders did in fact move
over even more immense distances than those
who move thru Timbuktu did and it was MUCH
harder to ensure that you would actually survive
the trip and not just get lost forever and die too.
> I do NOT have any evidence of this.
We do actually.
> Jo Stein wrote
>> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad at
>> science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. A very bad
>> idea, as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
>> the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
> Do you have any evidence for this?
For which bit specifically ?
>> For most of our time on this earth humans were religious and very bad at
>> science. They had the idea that the earth was flat. A very bad
>> idea, as they then had no idea what would be found if they explored
>> the horizon where heaven and earth seems to come together.
> Do you have any evidence for this?
> Implications of first sentence:
> Humans are no longer religious and are not very bad at science.
> You have evidence that they were religious
> and bad at science for a very long period of time.
any evidence to substantiate what they believed
about all sorts of stuff their claims about what
was causing crops to fail or the rains to fail etc.
Let alone whether there was ever a shred of
evidence that grovelling to some god or other
ever made a blind bit of difference to anything.
> Implication of second sentence:
> An indeterminate "they"
about 'for most of the time on this earth'
> had an idea that you assert was that the earth is flat.
vikings that moved over quite surprising distances.
Dunno what the sagas have to say about a flat earth tho.
I think its more likely that most didn’t even consider the question at all.
> Maybe the majority of pre-"we realise the earth is not flat" people did
> not think in the way that many (most?) now do of a spherical earth, but
> does this mean that they all believed in a totally flat earth?
have been aware of hills and some of mountains too.
The flat earth line implys more that there is an edge you can get to.
> Implication of the third sentence:
> Had "they" known the earth was not flat, they would have known what would
> be found if they explored...
that the earth was at least curved where they were from
the question of the angle of the sun at midday etc.
That doesn’t say anything about what its like
where no one has ever been and returned that
you know about.
> I strongly suspect that the impression of where they lived depended very
> much on where they lived.
came from was retained by those who had after all
moved over immense distances from Africa to say
end up in south america before europeans showed
up there much later.
Likely fuck all, but its less clear with some like the
chinese how much knowledge was retained about
what things were like in africa after they had gone
there and basically decided that while it was worth
going there at one time, it was of no further interest
and they went further and scrapped the fleet used to
do that for various political reasons.
> Must be very different living on an island in the Pacific rather than
> Timbuktu.
over even more immense distances than those
who move thru Timbuktu did and it was MUCH
harder to ensure that you would actually survive
the trip and not just get lost forever and die too.
> I do NOT have any evidence of this.
Jo Stein
Jan 27, 2013, 4:29:48 PM1/27/13
to
I just want to put him on a better track.
On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and
they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing.
He will come back as a wise man.
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov
dennis@home
Jan 27, 2013, 4:51:00 PM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/2013 21:29, Jo Stein wrote:
> On 27.01.2013 19:02, ARW wrote:
>> Jo Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He can go away in a steady direction for
>>> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
>>
>> Is that the posh way to say "go fuck yourself"?
>>
> Oh no!
> I just want to put him on a better track.
> On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and
> they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing.
> He will come back as a wise man.
Its more likely he will speak to a lot of people that know how the
> On 27.01.2013 19:02, ARW wrote:
>> Jo Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He can go away in a steady direction for
>>> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
>>
>> Is that the posh way to say "go fuck yourself"?
>>
> Oh no!
> I just want to put him on a better track.
> On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and
> they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing.
> He will come back as a wise man.
climate is changing but its unlikely he will find any that know why.
Of course he will have more chance of finding one that is correct if he
avoids climatologists.
bob.sm...@googlemail.com
Jan 27, 2013, 6:17:40 PM1/27/13
to
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:16:54 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/01/13 17:12, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally
>
> >>
>
> >> unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate
>
> >>
>
> >> directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate
>
> >>
>
> >> change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it
>
> >>
>
> >> would :
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
>
> >
>
> Not really.
>
>
>
> That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean, but
> what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air rises..bloody
> high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher, clouds form both
> from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation to space. Ice forms,
> falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the surface..
>
Yes of course it's more complicated than a straight application of C-C but it provides the basic idea. If you want to get into discussing all of the dynamics involved, it can get complex but as far as I am aware there aren't many people arguing that water vapour isn't a net positive feedback. What you have described, again in fairly simple terms, is a negative feedback that may play a role but you implicitly assume that it plays a sufficiently dominant role to negate the first order effect of higher temperatures in relation to water vapour.
> On 27/01/13 17:12, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally
>
> >>
>
> >> unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate
>
> >>
>
> >> directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate
>
> >>
>
> >> change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it
>
> >>
>
> >> would :
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
>
> >
>
> Not really.
>
>
>
> That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean, but
> what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air rises..bloody
> high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher, clouds form both
> from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation to space. Ice forms,
> falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the surface..
>
In any case, there is empirical evidence for water vapour feedback such as the analysis of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. And in general, it is very difficult to explain the earth's climate history without having some sort of amplification of relatively weak forcings (such as slight orbital changes).
Nightjar
Jan 27, 2013, 7:51:08 PM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/2013 21:29, Jo Stein wrote:
> On 27.01.2013 19:02, ARW wrote:
>> Jo Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He can go away in a steady direction for
>>> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
>>
>> Is that the posh way to say "go fuck yourself"?
>>
> Oh no!
> I just want to put him on a better track.
> On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and
> they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing.
> He will come back as a wise man.
40,000 km in a steady direction would simply put him somewhere in space.
>> Jo Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He can go away in a steady direction for
>>> 40 000 km and he will come back to his home.
>>
>> Is that the posh way to say "go fuck yourself"?
>>
> Oh no!
> I just want to put him on a better track.
> On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and
> they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing.
> He will come back as a wise man.
Colin Bignell
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 27, 2013, 8:15:38 PM1/27/13
to
On 27/01/13 23:17, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:16:54 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>> On 27/01/13 17:12, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics
>>> (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
>>
>>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean,
>> but what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air
>> rises..bloody high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher,
>> clouds form both from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation
>> to space. Ice forms, falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the
>> surface..
>>
>
> Yes of course it's more complicated than a straight application of
> C-C but it provides the basic idea. If you want to get into
> discussing all of the dynamics involved, it can get complex but as
> far as I am aware there aren't many people arguing that water vapour
> isn't a net positive feedback. What you have described, again in
> fairly simple terms, is a negative feedback that may play a role but
> you implicitly assume that it plays a sufficiently dominant role to
> negate the first order effect of higher temperatures in relation to
> water vapour.
Yes. Which is why, with oceans , teh reath has a remarkably stable
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:16:54 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>> On 27/01/13 17:12, bob.sm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics
>>> (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
>>
>>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean,
>> but what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air
>> rises..bloody high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher,
>> clouds form both from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation
>> to space. Ice forms, falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the
>> surface..
>>
>
> Yes of course it's more complicated than a straight application of
> C-C but it provides the basic idea. If you want to get into
> discussing all of the dynamics involved, it can get complex but as
> far as I am aware there aren't many people arguing that water vapour
> isn't a net positive feedback. What you have described, again in
> fairly simple terms, is a negative feedback that may play a role but
> you implicitly assume that it plays a sufficiently dominant role to
> negate the first order effect of higher temperatures in relation to
> water vapour.
climate over geological toime
>
> In any case, there is empirical evidence for water vapour feedback
> such as the analysis of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption.
> And in general, it is very difficult to explain the earth's climate
> history without having some sort of amplification of relatively weak
> forcings (such as slight orbital changes).
>
Cloud and dust is everything.
No cloud, or humidity and its hot desert - up to 55C
Shove water vapour in and its much less diurnal range, overall cooler,
and I've never seen it over 40C.
The big mistake is to regard water vapour solely as a greenhouse gas -
which it is in terms of keeping night time temps up, but completely
disregard the albedo effect of clouds and the massive amount of daytime
convection that carries surface heat up to the stratosphere, where it
can radiate heat into space.
You need to bve very selective with all the effects to make CO2 driving
and amplification work at all. Its based on very very bad science indeed.
Cloud cuts the incident energy by around 4:1 or more. And makes the
earth anything BUT the black body which AGW assumes.
Anything that modulates mean cloud cover will have a FAR greater
effect than CO2.
And there is SOME evidence that galactic cosmic rays may, which accounts
for palaentological variation. CO2 is driven by ocean temps, as hot
oceans outgas, which is why CO2 always lags temeperature in the
geological record.
AGW is not real science, its cherry picking little bits of physics and
ignoring the rest to come up with a commercial and political statement.
bert
Jan 28, 2013, 3:23:57 PM1/28/13
to
In message <W7OdnT3xNtdKGZjM...@giganews.com>, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> writes
I read of one idea somewhere that we actually lived on the inside of a
globe. We get the impression of infinite distance by light being
distorted as it travelled across the centre.
--
bert
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> writes
globe. We get the impression of infinite distance by light being
distorted as it travelled across the centre.
--
bert
bert
Jan 28, 2013, 3:26:03 PM1/28/13
to
In message <amlf86...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes
--
bert
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes
>Yes, very few even cared about whether there was
>any evidence to substantiate what they believed
>about all sorts of stuff their claims about what
>was causing crops to fail or the rains to fail etc.
>
>Let alone whether there was ever a shred of
>evidence that grovelling to some god or other
>ever made a blind bit of difference to anything.
But it was all subject to peer review
>any evidence to substantiate what they believed
>about all sorts of stuff their claims about what
>was causing crops to fail or the rains to fail etc.
>
>Let alone whether there was ever a shred of
>evidence that grovelling to some god or other
>ever made a blind bit of difference to anything.
--
bert
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 28, 2013, 3:53:25 PM1/28/13
to
right answer'
curved space rather than light refraction by gravitational fields, for
example.
bob.sm...@googlemail.com
Jan 28, 2013, 6:55:17 PM1/28/13
to
On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:15:38 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Cloud and dust is everything.
>
> No cloud, or humidity and its hot desert - up to 55C
>
> Shove water vapour in and its much less diurnal range, overall cooler,
> and I've never seen it over 40C.
>
> The big mistake is to regard water vapour solely as a greenhouse gas -
> which it is in terms of keeping night time temps up, but completely
> disregard the albedo effect of clouds and the massive amount of daytime
> convection that carries surface heat up to the stratosphere, where it
> can radiate heat into space.
>
I am not sure that these effects are completely disregarded. As I understand it (as a complete layman, I freely admit), cloud feedbacks are generally regarded as being one of the trickiest areas of climate science and the jury is out as to whether the feedbacks are positive or negative but my impression is that there is not much evidence of *strong* positive feedback. Are you not making the same mistake that you accuse others of in assuming that your cherry picked bit of physics dominates everything else?
> Cloud and dust is everything.
>
> No cloud, or humidity and its hot desert - up to 55C
>
> Shove water vapour in and its much less diurnal range, overall cooler,
> and I've never seen it over 40C.
>
> The big mistake is to regard water vapour solely as a greenhouse gas -
> which it is in terms of keeping night time temps up, but completely
> disregard the albedo effect of clouds and the massive amount of daytime
> convection that carries surface heat up to the stratosphere, where it
> can radiate heat into space.
>
Anyway, your theory that clouds are the whole story is very reminiscent of the Lindzen and Spencer schools of thought (if not, could you give me some references to read up on it?). My impression is that Lindzen's ideas have run out of steam. Spencer is a creationist which pretty much rules him out from any pronouncements on science IMO.
Nightjar
Jan 29, 2013, 5:58:03 PM1/29/13
to
more accurate Barren-ice-covered-land would do much for the prospects of
getting colonists.
Colin Bignell
The Natural Philosopher
Jan 29, 2013, 6:07:54 PM1/29/13
to
global cooling removed the ability to grow crops.
"To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled
into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes
from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a
relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to
1200. However from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, we
know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in
Greenland.[17] Excavations of midden or garbage heaps from the Viking
farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the shift from the bones of
cows and pigs to those of sheep and goats. As the winters lengthened,
and the springs and summers shortened, there must have been less and
less time for Greenlanders to grow hay. By the mid-14th century deposits
from a chieftain’s farm showed a large number of cattle and caribou
remains, whereas, a poorer farm only several kilometers away had no
trace of domestic animal remains, only seal. Bone samples from Greenland
Norse cemeteries confirm that the typical Greenlander diet had increased
by this time from 20% sea animals to 80%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
Presumably they ran out of diesel for their 4x4s.
> Colin Bignell
Rod Speed
Jan 29, 2013, 6:52:10 PM1/29/13
to
"Nightjar" <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in message
news:NbmdnfiZFMljzpXM...@giganews.com...
> On 27/01/2013 07:43, harry wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a
>>> growing
>>> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might
>>> be
>>> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>>>
>>> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the
>>> planet
>>> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal
>>> varies
>>> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and
>>> lots
>>> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been
>>> here a
>>> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>> On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a
>>> growing
>>> amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might
>>> be
>>> thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
>>>
>>> I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the
>>> planet
>>> does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal
>>> varies
>>> between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and
>>> lots
>>> of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been
>>> here a
>>> mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
>> Not so.
>> Clue.
>> The vikings named Greenland and lived there.
> The name was a marketing exercise by Eric the Red.
Nope, it was reality when they first showed up there.
>> Clue.
>> The vikings named Greenland and lived there.
> The name was a marketing exercise by Eric the Red.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement
Nightjar
Jan 29, 2013, 7:12:05 PM1/29/13
to
'When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said
to have brought with him stories of "Greenland". Erik deliberately gave
the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential
settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had
a favorable name".[7] He knew that the success of any settlement in
Greenland would need the support of as many people as possible. His
salesmanship proved successful, as many people (especially "those
Vikings living on poor land in Iceland" and those that had suffered a
"recent famine") became convinced that Greenland held great opportunity.'
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
Jan 30, 2013, 2:34:26 AM1/30/13
to
True, but it was bare subsistence farming, with the occasional need to
throw granny off a cliff, to make the food last through the winter. It
was not the lush green land that Eric promised the Icelanders.
Colin Bignell
Rod Speed
Jan 30, 2013, 3:31:26 AM1/30/13
to
news:w5CdnTc-7JGWUJXM...@giganews.com...
That’s what they did back where they came from too.
> It was not the lush green land that Eric promised the Icelanders.
He never promised anything of the sort.
> It was not the lush green land that Eric promised the Icelanders.
0 new messages