OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
Eeyore
the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of
temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than
what satellites could detect:
Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger
percentage of the stations remaining were urban.
And that's precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D'Aleo asks, were these
stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion
of warmer cities?
He concludes:
As stated earlier and shown here, though there has clearly been some
cyclical warming in recent decades, the global surface station based
data is seriously compromised by urbanization and other local factors
(land-use /land-cover, improper siting, station dropout, instrument
changes unaccounted for and missing data) and thus the data bases
overestimate the warming.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers (referenced below) in the last several
years have shown this overestimation may be the order of 30 to 50%.
I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than the
warming in the 1930s and is now over.
--
The 'heat islands' effect again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Graham
Don Klipstein
>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
Smoothed HadCRUT-3 has about a .53 degree C rise from the 1910 dip to
the 1940 peak, and the 1910 dip was quite a dip.
From the 1948 dip to 2005 smoothed HadCRUT-3 warmed about .67 degree C.
Now for a different comparison with smoothed HadCRUT-3:
2005 was almost .45 degree C warmer than the 1940 peak.
The 1940 peak was only warmer than the next mjor peak going back (1878)
by about .15 degree C.
>Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
>says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of
>temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than
>what satellites could detect:
>
>Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
>6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
>around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger
>percentage of the stations remaining were urban.
>
>And that's precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
>remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D'Aleo asks, were these
>stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion
>of warmer cities?
The RSS satellite data ("Temperature Lower Troposphere" channel) also
shows warming, and that one is global and does not concentrate on cities.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Kris Krieger
news:4884DFDB...@hotmail.com:
> QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
> Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
> College, says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments
> of temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater
> than what satellites could detect:
>
> Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
> 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
> around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
> larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.
>
[edited]
But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating at
unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from recent
measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with new photos of
the same areas?
mrda...@gmail.com
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4884DFDB...@hotmail.com:
Got any photos from 200 years ago?
Eeyore
"Bill" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
> [...]
>
> While I'm sure he's an intelligent guy, I seriously doubt he's an
> expert in Climate Modeling. Look for papers from NCAR, the National
> Center for Atmospheric Research. Those are the people with the
> requisite background in atmospheric physics and chemistry.
>
> [...]
> >Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
> >6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
> >around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
> >larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.
> [...]
>
> Air temperatures are notoriously noisy. Look for temperature data
> from the deep ocean - any change in the Deep Sound Channel temperature
> is a clear indication of energy being moved around. The experiment
> to measure that temperature hasn't run long enough for any conclusions
> to be made - climate change happens on the decade timescale, not a
> yearly one.
>
> In short - if the source does not show you the energy balance
> equations for the system under discussion, don't buy off on it.
> Climate is very complex, with 2nd, 3rd and 4th order terms being
> nearly as significant as the first order term.
>
> Humans are conducting an uncontrolled chemistry experiment with
> the atmosphere. Considering that most people on this planet
> have nothing beyond a grade school understanding of chemistry,
> I'm not sure that the experiment is a good idea.
I believe we're in uncharted territory pretty much.
Loehle's recent study gives reason for hope though.
Graham
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than the
> warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
> Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
> says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of temperature
> detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than what satellites
> could detect:
>
> Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of 6,000
> stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred around 1990.
> Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger
>
> percentage of the stations remaining were urban.
>
> And that's precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
> remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D'Aleo asks, were these
> stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion
>
> of warmer cities?
This has been known since early in the 1970's, but since it's against
their dogma, the warmingists simply dismiss you as a "denialist". They
_KNOW_ they're Right, because The Infallible Al has Revealed the Truth
to them.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Because of the increase in snowfall in the arctic regions, they're thicker
at the top than they've ever been before, which pushes the ice down faster
than the thinner, wimpier glaciers did.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> In article <4884DFDB...@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:
>>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
> Smoothed HadCRUT-3 has about a .53 degree C rise from the 1910 dip to
> the 1940 peak, and the 1910 dip was quite a dip.
I had crut once, but a couple of shots of penicillin cleared it right up.
;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Eeyore
Don Klipstein wrote:
> The RSS satellite data ("Temperature Lower Troposphere" channel) also
> shows warming, and that one is global and does not concentrate on cities.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Is it good or bad ?
Grajam
Eeyore
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> >>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
> >
> > Smoothed HadCRUT-3 has about a .53 degree C rise from the 1910 dip to
> > the 1940 peak, and the 1910 dip was quite a dip.
>
> I had crut once, but a couple of shots of penicillin cleared it right up.
Maybe that's the answer ?
Give the atmosphere a dose of anti-biotics ?
Grahama
Eeyore
Kris Krieger wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/- 0.6C
variations.
Locally possibly more.
Graham
Eeyore
mrda...@gmail.com wrote:
> Got any photos from 200 years ago?
Got any cameras from 200 years ago ? ;~)
Graham
Eeyore
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> Because of the increase in snowfall in the arctic regions, they're thicker
> at the top than they've ever been before, which pushes the ice down faster
> than the thinner, wimpier glaciers did.
>
> Hope This Helps!
Ad they 'try' to teach physics to kids at school !
Lord preserve us.
Graham
Eeyore
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
Oh so true.
The same Al who had to resort to CGI animations for for his joke film.
Graham
Joerg
We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That glacier
is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we needed four
cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less than two cords.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Kris Krieger
news:77ee3a10-da6b-428e...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
That doesn't answer my question.
Kris Krieger
news:48851874...@hotmail.com:
THat doesn't answer my question.
Kris Krieger
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
Oh! - is that true for the US "lower 48" in general? I don't know, which
is why I'm asking - I seem to recall that Alaskan glaciers are withdrawing,
but I might not be remembering correctly.
Joerg
Don't know but Mt.Shasta ain't the only one. This one ought to amaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens
Joerg
What he means is that, yes, it is likely that some parts of the world
are getting warmer but it does not have to be more than a cycle. Maybe
even as large a swing as the MWP when Greenland was much more hospitable
and less ice-covered than today. Else they wouldn't have found Viking
utensils and stuff under the ice pack.
John Larkin
Wow, 14 m/year is a lot of snow.
When I tell my East Coast relatives that the base at Northstar is 16,
they think that's great. Then I tell them it's feet, not inches.
John
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
The satellite data isn't corrupted by changing land use around cities.
In other words, the twit that you cited to start this thread has got
it wrong.
Why don't you use your "genius level" IQ to check out your sources,
rather than blindly citing every Exxon-Mobil shill that comes your
way?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Kris Krieger
news:RH9hk.30826$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
Oh, OK, thanks :) ! So sort of like the warming trend in Southern CA -
i twas reported that it was starting another 20-yr "extra warm" cycle
around 2003 IIRC.
Could be. The polar ice cap is prob. the most worrisome, although I
don't know whether ice cores or any other methods are able to show
whether it has a melting-freezing cycle <?>.
I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the ploe is tilted more
towards the sun, or more away from it.
((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
Kris Krieger
news:vE9hk.30825$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
"As of 2006, the ice had an average thickness of 328 feet (100 m) and a
maximum of 656 feet (200 m)..."
Wow! That's a lot of snow!
Interesting bit, thanks for pointing me towards it.
bill....@ieee.org
> Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote innews:RH9hk.30826$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>
>
> > Kris Krieger wrote:
> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote
> towards the sun, or more away from it.
>
> ((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
from getting under way. Polar tilt - of itself - doesn't make much
difference to gobal mean temperatures, so it didn't take much
anthropogenic warming to block the positive feedback mechanisms -
mainly more (highly reflective) snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Nice of Rich to share his revealed truth to us. Pity about the real
world truth content. As Don Klipstein has pointed out, ground level
weather stations are no longer our only source of data about global
temperature, which is probably why the rural weather stations have
been closed down, though Joseph D'Aleo, former Professor of
Meteorology at Lyndon State College, doesn't seem to have taken this
on board. Exxon-Mobil wouldn't like him as much if he had.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200712040002
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
At least his animations weren't paid for by Exxon-Mobil. Eeyore
strains at a gnat while swallowing an elephant.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
>knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the ploe is tilted more
>towards the sun, or more away from it.
Um. That's a problem that you don't know. The pole tilts towards and
away from the sun, every year, just at opposite halves of that period.
So that has nothing much to do with polar ice cap melting and so on.
To get yourself up a little bit on the curve of understanding the
orbital Milankovitch cycles, there is a paper by Berger from 1988,
which included the newer numerical integration of the secular
equations (suggested by Laskar in 1986, I think.) It is available at:
http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v026/i004/RG026i004p00624/RG026i004p00624.pdf
Look at figure 28, page 649.
I think the TAR included a nice graph paralleling the Vostok ice core
data with the Milankovitch cycles, but I haven't looked for a repeated
version of it in the AR4. It's easier on the eye than the above
Berger graph and ties into some other real-world data to help you see
the natural cycles. If I find it and think about it, I'll post a link
to that, too.
According to Berger's data above, though, you should be able to see
that we are a little bit on the downward slope of millennial-scale
insolation. You can see a bit of what's up ahead and a lot of what is
in the past.
There are data sets going back many tens of millions of years and
going forward for a similar period, now. If you get to that point, I
can provide a link or two.
Another place to go is the PMOD WRC site at:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
There you can see insolation as seen by satellites in space. That
makes a fairly direct measurement of what the sun is doing since about
1979, or so. The sunspot cycles are pretty obvious. We are at a low
of one of them, right now. Besides being perhaps 5-6 millennia after
the last Milankovitch peak and about 5 millennia away from one of the
coming low points.
On the point of glaciers, they are in significant retreat all over the
globe. There is an inventory of sorts being maintained at the NSIDC
(National Snow and Ice Data Center) called GLIMS, I think. Look for
it. Last I checked, there were only a few where the mass balance was
increasing. Most are diminishing, where they are measured anyway.
(Not every mountain has researchers running around on them checking
out mass balance, which isn't entirely cheap and easy to do. Some are
estimated, with significant error, by top cover from satellite or over
flights or else reseachers just walking the slopes.)
Since 1980, at least, there is a strong trend of increasingly negative
mass balances with average annual ice thickness losses measured in
decimeters. Since unchanged climatic conditions would cause mass
balances to approach zero values globally and over decade periods,
negative non-zero mass balance changes reflect continued positive
climatic forcing. The observed trend of increasingly negative
mass balances remains very consistent with accelerated global warming
and correspondingly enhanced energy flux towards the earth's surface.
Jon
John Larkin
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
people than WWII.
John
Joerg
Yep, that ice could make a whole lot of margaritas :-)
[...]
Jonathan Kirwan
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
><rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
>
>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
the Earth's climate.'"
>Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
>theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
>married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
>people than WWII.
What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren't credible and
should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
Jon
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Don Klipstein wrote:
> > > The RSS satellite data ("Temperature Lower Troposphere" channel) also
> > > shows warming, and that one is global and does not concentrate on cities.
> >
> > I don't quite understand what you're saying. Is it good or bad ?
>
> The satellite data isn't corrupted by changing land use around cities.
> In other words, the twit that you cited to start this thread has got
> it wrong.
Satellite data is only very recent. What about the previous couple of thousand
years.
Graham
John Larkin
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
>><rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>>>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
>>
>>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
>Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
>review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
>Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
>following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
>the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
>from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
>the Earth's climate.'"
Another great casualty of AGW is the scientific method, and the
integrity of science as an institution. It is unprecented for a
journal to invite debate, then publish responses prefaced with an
editorial dismissal.
Since when do "governing bodies" determine physical reality, in the
absence of experimental evidence?
>
>>Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
>>theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
>>married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
>>people than WWII.
>
>What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren't credible and
>should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
You don't like Figure 7? Because it's too selective? Sorry, it's the
only planet we have data for.
John
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Well Hansen wants them tried now !
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/
Graham
Jonathan Kirwan
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
><jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
>>><rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
>>>>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
>>>
>>>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>>
>>Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
>>review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
>>Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
>>following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
>>the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
>>from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
>>the Earth's climate.'"
>
>Another great casualty of AGW is the scientific method, and the
>integrity of science as an institution. It is unprecented for a
>journal to invite debate, then publish responses prefaced with an
>editorial dismissal.
>
>Since when do "governing bodies" determine physical reality, in the
>absence of experimental evidence?
So you discount the entire process and a great many scientists, as
well, and instead elevate a forum letter from who, exactly, as your
reason to dispel all that? See:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_1218.html
Frankly, I've no idea what happened in your life to make you this way.
You are proposing a science conspiracy unlike any ever before. And
you don't even choose to use credible sources for that. Sad to see.
>>>Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
>>>theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
>>>married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
>>>people than WWII.
>>
>>What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren't credible and
>>should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
>
>You don't like Figure 7? Because it's too selective? Sorry, it's the
>only planet we have data for.
You know that's a strawman and has nothing to do with what I meant,
John. See above.
Jon
Eeyore
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
"Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of
"peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on
"publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which
believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an
opinion...............
But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the
"state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's
paper.
One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked
with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process
the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:
"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient
in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature;
that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of
humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one
paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter K depends upon
only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the
chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or
empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC
adopted.""
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/page2.html
Graham
Kris Krieger
news:59294787-69fb-424a...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
OK, I did not see Gore's film, but I'm wondering, What is so bad about
presenting a summary of data through CGI? Even for people with
scientific training and high IQ's, it can be a challenge to slog through
all the data, and one simply can't just throw numbers and graphs at eh
general popualtion and expect that they'll understand. When I worked at
the D.O.D., I had to present data to non-scientists, was involved with
instructing people in comuter useage, and have worked with people
taeching them what I know of HTML - I also do 3D modeling/graphics on my
computer. I know that, when one starts in with tehcnical jargon and
numbers, people's eyes just glaze over, at which point, no learning takes
place.
So what is wrong with putting data into a fromat that people will
understand, as long as the data is presented accurately and not tweaked
by some non-tech graphics person's "imagination"? If all the data show
an overall warming of the planet, albeit with some areas of variation,
what's wrong with presenting that in a comprehensible format?
I guess it's only good to do that when the presentation agrees with one's
own beliefs...
Joerg
Yes, that's what we all need to understand _and_ act accordingly.
Whether we believe in anthropogenic AGW or not. This also means that
Senor Gore should think hard about whether it is appropriate to live in
a 10000sqft mansion.
> We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
> so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
> and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
> from getting under way. ...
... and because Fred Flintstone's rock car didn't have a catalytic
converter.
[...]
--
SCNR, Joerg
John Larkin
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
Fig 2 is especially ludicrous. The only way they can make the CO2
threat alarming enough is to add a bunch of positive feedbacks, and no
negative feedbacks. They probably have the cloud polarity backwards.
The historical record, temperature as a function of orbital dynamics
and vulcanism, doesn't suggest net positive feedbacks, and certainly
doesn't suggest the "tipping point" that's being cited as a
justification for immediate and drastic meddling in the economies of
the world. What's real is the price of food, and the billion people
who don't have enough. AGW is the new racism.
John
nospam
>>>Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
>>>review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
>>>Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
>>>following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
>>>the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
>>>from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
>>>the Earth's climate.'"
And my position is that the emissions from the arseholes of the world
population of three legged Pekinese dogs are changing the atmosphere in
ways that affect the Earth's climate.
The question is in what way and how much.
>Frankly, I've no idea what happened in your life to make you this way.
>You are proposing a science conspiracy unlike any ever before. And
>you don't even choose to use credible sources for that. Sad to see.
Forgive him Lord for knoweth not what he does.
--
Kris Krieger
news:k08b845e0i8u3u9hk...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:54:55 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in>
> wrote:
>
>>I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
>>knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the pole is tilted more
>>towards the sun, or more away from it.
>
> Um. That's a problem that you don't know. The pole tilts towards and
> away from the sun, every year, just at opposite halves of that period.
> So that has nothing much to do with polar ice cap melting and so on.
Yes, but that cycle lies within a larger cycle of "wobble"- i.e., the
poles experience precession, their angle to the sun varying in a circular
path (IIRC something like 23 degrees, but I'd have to check).
>
> To get yourself up a little bit on the curve of understanding the
> orbital Milankovitch cycles, there is a paper by Berger from 1988,
> which included the newer numerical integration of the secular
> equations (suggested by Laskar in 1986, I think.) It is available at:
>
> http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v026/i004/RG026i004p00624/RG026i004p0062
> 4.pdf
>
> Look at figure 28, page 649.
In the introduction, it says:
"Spectral analysis of paleoclimatic records
has provided substantial evidence that, at least
near the obliquity and precession frequencies, a
considerable fraction of the climatic variance is
in some way by insolation changes forced by
changes in the Earth's orbit. Not only are the
fundamental astronomical and climatic alike, but
the climatic series are phase-locked and strongly
coherent with orbital variations."
And looking at the graph, OK, it seems that we're supposed to be in a
cooling cycle. Not sure how that translates into precessional angle.
That blurry document is *very* difficult, though, to read, at least for
this aging astigmatic...hopefully Google can find a better copy, that PDF
is making me queasy from the eyestrain. (I'm not kidding about that.)
>
> I think the TAR included a nice graph paralleling the Vostok ice core
> data with the Milankovitch cycles, but I haven't looked for a repeated
> version of it in the AR4. It's easier on the eye than the above
> Berger graph and ties into some other real-world data to help you see
> the natural cycles. If I find it and think about it, I'll post a link
> to that, too.
>
> According to Berger's data above, though, you should be able to see
> that we are a little bit on the downward slope of millennial-scale
> insolation. You can see a bit of what's up ahead and a lot of what is
> in the past.
>
> There are data sets going back many tens of millions of years and
> going forward for a similar period, now. If you get to that point, I
> can provide a link or two.
>
> Another place to go is the PMOD WRC site at:
> http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
OK, that I can read ;)
>
> There you can see insolation as seen by satellites in space. That
> makes a fairly direct measurement of what the sun is doing since about
> 1979, or so. The sunspot cycles are pretty obvious. We are at a low
> of one of them, right now. Besides being perhaps 5-6 millennia after
> the last Milankovitch peak and about 5 millennia away from one of the
> coming low points.
>
> On the point of glaciers, they are in significant retreat all over the
> globe. There is an inventory of sorts being maintained at the NSIDC
> (National Snow and Ice Data Center) called GLIMS, I think.
THat's what I'd thought and originally asked about, but someone noted
that a few are growing. The suggestion was that the warming is a local
phenomenon, however, without any other data, it's onyl a suggestion.
Local climate cycles do occur, but those aren't necessarily relevant to
global cycles (esp. given continental drift occurs withing the time
periods of those global cycles).
> Look for
> it. Last I checked, there were only a few where the mass balance was
> increasing. Most are diminishing, where they are measured anyway.
> (Not every mountain has researchers running around on them checking
> out mass balance, which isn't entirely cheap and easy to do. Some are
> estimated, with significant error, by top cover from satellite or over
> flights or else reseachers just walking the slopes.)
All of which is what I'd thought.
>
> Since 1980, at least, there is a strong trend of increasingly negative
> mass balances with average annual ice thickness losses measured in
> decimeters. Since unchanged climatic conditions would cause mass
> balances to approach zero values globally and over decade periods,
> negative non-zero mass balance changes reflect continued positive
> climatic forcing. The observed trend of increasingly negative
> mass balances remains very consistent with accelerated global warming
> and correspondingly enhanced energy flux towards the earth's surface.
>
> Jon
>
Tat's also what I'd thought.
Personally, I don't see that the the arguments against global warming are
sensible.
Now, it's true, and I fully admit, that I'm one of the "great unwashed"
who doesn't sit around doing the Calculus, and has a lot of things to do
that don't leave much time for pouring over each and every scrap ever
written either for, or against, Global Warming. But that doesn't mean
I'm a *total* idiot, and it seems to me that it simply doesn't make sense
for people to suggest that all of a sudden, the laws of Physics have
magically changed and rising CO2 levels have no effect whatsoever on
planetary temperatures, merely because that CO2 comes from things that
are near'n'dear to those who have a financial stake in prolonging the
dictatorship of oil.
Part of what I look at is the nature of the arguments. When someone
suggests "We should invest in wind power, because that would reduce our
dependency on petroleum", and the anti-Global Warming argument is
basically "You are a complete idiot, we need offshore drilling to produce
more gasoline", the latter is no argument at all, it's merely
bickerffeasting - an argument is a matter of point and counterpoint, and
from what I've seen, the "global warming is a myth, we need oil, oil, and
more oil" crowd either refuses to accept the fact that oil is a finite
resource, or, are mostly defending what they perceive as their right to
squander resources, as long as they can afford to pay for them, or
probably more accurately, keep making the minimum payments of the credit
cards.
Well, didn't mean to get on a soapbox =:-o - thank you for the links
and referneces, it'll take me some time to go through them but it does
look liek interesting info :)
- Kris
James Arthur
That was amazing. I scooped a bunch of glacier poop trying
to find info on a glacier I visited...don't miss the
Laurentide Deglaciation mpeg below.
EXIT GLACIER, ALASKA
When I was in Alaska a couple years ago the Exit Glacier
(Seward, AK) had signposts recording its historical
boundaries, which originally ran down to the sea.
It was in a galloping retreat--the fastest rate being in the
late 1800's, AIR. I wish I'd photographed the signs for
posterity, but we were in a hurry to ascend before dark.
ALASKAN GLACIERS WERE RETREATING CIRCA 1900
Here's a corroborating historical account though, describing
rapid retreat of Alaskan glaciers back around 1900:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1b.htm
"In the early 1930s the USC&GS reported that McCarty Glacier had
retreated about one quarter of a mile in the fifty years prior to 1909.
During that period the glacier had reached its terminal position "since
the growth of the present trees." [17] By 1927 McCarty Glacier had
receded one and one-half miles from its terminus; the most intense
calving began after 1925; surveyor Paul Whitney noted that "From 1925 to
1927 the retreat was rapid, the front falling back a full mile in that
time." [18] The 1964 Alaska Coast Pilot indicated that the glacier had
retreated another ten and one-half miles during the ensuing thirty-seven
years."
The rapid retreat of the Holgate and Pederson glaciers circa 1900
is mapped on the next page of that history, here:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1c.htm
GLACIERS RETREATING SINCE LAST GLACIAL PERIOD ENDED
It wasn't all that long ago that the northern to midwestern US
was under miles of ice. AIUI the ice has been retreating ever
since. Carving out Yosemite, the Great Lakes, Minnesota etc.
Marvelous, short mpeg illustration here:
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/laurentide_deglaciation.html
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_history_of_Minnesota
Cheers,
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
Fig. 1: This is a plot from 2002 to 2008, and late 2007 and 2008 had the
strongest La Nina in 20 years.
The sources are Hadley Centre (middle-of-the-road, cited by both sides
of the global watrming debade) and UAH lower troposphere determinations
from satellite data, often called just "UAH", which is probably the
least-warming-shoing of all datasets frequently cited and taken seriously
in debates on global warming.
Fig. 2: (Forecasts to 2020 as of 1988 and determinations of what
happened since so far)
Notably lacks a plot from the Hadley Centre, though Hadley Centre was
cited in Fig. 1. That would resemble curve E, except with the 1998 spike
about half a degree C higher.
The forecasts shown are indeed for temperature rise of .2 degree C per
decade, and the world has indeed warmed more slowly than that since 1988.
Fig. 3 and related discussion:
That concentrates on feedbacks, and discussion of a 3.26-3.28 degree
temperature rise if atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled.
The figures for the feedbacks sound a little strange to me, with cloud
albedo shown as being the second strongest positive one and surface albedo
being hardly anything. Ice ages correlating with the Milankovitch cycles
and showing very strong positive feedback makes me think that surface
albedo is a major factor.
Fig. 4: I don't know where they get the model with anthropomorphic
greenhouse gas warming occurring most in the tropics and so high up in
the atmosphere (6-9 miles or 10-15 km), especially since a negative lapse
rate feedback is mentioned.
(Warming from CO2 increase causes temperature difference between upper
troposphere and surface to increase since greenhouse gases cool the
stratosphere and upper troposphere. This increases convection, which
would cool the lower atmosphere or limit warming of the lower atmosphere,
especialy where it occurs more - where the lower atmosphere is hotter or
both warmer and more humid.)
I mostly see models projecting warming to occur most closer to the
surface and at latitudes where surface albedo decreases the most from
warming. RSS satellite data shows that to have actually been occurring.
Fig. 5: Shows four more models projecting warming to occur most in the
tropics and at altitudes centered anywhere from around 7 to 11 miles
(11-18 km) above the surface.
I don't know where they get those, since most I see predict warming
being most closer to the surface and in the latitudes where surface albedo
is most affected (in and near the Arctic).
Fig 6: That is a determination of what actually happened, and the
forecast models I saw the most resemble this rather than resembling the
"general-circulation models" shown in that article. I suspect the article
cherrypicked a particular class of climate forecast models to show being
wrong.
Fig. 7: That shows lack of feedbacks when the world was warmer and
atmospheric CO2 concentration was higher.
I would expect much less feedback when the world is too warm to have any
ice sheets or icecaps. During the past half million years, feedback has
been so strong that the world had 10 degree C temperature variations in
response to the Milankovitch cycles affecting sunlight in the upper
northern hemisphere.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Eeyore
Joerg wrote:
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> >> Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote
Totally. Also, carbon based energy resources are not infite.
> Whether we believe in anthropogenic AGW or not. This also means that
> Senor Gore should think hard about whether it is appropriate to live in
> a 10000sqft mansion.
Too damn right.
> > We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
> > so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
> > and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
> > from getting under way. ...
>
> ... and because Fred Flintstone's rock car didn't have a catalytic
> converter.
Bill's claim above is the weirdest I've heard to date. Based on Loehle's recent work, it would seem that
there may simply be a roughly 1200 year cycle in global temps.
Graham
Don Klipstein
<edited for space>
>On 22 Jul 2008 18:10:10 GMT Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:56:50 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
>>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
>>>>>theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
>>>>>married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
>>>>>people than WWII.
>>>>
>>>>What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren't credible and
>>>>should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
>>>
>>>You don't like Figure 7? Because it's too selective? Sorry, it's the
>>>only planet we have data for.
>>
>>You know that's a strawman and has nothing to do with what I meant,
>>John. See above.
>>
>>Jon
>
>Fig 2 is especially ludicrous. The only way they can make the CO2
>threat alarming enough is to add a bunch of positive feedbacks, and no
>negative feedbacks. They probably have the cloud polarity backwards.
They show a negative feedback - the lapse rate one. The chart itself
seems to have the minus sign missing, but from reading the article that
one is negative. Look for equation 12 about half a page below the chart.
Both albedo feedbacks seem strange to me - cloud being strangely well
positive (I expect close to zero), and the surface one awfully low.
I would think that surface albedo feedback should be high since it would
explain how minor variations in sunlight in the upper northern hemisphere
result in 10 degree C global temperature swings.
>The historical record, temperature as a function of orbital dynamics
>and vulcanism, doesn't suggest net positive feedbacks,
10 degree C swings from the Milankovitch cycles not suggesting positive
feedback?
> and certainly doesn't suggest the "tipping point" that's being cited as
>a justification for immediate and drastic meddling in the economies of
>the world. What's real is the price of food, and the billion people
>who don't have enough. AGW is the new racism.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Eeyore
Kris Krieger wrote:
> OK, I did not see Gore's film, but I'm wondering, What is so bad about
> presenting a summary of data through CGI?
No, that's not what I meant at all.
He 'made up' a mock glacier falling into the sea using CGI AIUI.
Graham
Joerg
Well, our winter fuel is: Trees. But they are CO2 neutral. Well, almost,
because the saw, the truck and the splitter use gas/diesel even if it's
miniscule compared to the BTUs you get.
>
>> Whether we believe in anthropogenic AGW or not. This also means that
>> Senor Gore should think hard about whether it is appropriate to live in
>> a 10000sqft mansion.
>
> Too damn right.
>
>
>>> We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
>>> so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
>>> and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
>>> from getting under way. ...
>> ... and because Fred Flintstone's rock car didn't have a catalytic
>> converter.
>
> Bill's claim above is the weirdest I've heard to date. Based on Loehle's recent work, it would seem that
> there may simply be a roughly 1200 year cycle in global temps.
>
Don't know but that might ervy well be.
--
Regards, Joerg
Joerg
[...]
> The rapid retreat of the Holgate and Pederson glaciers circa 1900
> is mapped on the next page of that history, here:
> http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1c.htm
>
>
> GLACIERS RETREATING SINCE LAST GLACIAL PERIOD ENDED
> It wasn't all that long ago that the northern to midwestern US
> was under miles of ice. AIUI the ice has been retreating ever
> since. Carving out Yosemite, the Great Lakes, Minnesota etc.
>
> Marvelous, short mpeg illustration here:
> http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/laurentide_deglaciation.html
>
They should have been a little more detailed. It's just a five second blur.
[...]
In some areas glaciers retreat and in some, like where we live, they
grow. Could very well be that the majority retreats.
Michael A. Terrell
That was a copy of Bill's first car.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
Eeyore
John Larkin wrote:
> >Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
> >review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
> >Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
> >following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
> >the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
> >from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
> >the Earth's climate.'"
>
> Another great casualty of AGW is the scientific method, and the
> integrity of science as an institution. It is unprecented for a
> journal to invite debate, then publish responses prefaced with an
> editorial dismissal.
Amen to that.
> Since when do "governing bodies" determine physical reality, in the
> absence of experimental evidence?
NOW apparently.
Graham
James Arthur
> James Arthur wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The rapid retreat of the Holgate and Pederson glaciers circa 1900
>> is mapped on the next page of that history, here:
>> http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1c.htm
>>
>>
>> GLACIERS RETREATING SINCE LAST GLACIAL PERIOD ENDED
>> It wasn't all that long ago that the northern to midwestern US
>> was under miles of ice. AIUI the ice has been retreating ever
>> since. Carving out Yosemite, the Great Lakes, Minnesota etc.
>>
>> Marvelous, short mpeg illustration here:
>> http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/laurentide_deglaciation.html
>>
>
> They should have been a little more detailed. It's just a five second blur.
Sorry, the videographer was running from a polar bear.
You can use the little slider dot to replay, freeze, and slow down the
action.
> [...]
>
> In some areas glaciers retreat and in some, like where we live, they
> grow. Could very well be that the majority retreats.
>
I expect the majority are retreating, just as they have been for
the last 10,000 years.
There are some on the increase too though:
CURRENTLY INCREASING ALASKAN GLACIERS
The Hubbard and several other Alaskan glaciers are currently
increasing: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
KILIMANJARO SNOWCAP RECOVERING
Researching for this post, I read the infamous retreat of
the snows of Kilimanjaro is now thought to have been caused
by decreased rainfall, not higher temps. And, they're now on
the increase, per latest reports.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jonathan Kirwan
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
><snip>
>Fig 2 is especially ludicrous. The only way they can make the CO2
>threat alarming enough is to add a bunch of positive feedbacks, and no
>negative feedbacks.
I can't say what in the heck you mean by "alarming enough." It's just
vague, to me. But climate scientists and the IPCC summary of their
work understand quite a lot about quite a number of both positive and
negative feedbacks. One needs to be COMPREHENSIVE in view to begin to
gather the error bars and the reason the IPCC WG I conclusions about
the science, so far. Just WG I, and it is really only a summary of
the science, is over 1000 pages.
Your selectiveness and ready willingness to imagine all manner of
conspiratorial, intentional malice with tens of thousands of active
scientists in related fields with widely varying motivations for why
they do what they do is shocking to me and stands as a self-created
monument of something that is a lot more about you than anyone else.
>They probably have the cloud polarity backwards.
Have you done ANY reading of the peer-reviewed science on clouds in
the last five years? You couldn't even write that, if you had. And I
don't mean what you probably imagine I mean in saying that, either.
>The historical record, temperature as a function of orbital dynamics
>and vulcanism, doesn't suggest net positive feedbacks, and certainly
>doesn't suggest the "tipping point" that's being cited as a
>justification for immediate and drastic meddling in the economies of
>the world. What's real is the price of food, and the billion people
>who don't have enough. AGW is the new racism.
All just your remarkable intuition, which apparently you are so
egotistical as to imagine completely replaces any need for actual
study by anyone else, let alone yourself. We should just listen to
you, if you are any guide about it, on any fact of nature since you
already know the answers by just listening to your internal thoughts
about it, without even studying.
You are remarkable.
Jon
Kris Krieger
news:48863BAF...@hotmail.com:
I still don't see how that's bad. There are a lot of glaciers that flow
to the sea, and calve off impressive chunks of ice that can create large
waves. I'm assuming that film footage wasn't used because they were
trying to illustrate what could happen if a particularly huge chunk fell
off. There are people who do calculate such possibilities, and IMO, it's
no more invalid to present that sort of possibility via CGI, than it is
to present the latest theory about the appearance/behavior of some
dinosaur, or to present something showing a prediction of the possible
effects that could follow the deployment of a VOG (vapor over ground)
weapon, or to persent a visualization of mathematical functions, or
visualize a gravity well. For that matter, one sees lots of animated CGI
visualizations of probes travelling through the Solar System. *ALL* of
those are just as 'made up' as I assume is your nemesis CGI in the Gore
film.
CGI is a tool, and as such, is neither inherently good, nor inherently
bad - those qualities depend upon how accurately the presentation depicts
scientific theory and data, and the talent and skill-level of the
modeller(s) (and, for complex projects, lighting specialists and
texturing specialists and animation specialists and so on).
So, sorry, but one of the weakest ways to "criticize" a presentation is
to sneer because "it used CGI". If you have a criticism of the *data*
which the CGI was used to visualize, fine, then critique the data
cogently - but to look down your nose at a presentation merely because it
included CGI, rather than throwing graphs and numbers and jargon at the
target audience (i.e. average people) is, well, sorry, but kind of
ignorant, because CGI is just a tool, like a tehcnical pen, or a
soldering iron, or a hammer, and it's silly to behave as though
criticizing the tool in any way translates into a valid critique of the
data used to design whatever project the tool is used to produce.
As I said, I didn't see the film, so maybe the modelling and texturing
and lighting sucked, but if that's the case, say so. If you have a
cogent critique of the data being represented, say so. But don't expect
everyone to swoon in ecstatic agreement that the film is crap *merely*
because CGI was used to try to illustrate data, possibilities, and
theories.
Martin Griffith
Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>All just your remarkable intuition, which apparently you are so
>egotistical as to imagine completely replaces any need for actual
>study by anyone else, let alone yourself. We should just listen to
>you, if you are any guide about it, on any fact of nature since you
>already know the answers by just listening to your internal thoughts
>about it, without even studying.
>
>You are remarkable.
>
>Jon
<giggle> :)
martin
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> ...
> The historical record, temperature as a function of orbital dynamics and
> vulcanism, doesn't suggest net positive feedbacks, and certainly doesn't
> suggest the "tipping point" that's being cited as a justification for
> immediate and drastic meddling in the economies of the world. What's real
> is the price of food, and the billion people who don't have enough. AGW is
> the new racism.
>
I wonder when it becomes the new national religion, if it will supplant
antismokerism, or will they form an ecumenical sort of thing? >:->
Thanks!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
ALGORE's favorite prayer:
> ... We should just listen to you, if you are
> any guide about it, on any fact of nature since you already know the
> answers by just listening to your internal thoughts about it, without even
> studying.
AMEN! >:->
Cheers!
Rich
Martin Griffith
Sheesh, why do we need another badly designed religion,
http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg
martin
Kris Krieger
> Joerg wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2:54 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> >> Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote
> >> innews:RH9hk.30826$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
[snip]
> >>
> >> Could be. The polar ice cap is prob. the most worrisome, although
> >> I don't know whether ice cores or any other methods are able to
> >> show whether it has a melting-freezing cycle <?>.
> >>
> >> I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I
> >> don't knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the pole is
> >> tilted more towards the sun, or more away from it.
> >>
> >> ((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
> >
>
> Yes, that's what we all need to understand _and_ act accordingly.
> Whether we believe in anthropogenic AGW or not. This also means that
> Senor Gore should think hard about whether it is appropriate to live
> in a 10000sqft mansion.
To be honest? I would like to see a few discusions of the environment
that didn't end up centered on Al Gore. What always happens is that
personal criticisms of him personall end up beingapplied to all people
who are concerned about the environment and/or are not automatically
jumping onto the "open up more leases for offshore drilling" bandwagon.
Gore this, Gore that, whatever,completly aside from Global Warming, the
fact remains that pollutants are causing harm not only to wildlife, but
also to humans, especially children.
I also don't see how an increased percentage of CO2 in the air can have
zero impact upon how much O2 can be absorbed in a breath by various
creatures, including human children.
IOW, I agree with you, Joerg.
It's like, OK, so a lot of people hate Al Gore. Fine, good, I'm very
happy for them, now, let's get past that and figure out some things that
will actually work towards *improving* things - like, developing cleaner
energy that won't add to the ozone and particulates that lead to
increasing reates of lung disease in children, and developing cheaper
energy that even poor villages in struggling nations can use to do all
that leftist-loonie-pinko-whatever stuff like, pump water, boil water and
filter it to reduce pathogen loads, cook meat to reduce pathogens, and
maybe even have a radio that can maybe warn them if a big storm is coming
and tell them where they can go for safety and relief.
Now, the things that could be done to lower pollution would benefit
*everyone's* health - and also reduce anthropogenic global warming. SO
it's stupid to argue abotu global warming instead of solving the problems
we *know* about. As for Al Gore, love him, hate him, whatever, neither
changes the fact that pollution is harming both humans, and other living
things, and that the more we rely upon petroleum, and cling to wasteful
habits, the more pollution we create, and the more we harm ourselvs and
our children, both physically and in terms of quality of life.
Here is a very possible scenario: Little 4-yr-old Billy is coloring, and
when he gets to the sky part, Grandma hands him a blue crayon, whereupon
Billy giggles and says, Silly Grandma!, that's the sky, I need the grey
crayon!
Is that really the world we want to leave our descendents?
Kris Krieger
news:7c303d7e-25a5-47dd...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 22, 2:54 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote
>> innews:RH9hk.30826$co
> 7.1...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>> Could be. The polar ice cap is prob. the most worrisome, although I
>> don't know whether ice cores or any other methods are able to show
>> whether it has a melting-freezing cycle <?>.
>>
>> I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
>> knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the pole is tilted more
>> towards the sun, or more away from it.
>>
>> ((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
>
> We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
> so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
> and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
> from getting under way. Polar tilt - of itself - doesn't make much
> difference to gobal mean temperatures, so it didn't take much
> anthropogenic warming to block the positive feedback mechanisms -
> mainly more (highly reflective) snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
I thought precession (of the rotational axis) did influnce the ice-age
cycles...
John Larkin
As are you. You cut over to insults, when the discussion was
objective; I never said anything about *you*. Your emotional
investment in this must be huge; perhaps you should take it to a more
appropriate forum than sci.electronics.design, somewhere your
expertise would be more admired.
I work with scientists a lot, and I appreciate that they have the same
emotions and prejudices as mere mortals. The only thing that keeps
them honest is math and experiment, neither of which are worth much as
regards AGW. There *are* competant dissenters to the current CO2
panic, and dissenters have a pretty good long-term record in the
history of science.
In the very long term, the Earth needs to have its CO2 recycled; we're
close to running out. The consequences can't be as unreservedly bad as
all the newspapers claim, the latest prediction being a massive
epidemic of kidney stones... I'm not joking.
The ethanol thing has already, in all likelihood, killed millions.
People need food; plants need warmth and CO2.
Oops, the BDM load is done... back to testing. 6350 lines of code so
far.
John
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
It's based on published data in peer-reviewed journals. The author
then proceeded to write a book on the subject to bring the subject to
a wider audience. If the hypothesis sounds weird to you, that just
indicates that you don't know much about global warmng, which isn't
exactly news to us here. I notice that you've snipped my comment about
yur original posting being Exxon-Mobil funded propagnda.
From the wikipedia article on global warming
"Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued that human influence
on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of
forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago
with the start of Asian rice irrigation.[64] Ruddiman's interpretation
of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been
disputed.[65]"
"#64 ^ Ruddiman, William F. (March 2005). "How Did Humans First Alter
Global Climate?" (PDF). Scientific American 292 (3): 46–53. Retrieved
on 2007-03-05.
#65 ^ Schmidt, Gavin; et al. (2004-12-10). "A note on the relationship
between ice core methane concentrations and insolation" (abstract).
Geophysical Research Letters 31 (23): L23206. doi:
10.1029/2004GL021083. L23206. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
>Based on Loehle's recent work, it would seem that
> there may simply be a roughly 1200 year cycle in global temps.
It is a bit too easy to find cycles in noisy data.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
Not really. My first car (bought in 1963) was a 1948 Morris 10.
Terrible rust-bucket.
http://www.sitebuilder.co.il/morris10/members/alan.htm
I replaced it a few years later with a 1948 Peugeot 203, which was a
much better car, in much better condition, though with a nasty
tendency to shear the rear engine mountings - I had to replace them
twice over a few years.
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_peugeot_203.htm
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote innews:7c303d7e-25a5-47dd...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2:54 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> >> Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote
> >> innews:RH9hk.30826$co
>
> >> > Kris Krieger wrote:
> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:48851874...@hotmail.com:
>
> >> >>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip>
> >> I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
> >> knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the pole is tilted more
> >> towards the sun, or more away from it.
>
> >> ((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
>
> > We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
> > so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
> > and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
> > from getting under way. Polar tilt - of itself - doesn't make much
> > difference to gobal mean temperatures, so it didn't take much
> > anthropogenic warming to block the positive feedback mechanisms -
> > mainly more (highly reflective) snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
>
> > --
> > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> I thought precession (of the rotational axis) did influence the ice-age
> cycles...
It does, but the direct effect of polar orientation is relatively
small. There are a couple of positive feedback mechanisms that amplify
the slight change in global mean temperature caused by changes in
polar orientation up to the rather larger differences we see between
ice ages and interglacials - we are in an interglacial at the moment.
One of the amplifiying mechanisms is changes in snow cover in the
northern hemisphere - colder weather means more snow, and snow
reflects more heat than bare vegetation, which makes the climate
colder. Another in CO2 solubility in the oceans - colder oceans
dissolve more CO2, so that there is less of it in the atmosphere,
which reduces greenhouse warming.
When our ancestors took up cattle raising and growing rice in paddies,
we increased the methane levels in the atmosphere. Methane is a rather
potent greenhouse gas, and the - minor - global warming this produced
was enough to swamp minor cooling we should have got from the changing
polar orientation, so all the positive feedback went the other way.
--
Bil Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Bill's claim above is the weirdest I've heard to date.
>
> It's based on published data in peer-reviewed journals.
Peer reviewing makes it OK ?
Steve McIntyre was an IPCC peer reviewer until he saw what was going on.
http://climateaudit.org/
Graham
Eeyore
Kris Krieger wrote:
> As for Al Gore, love him, hate him, whatever, neither
> changes the fact that pollution is harming both humans, and other living
> things,
The fact of the matter is that general air pollution now is lower than it had
been for decades on end.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
> >><rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> >>>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
>
> >>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
> >Note: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
> >review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
> >Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
> >following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
> >the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
> >from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
> >the Earth's climate.'"
>
> Another great casualty of AGW is the scientific method, and the
> integrity of science as an institution. It is unprecented for a
> journal to invite debate, then publish responses prefaced with an
> editorial dismissal.
John Larkin is now posing as an authority on the scientific method.
His enthusiasm for posting pseudo-scientific nonsense is well-
established, as well as his tendency to reject better informed
criticism as rude and pompous. This doesn't exactly put him in a
position to criticise the activities of the American Physical Society,
which is at least composed of scientists who have published scientific
papers in peer-reviewd journals.
> Since when do "governing bodies" determine physical reality, in the
> absence of experimental evidence?
It wasn't an editiorial dismisal, merely a reiteration of editorial
policy. The "paper" was tricked out with loads of complicated-looking
calculations, none of which had been subjected to critical review.
> >>Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
> >>theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
> >>married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
> >>people than WWII.
>
> >What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren't credible and
> >should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
>
> You don't like Figure 7? Because it's too selective? Sorry, it's the
> only planet we have data for.
Not strictly true. We do have some data for ther planets, which the
anti-global warming crew regularly trot out, despite the fact that it
doesn't seem to suport the case they want to make - usually that
changes in solar output are responsible for the current changes in
average global temperature.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
>
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> >the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
>
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
> theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
> married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
> people than WWII.
Whereas other, better-informed opinions differ.
Hansen hasn't got much hope seeing Exxon-Mobil prosecuted for speading
lies for their own financial advantage. Nobody has gone after the
tobacco company executives who used the same techniques - and some of
the same people - to muddy the waters on the damage tobacco does to
your health.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
mpm
> I still don't see how that's bad. �There are a lot of glaciers that flow
> to the sea, and calve off impressive chunks of ice that can create large
> waves. �I'm assuming that film footage wasn't used because they were
> trying to illustrate what could happen if ...
Wasn't it Colin Powell who held up that vial of white powder at the
United Nations?
If you have the smoking gun on somthing like this, pull the trigger.
There was no need to fake any footage. The evidence is overwhelming.
-mpm
bill....@ieee.org
You don't seem to appreciate that they they know a lot more about
science than you do
> The only thing that keeps them honest is math and experiment, neither of which are worth much as
> regards AGW.
In your expert opinion. Have you read anything about the ice-core
data?
> There *are* competant dissenters to the current CO2
> panic, and dissenters have a pretty good long-term record in the
> history of science.
The spelling is "competent" and I've yet to come across one. The are
plenty of dissenters who are competent in related fields, but most of
them turn out to have been subsidised by Exxon-Mobil, when you dig
around a bit.
While some scientific dissenters have turned out to be right - Wegner
on continental drift is a good example
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html
most of them seem to have been barking up the wrong tree. Einstein in
his later years disliked quantum theory, and Mach was famously
skeptical about the physical reality of atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
> In the very long term, the Earth needs to have its CO2 recycled; we're
> close to running out. The consequences can't be as unreservedly bad as
> all the newspapers claim, the latest prediction being a massive
> epidemic of kidney stones... I'm not joking.
What a pity.
> The ethanol thing has already, in all likelihood, killed millions.
> People need food; plants need warmth and CO2.
Unfortunately, if you give a field more warmth and CO2 than it is used
to, the food plants - which have been selectively bred for millenia to
do well with less warmth and CO2, will do less well than some random
weed that is better suited to the new conditions. The rainfall is
probably going to change at the same time, and the short term result
is going to be famine and a population crash.
No doubt the survivors will move to someplace where they can take
advantage of the new reality, but your descendants won't have much
chance of being amongst the survivors.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jonathan Kirwan
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
It wasn't objective at all, John. You have unmitigated gall to dare
call it that. But I expect it from you, too.
>I never said anything about *you*.
What you did say was, in fact, quite simply shocking, John. Even you
should be able to see that. And that you don't, just adds to the
picture.
>Your emotional
>investment in this must be huge; perhaps you should take it to a more
>appropriate forum than sci.electronics.design, somewhere your
>expertise would be more admired.
If your words here are any example, you have no understanding of the
either the remarkable success story of science or what makes it work
as well as it does. Regardless, I've no problem pointing out the
obvious when time and interest allows. You, notwithstanding.
>I work with scientists a lot, and I appreciate that they have the same
>emotions and prejudices as mere mortals. The only thing that keeps
>them honest is math and experiment, neither of which are worth much as
>regards AGW. There *are* competant dissenters to the current CO2
>panic, and dissenters have a pretty good long-term record in the
>history of science.
You are remarkable in your misunderstanding of the methods of science
and remarkable even more for your own belief that without any study,
any data, and theory that your internal, mental free assocation is
enough by itself to decide what is factual. I just stare in awe and
mystery at it.
>In the very long term, the Earth needs to have its CO2 recycled; we're
>close to running out. The consequences can't be as unreservedly bad as
>all the newspapers claim, the latest prediction being a massive
>epidemic of kidney stones... I'm not joking.
If you say so, I must take you at your word at not joking. But that
has nothing to do with the price of tea in china, either, or natural
fact.
>The ethanol thing has already, in all likelihood, killed millions.
I think it is TERRIBLE that the US engaged that. We agree at least on
the point that it shouldn't have been pursued this way.
>People need food;
State the obvious. It doesn't change the rest of what you say or add
any weight to it, John. Each by itself.
>plants need warmth and CO2.
And light and nutrients and water, etc. I take it that you feel you
can just wave in some direction here, as though it means more than my
saying "the sun rises each day" or that this makes it any better that
you can make pronouncements on science because of your internal
intuition and nothing else.
>Oops, the BDM load is done... back to testing. 6350 lines of code so
>far.
Now that, I can understand and agree with. I'm with you there.
Jon
John Larkin
>No doubt the survivors will move to someplace where they can take
>advantage of the new reality, but your descendants won't have much
>chance of being amongst the survivors.
My kids and grandkids will do fine. It's the poor of the world who
will suffer from the zanier fads of environmentalism.
Get a job. It will cheer you up.
John
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:54:58 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >No doubt the survivors will move to someplace where they can take
> >advantage of the new reality, but your descendants won't have much
> >chance of being amongst the survivors.
>
> My kids and grandkids will do fine. It's the poor of the world who
> will suffer from the zanier fads of environmentalism.
They depend on one of the more highly developed agricultural systems
around the world. When global warming starts messing up your
agricultural productivity, there will be a lot of people trying to
survive on the food that can be got from the food plants that can
still be persuaded to grow; the process of planting, cultivating, and
harvesting won't be automated and the yields won't be great. Rich as
you may be, your population will crash - you can't eat money
> Get a job. It will cheer you up.
I imagine it would. Job hunting in Sydney isn't working any better
than job hunting in Nijmegen - I'm only going to be here for another
two months, and that isn't really long enough even for short term
projects.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> John
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
> > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
> > ><rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> > >>the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
>
> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
>
> > >http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
> > review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical
> > Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the
> > following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body,
> > the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases
> > from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
> > the Earth's climate.'"
>
> > >theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
> > >married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
> > >people than WWII.
>
> > should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.
>
> "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on
> "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which
> believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an
> opinion...............
>
> But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the
> "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's
> paper.
>
> One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked
> with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process
> the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:
>
> "It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient
> in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature;
> that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of
> humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one
> paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter K depends upon
> only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the
> chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or
> empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC
> adopted.""http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/page2.html
So Monckton tells us. Presumably he means that the authors cited one
paper as a reference for the feedback values and two for the
feedbacks, and on this basis claims that they are ignoring all the
other literature on the subject (with the implication that it all
conflicts with the cited papers). This isn't the way citations work
but as a classics scholar and former journalist probably doesn't know
this, any more than you do.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Martin Brown
Compared to the early industrial age when lead was everywhere we are not
doing that badly on pollution these days. Time was when you could smell
the traffic choking fumes of LA 50 miles downwind and see the brown smog
sat over it.
The sorts of things to worry about now are synthetic oestrogens and
other hormone mimics in the environment.
>
> I also don't see how an increased percentage of CO2 in the air can have
> zero impact upon how much O2 can be absorbed in a breath by various
> creatures, including human children.
Not unless it gets *very* high. 500ppm is still only 0.05%. Compared to
the major constituents of the air it has a neglible effect on oxygen
availability. Even up to 1% it would only cause a slight increase in
breathing rate. Alarm levels for O2 are usually set at +/- 1% on the
nominal 21% atmospheric concentration.
The only time you have to worry about excess CO2 is in enclosed spaces
with insufficient ventilation, and even there the air will smell stale
and various gasping reflexes cut in to encourage you to get out. If
there is a flame burning in a depleted oxygen environment then the CO
from that will probably get your first.
The thing which is lethal is to walk unwittingly into a completely inert
atmosphere of nitrogen, argon on halon. You get no indication of trouble
and will pass out in under 20 seconds if you don't hold your breath.
Dead in about 5 minutes. There have been many very nasty industrial
accidents with inert gasses in enclosed spaces. Tragically bystanders
have gone in to rescue their friend without a normal airset and become a
casualty themselves. See for example:
http://www.oxigraf.com/html/oxygen_deficiency_detector_apps.html
> Now, the things that could be done to lower pollution would benefit
> *everyone's* health - and also reduce anthropogenic global warming. SO
Classic no regrets measures like improving home insulation buying a car
that does at least 40mpg (50mpg is better). The huge hike in fuel prices
is at least addressing the latter point in an indirect way. SUVs have
almost stopped selling - I wonder which of the big 3 automakers will go
bust first...
> it's stupid to argue abotu global warming instead of solving the problems
> we *know* about. As for Al Gore, love him, hate him, whatever, neither
> changes the fact that pollution is harming both humans, and other living
> things, and that the more we rely upon petroleum, and cling to wasteful
> habits, the more pollution we create, and the more we harm ourselvs and
> our children, both physically and in terms of quality of life.
Unfortunately most USAians do not seem to see it that way. A country
predicated on dirt cheap oil is will find it hard to adjust.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:54:55 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in>
> wrote:
>
>> I know about precession in the earth's orbit, but actually, I don't
>> towards the sun, or more away from it.
>
> away from the sun, every year, just at opposite halves of that period.
> So that has nothing much to do with polar ice cap melting and so on.
The precessional and faster nutation terms represent gradual changes in
the direction of the Earths spin axis. The Earths orbital elements
evolve slowly with time with periodic terms driven mostly by the moon
but also by the other planets. The best short introduction to the these
effects is online at:
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/nccsdoc/slalib/sun67.htx/node203.html
> To get yourself up a little bit on the curve of understanding the
> orbital Milankovitch cycles, there is a paper by Berger from 1988,
> which included the newer numerical integration of the secular
> equations (suggested by Laskar in 1986, I think.) It is available at:
>
> http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v026/i004/RG026i004p00624/RG026i004p00624.pdf
>
> Look at figure 28, page 649.
>
> I think the TAR included a nice graph paralleling the Vostok ice core
> data with the Milankovitch cycles, but I haven't looked for a repeated
> version of it in the AR4. It's easier on the eye than the above
> Berger graph and ties into some other real-world data to help you see
> the natural cycles. If I find it and think about it, I'll post a link
> to that, too.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6138/abs/329414a0.html
But you need a subscription to view online.
A bit dated but free access is:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989LIACo..28..385R
>
> According to Berger's data above, though, you should be able to see
> that we are a little bit on the downward slope of millennial-scale
> insolation. You can see a bit of what's up ahead and a lot of what is
> in the past.
>
> There are data sets going back many tens of millions of years and
> going forward for a similar period, now. If you get to that point, I
> can provide a link or two.
There is also some newer work that suggests that some of the short term
periodicities seen in climate may also be due to the influence of the
moon on our orbital elements. Essentially the hypothesis is that when
the elements are just right the enhanced tidal effects cause more mixing
in the oceans (and obviously higher tidal range). The models to predict
these are very good and well tested to avoid coastal flooding.
The work by Keeling on climate and tides and their possible relation to
evolving orbital elements of the Earth moon system is interesting. It is
only one of several possible contenders but interesting non the less.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full.pdf+html
John Larkin
At your age and with your attitude (not an insult: I can say the same
about myself) nobody is going to *give* you a job. If you want one,
you'll have to invent it yourself. You know, "design" it.
I thought of another one just this morning, before I got out of bed.
Oops, two now. Phil Hobbs might appreciate one of tham.
John
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:59:33 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On Jul 23, 2:34 pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:54:58 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> >No doubt the survivors will move to someplace where they can take
> >> >advantage of the new reality, but your descendants won't have much
> >> >chance of being amongst the survivors.
>
> >> My kids and grandkids will do fine. It's the poor of the world who
> >> will suffer from the zanier fads of environmentalism.
>
> >They depend on one of the more highly developed agricultural systems
> >around the world. When global warming starts messing up your
> >agricultural productivity, there will be a lot of people trying to
> >survive on the food that can be got from the food plants that can
> >still be persuaded to grow; the process of planting, cultivating, and
> >harvesting won't be automated and the yields won't be great. Rich as
> >you may be, your population will crash - you can't eat money
>
> >> Get a job. It will cheer you up.
>
> >I imagine it would. Job hunting in Sydney isn't working any better
> >than job hunting in Nijmegen - I'm only going to be here for another
> >two months, and that isn't really long enough even for short term
> >projects.
>
> At your age and with your attitude (not an insult: I can say the same
> about myself) nobody is going to *give* you a job. If you want one,
> you'll have to invent it yourself. You know, "design" it.
You may be right. Of course, I'd also have to invent the employer -
self employment is nice idea, but complicates the plot more than a
little - and the customers, who do happen to be crucial.
> I thought of another one just this morning, before I got out of bed.
They tend to look less impressive when the brain gets properly
engaged.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
It's fascinating to push random buttons and see which make bangs.
I could question Newton's equation of universal gravitation, or the
big bang/expanding universe thing, or general relativity (not
original, of course: they are continuously questioned, at great
expense) and not provoke anything like this rage. But question AGW, or
its possible consequences, and the insults fly. Quite a sensitive
button.
All the non-experimental sciences have sordid histories of prejudice,
fads, ruination of dissenters, and entire careers wasted by the fixed
theories of powerful old farts. Genetics, linguistics, cosmology,
sociology, neurosciences, all have seen these effects, with no little
political interaction. Because they can't or won't experiment, they
can go badly wrong for generations.
The current theories of climate effects are well seeded with noisy
data, bad data, fudged data, gross interaction with politics and the
press, silly simulations, opportunism, and supression of dissent.
Looks like another formula for bad science to me.
Are only scientists allowed to note that science, as a human
institution, has got things wrong before? I think that science, as a
social structure, has dynamics that encourages these blunders, as the
stock market has dynamics that causes bubbles. Only experiment,
usually by dissenters, pulls science back on track.
I'm glad I'm an engineer. My career depends only on what I can make
work, and on finding somebody to buy it. No orthodoxy, no old farts
have career-killing power over me.
One of my daughters finally got a tenure-track position and her own
lab at a decent university, so finally gets some autonomy in what she
can do, and will now make enough to buy a new motorcycle. She's 40.
John
John Larkin
No, both of these are solid, perfect for small-start
incremental-growth spare-bedroom enterprises. I do grunt during the
day and creative stuff while I'm asleep, with the ideas delivered in
the morning, usually in the shower. I just slept a little late today.
Oh, for some fun stuff, google "earth needs more co2"
John
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > Bill's claim above is the weirdest I've heard to date.
>
> > It's based on published data in peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Peer reviewing makes it OK ?
It means that it isn't obviously fatuous. You may disagree, but you
don't qualify as an expert in the area.
> Steve McIntyre was an IPCC peer reviewer until he saw what was going on.http://climateaudit.org/
So what? If his blog is anything to go by, he wouldn't have lasted
long on the review panel - he'd have driven the other reviewers nuts.
But then you don't know much about refereeing scientific papers, since
you don't seem to write them or referee them, which leaves you free to
cultivate your own bizarre delusions about how science works.
No doubt you think you learned all about it when you studied advanced
physics in sixth form, but I'm afraid that there were a few details
that got left out of that particular course.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
mpm
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> At your age and with your attitude (not an insult: I can say the same
> about myself) nobody is going to *give* you a job. If you want one,
> you'll have to invent it yourself. You know, "design" it.
>
> I thought of another one just this morning, before I got out of bed.
>
> Oops, two now. Phil Hobbs might appreciate one of tham.
A spell-checker??
Sorry. That was bitchy (but funny).
Besides, Microsoft already beat us to that one.
- well, maybe not a "competent" spell-checker.
For example, mine is stuck on the British version somehow and wants to
change all the z's to s's.
Very annoying. Those Brits can't spell anyhow. Ha!
-mpm
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Jul 23, 10:15?am, John Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>> At your age and with your attitude (not an insult: I can say the same
>> about myself) nobody is going to *give* you a job. If you want one,
>> you'll have to invent it yourself. You know, "design" it.
>>
>> I thought of another one just this morning, before I got out of bed.
>>
>> Oops, two now. Phil Hobbs might appreciate one of tham.
>
>
>A spell-checker??
>Sorry. That was bitchy (but funny).
>
I type terribly, and only spell-check stuff that matters. None of that
seems to have hurt my career so far. My assembler usually catches the
typing errors that matter.
Of course, I don't make my living publishing in peer-reviewed
journals.
>
>Besides, Microsoft already beat us to that one.
>- well, maybe not a "competent" spell-checker.
>For example, mine is stuck on the British version somehow and wants to
>change all the z's to s's.
>Very annoying. Those Brits can't spell anyhow. Ha!
"U"s must grow on trees over there. And they have completely botched
the collective singular thing.
John
Jim Thompson
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:58:53 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:45:31 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>A spell-checker??
>>Sorry. That was bitchy (but funny).
>>
>
>I type terribly, and only spell-check stuff that matters. None of that
>seems to have hurt my career so far. My assembler usually catches the
>typing errors that matter.
>
>Of course, I don't make my living publishing in peer-reviewed
>journals.
>
[snip]
Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state
Jonathan Kirwan
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Indeed. I consider all of this (forums, newsgroups) as a music of a
kind. Put something out, it's like striking a hammer on the bells of
others' minds. It stimulates a vibration with notes and tones, but
what arrives back is the sometimes interesting part of it.
>I could question Newton's equation of universal gravitation, or the
>big bang/expanding universe thing, or general relativity (not
>original, of course: they are continuously questioned, at great
>expense) and not provoke anything like this rage. But question AGW, or
>its possible consequences, and the insults fly. Quite a sensitive
>button.
What you just _slipped_ in, my dear John, is a comparison between your
challenges and those of scientists, let's say, putting up the Gravity
B experiment or those who just recently reported on the binary pulsar
neutron stars. The difference is the difference between _informed_
criticism and _uninformed_ free association within your own mind.
Quite a difference, when you are called to look squarely at it.
>All the non-experimental sciences have sordid histories of prejudice,
>fads, ruination of dissenters, and entire careers wasted by the fixed
>theories of powerful old farts. Genetics, linguistics, cosmology,
>sociology, neurosciences, all have seen these effects, with no little
>political interaction. Because they can't or won't experiment, they
>can go badly wrong for generations.
Evolution, Earth's climate, and paleontology are science where
independent experiments are unethical or difficult (one could, for
example, experiment with human genetics, but it would be unethical to
do so.)
What's more interesting here is that again you feign something you
feel is important in your words, but that doesn't pan out. Better,
you even provide the very example field to use -- the big bang. We
can't replicate the big bang. Doesn't undermine the science going on.
I also pointed out elsewhere, this comment:
One of the reasons why GCMs are developed, in fact, is to work them
not just forward, but also backwards, to see how they predict.
What are the odds that some large collection of various bits
of known physics (coupled to parameterizations from measurements
around the globe today) could predict regional cooling and warming
events, if they weren't "skillful?" You know the dangers of
extrapolation beyond the end of a curve, just using simple
mathematical-only models! VERY DANGEROUS and quite unlikely to be
skillful beyond the range of data supplied to them, unless the
mathematical model is a REAL REFLECTION of the situation. For
example, it would be appropriate to use an exponential model for
an RC decay. Given some data, one could reasonably predict
(extrapolate) outside of the data range. But what if you didn't
know anything about the curve and just picked a "linear fit model"
instead? Might be okay close-by to the data... but it would soon
fail horribly. GCMs help test out the physical understanding like
this. If they can be used backwards in time and are skillful at
predicting events and if they can be used forwards in time and are
skillful at predicting ahead of time, too, then that helps you gain
some confidence. Pinatubo, for example, was one such test -- and
successful in many regards for the models at the time. Anyway,
that's why there are GCMs. To help us test out the physics we
think applies and help test out the domains we believe they apply
to. One gains a measure of additional confidence in them when they
are more successful at their _extrapolations_, taken long ways
backwards.
Perhaps you haven't thought closely about that point. I don't mean to
over emphasize GCMs here. It's only one of many parts of what goes on
in climate science research. But it does illustrate one of the
methods by which confidence can be improved, regarding how physical
theory, measurements, and more prosaic experimental results are
combined into an understanding.
I've also recommended a free book that gets quite deeply into some of
the better known, and well demonstrated parts of climate science
knowledge. It's free and it's readable.
And besides, if you want to remain personally ignorant and just focus
on risks (as you seem to mix in above) even the most dire consequences
of any respectable level of review and consideration (in other words,
something more than what I or some other poster might say) about
"doing something" to abate climate change due to human impacts is
perhaps an effect of about 2% or so on the _relative rate_ of economic
growth. Not that it would decline, but that the rate of growth would
be a little bit less. That's the worst estimate from real economists
in a paper pointed to by perhaps your hero, McKitrick. The other side
of the coin is much, much worse, and you can pick up such documents
from our own government under Bush at GCRIO, if interested.
None of this above affects your shocking ability to make guesses and
pronouncements about a field you know little about as though your own
mind, by just sitting in a rocking chair and doing nothing but free
association and having little experience or germane theoretical
knowledge to apply, can decide that your wanderings are the best to be
had on the subject. I even chuckled to myself a little when your
prediction was 50 years out -- at a time when you obviously won't be
around to worry about having to face it, again. I just love your
sense of unbridled faith in your own intuitive genius that projects
into your belief that you know better than an entire field of active
and well-trained scientists working day to day on the subject.
Training is important, but you don't seem to realize it. Even things
we see everyday before us need to be interpreted. If I light a candle
in front of me, you might presume there is wax. Yet if I then pick it
up and eat it, you'd have to question that assumption from personal
experience. The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe is
manifest to our personal experience. Yet, trained in science
knowledge today, most people know better. Why? Not because our
experience tells us this. But because trained and experienced people
tell us and show how what we experience is still consistent with this
other idea they have. Training is VERY important. On climate
science, you obviously have very little. Yet I remain in awe of you
on your ability, without even a moment's pause for self-criticism, can
decide that there is a major conspiracy going on in tens of thousands
of scientists and in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
It's truly on a par with other wonders of the world.
>The current theories of climate effects are well seeded with noisy
>data, bad data, fudged data, gross interaction with politics and the
>press, silly simulations, opportunism, and supression of dissent.
>Looks like another formula for bad science to me.
You have no idea about it. Just hand-waving. Worse, I've already
covered this topic here. Obviously, it didn't sink it or you didn't
read it. So here is part of it again, just as a reminder. Climate
is, in part, statistics.
The case grows by the week, too. Imagine the case where you are
looking at the tiny output of a single, small, 20mA LED pulsing from
across the room. You have a detector and an amplifier sitting
across the room, which itself is lit by bright fluorescent lamps
using various lower and higher frequencies to drive them and are of
varying lengths and with varying gas pressures in them (mean free
path of electrons.) It's a mess, at the detector. The tiny LED is
simply NOT visible to you. But you know, a priori, the exact pulse
rate of the LED (not necessarily the phase relative to anything.)
So you set up an accumulator process. You sample at a higher rate
and bin the samples. Soon, after some long time period, you will
begin to see that one of the bins (or, at most, three of them) are
starting to rise out of the "noise." The longer you continue, the
higher above the other bins it rises. Soon, it is clearly
unmistakable when perhaps somewhat earlier it would be arguably
missing, entirely. And the more time, the stronger the signal
becomes. Like that.
The reason that scientists are finally speaking out more today on this
topic, in the public arena, is that the signal has risen well above
this 'noise' whose effect you continue to exaggerate because you don't
really understand the methods applied by climate scientists, as far as
I can tell.
>Are only scientists allowed to note that science, as a human
>institution, has got things wrong before? I think that science, as a
>social structure, has dynamics that encourages these blunders, as the
>stock market has dynamics that causes bubbles. Only experiment,
>usually by dissenters, pulls science back on track.
No, you are free to have your opinion about it. But I'm allowed to
sit back and publicly marvel at your self-conceit, too. It's truly a
wonder.
>I'm glad I'm an engineer. My career depends only on what I can make
>work, and on finding somebody to buy it. No orthodoxy, no old farts
>have career-killing power over me.
Well, I'm glad you are glad. And none of what I say above takes
anything away from you on other scores. All of us have our foibles
and weaknesses and that doesn't mean we are any less regarding our
strengths.
>One of my daughters finally got a tenure-track position and her own
>lab at a decent university, so finally gets some autonomy in what she
>can do, and will now make enough to buy a new motorcycle. She's 40.
Ah. So this undermines the point that was going on elsewhere about
academics going into it for the money. Or, if I understand you, it
does.
Jon
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> > >John Larkin wrote:
He does.
> Presumably he means that the authors cited one
> paper as a reference for the feedback values and two for the
> feedbacks, and on this basis claims that they are ignoring all the
> other literature on the subject (with the implication that it all
> conflicts with the cited papers). This isn't the way citations work
> but as a classics scholar and former journalist probably doesn't know
> this, any more than you do.
And what is your expertise in this area ? I have no idea.
I do believe the IPCC science is critically weak and they are forever having to
'paper over the cracks'.
Why not do a mind experiament and play the sceptic for while ? Just try looking at
it from the other side.
Do you even yet accept that Mann's work has been thoroughly discredited for
example. The IPCC have been removing references to it AIUI.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > >QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
> > >the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
> >
> > http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
> >
> > Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
> > theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
> > married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
> > people than WWII.
>
> Whereas other, better-informed opinions differ.
Hmmmm.... OPINIONS. Quite !
Graham
Joerg
[...]
> I imagine it would. Job hunting in Sydney isn't working any better
> than job hunting in Nijmegen - I'm only going to be here for another
> two months, and that isn't really long enough even for short term
> projects.
>
Not long enough? My EMI jobs almost never take longer than that. Unless
we can't do it without a serious relayout and even then two months is
often feasible.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Joel Koltner
news:AXMhk.2526$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Not long enough? My EMI jobs almost never take longer than that. Unless we
> can't do it without a serious relayout and even then two months is often
> feasible.
You might have a hard time finding any customers if you were a new consultant
no one had ever heard from before in a new country. How many times have you
gone and called potentially customers in order to drum up business (what
Bill's doing) rather than their calling you?
Bill's difficult in finding employment seems to highlight the important of
networking, I guess.
John Larkin
And to network, it helps if people like you.
John
Michael A. Terrell
You also need a recnt work history. Even two years out of work is
enough to hurt you.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
Jim Thompson
Ummmm? I take that to mean that Bill will be permanently unemployed
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I imagine it would. Job hunting in Sydney isn't working any better
> > than job hunting in Nijmegen - I'm only going to be here for another
> > two months, and that isn't really long enough even for short term
> > projects.
>
> Not long enough? My EMI jobs almost never take longer than that. Unless
> we can't do it without a serious relayout and even then two months is
> often feasible.
That's my perception too, but I was just reporting what I was told by
the only employment agency that condescended to talk to me. The guy
knew the difference between RF (where I've had little experience) and
precision analog (where I've had a lot) which put him well ahead of
the pack - and to be fair, he pitched the argument in terms of
employers wanting me to be available if something went wrong after I'd
done the work.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
It certainly has a lot ot do with my problems in finding work in the
Netherlands. I've actually been there longer (14 years) than I was
around Cambridge U.K. (eleven years) but I spend my first nine years
in Cambridge working for Cambridge Instruments, which was a long
established firm with ex-employees in almost every electronics firm in
the area - if potential employers wanted to find out about me, they
almost always knew someone to call.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Joel Koltner
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:d6bf3771-b7c7-4cc9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"It certainly has a lot ot do with my problems in finding work in the
Netherlands. I've actually been there longer (14 years) than I was
around Cambridge U.K. (eleven years)"
I know you've been unemployed for awhile, but was it all 14 years?
I know you've had plenty of run-ins with people around here as to how and why
to design things, but I suspect that even most of your most ardent "opponents"
would concede that you're technically qualified to work at some job with
"electrical engineer" in the title -- hence it wouldn't seem to be a lack of
technical skills holding you back.
(Not that I would expect to be able to find employment in a new country that
you'll only be in for two months, but I'm assuming you're heading back to the
Netherlands after your trip to Oz.)
---Joel
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
I've told you already, but since you lack the background knolwledge to
make sense of what I told you, it obviously didn't sink in.
> I do believe the IPCC science is critically weak and they are forever having to
> 'paper over the cracks'.
Sure. You haven't got a clue about the science involved - to the
extent that you don't even realise how clueless you are - which leaves
you at liberty to believe what you like.
> Why not do a mind experiament and play the sceptic for while ? Just try looking at
> it from the other side.
I've been playing the sceptic for most of my adult life - that is one
of the skills that you really have to demonstrate in the process of
getting a Ph.D. in experimental science, and I managed to persuade my
colleagues that I'd made it. I did have a flyng start - both of my
parents had university degrees in chemistry, and they started in on
getting me to pay attention to the evidence pretty early on.
In order to look at your "evidence" from your point of view, I'd have
to unlearn a very large number of facts which you have never bothered
to find out about - Alzheimers may yet do it for me, but my father
managed to die at 82 before it caught up with him, and my mother
didn't show the frst signs of it until she turned 87, so I may have to
wait a bit before I can look at things from your side of the ignorance
gap.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Graham deals in certainties. He's certain that he is right.
Hes also certain that he has a genius-level IQ. I imagine that he is
also certain that some Nigerian s going to make him very rich, as soon
as that Nigerian's father's bank account is unfrozen.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>
> news:d6bf3771-b7c7-4cc9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "It certainly has a lot ot do with my problems in finding work in the
> Netherlands. I've actually been there longer (14 years) than I was
> around Cambridge U.K. (eleven years)"
>
> I know you've been unemployed for awhile, but was it all 14 years?
No.I've been out of work since June 2003, whch is five years, not 14.
> I know you've had plenty of run-ins with people around here as to how and why
> to design things, but I suspect that even most of your most ardent "opponents"
> would concede that you're technically qualified to work at some job with
> "electrical engineer" in the title -- hence it wouldn't seem to be a lack of
> technical skills holding you back.
Not true. I've not had the sort of formal training that would let me
describe myself an electrical engineer.
I've had quire enough experience to pass as a electronic engineer.
> (Not that I would expect to be able to find employment in a new country that
> you'll only be in for two months, but I'm assuming you're heading back to the
> Netherlands after your trip to Oz.)
Correct. But Australia isn't a new country for me - I'm an Australian
citizen, and worked here for some eighteen months as a electronic
engineer (although the job title was senior scientist) after I'd got
my Ph.D.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:16:23 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>
> >"Joerg" <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:AXMhk.2526$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >> Not long enough? My EMI jobs almost never take longer than that. Unless we
> >> can't do it without a serious relayout and even then two months is often
> >> feasible.
>
> >You might have a hard time finding any customers if you were a new consultant
> >no one had ever heard from before in a new country. How many times have you
> >gone and called potentially customers in order to drum up business (what
> >Bill's doing) rather than their calling you?
>
> >Bill's difficult in finding employment seems to highlight the important of
> >networking, I guess.
>
> And to network, it helps if people like you.
I'm popular enough - rightwing nitwits have never liked me, but they
don't represent a significant proportion of the population.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Joel Koltner
news:71e46f1a-998e-4214...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
"Not true. I've not had the sort of formal training that would let me
describe myself an electrical engineer."
OK. What I meant I suppose was that most people around here would admit that
you could successfully do much of the sort of work so-called EEs do. :-)
"Correct. But Australia isn't a new country for me - I'm an Australian
citizen, and worked here for some eighteen months as a electronic
engineer (although the job title was senior scientist) after I'd got
my Ph.D."
Ah, neat.
Good luck with the job hunt!
---Joel