Science and Technology news... :: View topic - OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Don Klipstein · Guest

In article <qnac8410do1gcm52n5mf46tr83sc3bnr66@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:
<edited for space>
[quote]On 22 Jul 2008 18:10:10 GMT Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:56:50 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, J. Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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.

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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]The historical record, temperature as a function of orbital dynamics
and vulcanism, doesn>t suggest net positive feedbacks,
[/quote]
10 degree C swings from the Milankovitch cycles not suggesting positive
feedback?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

John Larkin · Guest

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
the warming in the 1930s and is now over.
[/quote]

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 · Guest

Kris Krieger wrote:
[quote]Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:vE9hk.30825$co7.15155@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4.6279@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@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?

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.

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.

Don>t know but Mt.Shasta ain>t the only one. This one ought to amaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

"As of 2006, the ice had an average thickness of 328 feet (100 m) and a
maximum of 656 feet (200 m)..."

[/quote]
Yep, that ice could make a whole lot of margaritas :-)

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Jonathan Kirwan · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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
[/quote]
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.'"

[quote]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.
[/quote]
What utter nonsense. But your prognostications aren>t credible and
should be taken with the weight that their selectiveness deserves.

Jon

Eeyore · Guest

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Satellite data is only very recent. What about the previous couple of thousand
years.

Graham

John Larkin · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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.'"
[/quote]
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?

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You don>t like Figure 7? Because it>s too selective? Sorry, it>s the
only planet we have data for.

John

Eeyore · Guest

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

[quote]On Jul 22, 8:58 am, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
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 · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:56:50 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
You know that>s a strawman and has nothing to do with what I meant,
John. See above.

Jon

Eeyore · Guest

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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.
[/quote]
"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

Guest

On Jul 23, 5:27 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Joerg wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote
Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:
Kris Krieger wrote:
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.
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?
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.
Locally possibly more.
Graham
THat doesn>t answer my question.
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.
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 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.

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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]Based on Loehle>s recent work, it would seem that
there may simply be a roughly 1200 year cycle in global temps.
[/quote]
It is a bit too easy to find cycles in noisy data.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Kris Krieger · Guest

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:59294787-69fb-424a-a88e-491221984843@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

[quote]On Jul 22, 9:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
tha
n the
warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
Colleg
e,
says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of
temper
ature
detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than what
satell
ites
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 proport
ion

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.

Oh so true.

The same Al who had to resort to CGI animations for for his joke
film.

At least his animations weren>t paid for by Exxon-Mobil. Eeyore
strains at a gnat while swallowing an elephant.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[/quote]
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 · Guest

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2:54 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote innews:RH9hk.30826$co7.19451@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:
Kris Krieger wrote:
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.
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?
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.
Locally possibly more.
Graham
THat doesn>t answer my question.
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.
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 pole is tilted more
towards the sun, or more away from it.

((I still think pollution is bad, though.))

[/quote]
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.

[quote]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. ...
[/quote]

.... and because Fred Flintstone>s rock car didn>t have a catalytic
converter.

[...]

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

John Larkin · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:10:10 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:56:50 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:33:42 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:54:46 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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
[/quote]
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 · Guest

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

[quote]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.'"
[/quote]

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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Forgive him Lord for knoweth not what he does.
--

Kris Krieger · Guest

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
news:k08b845e0i8u3u9hkjsrfv6rtjh38vkpet@4ax.com:

[quote]On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:54:55 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@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.
[/quote]
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).

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.)

[quote]
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
[/quote]
OK, that I can read ;)

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
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).

[quote]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.)
[/quote]
All of which is what I>d thought.

[quote]
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

[/quote]
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


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - design Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17 Next
Page 3 of 17