Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
True but it does provide a positive feedback effect, i.e. the hotter it gets, the more there is on average, and therefore the hotter it gets. Its average concentration will only decrease if temperature decreases _first_ due to some stronger cooling effect. Such stronger cooling effects _do_ exist in nature, or we would never had had ice ages every 10 years or so(*), but they are extremely slow in spite of the deceivingly abrupt-looking slopes (it takes about 5000 years to plunge into an ice age) so we shouldn't count on them to correct the comparatively instantaneous presently observed warming trend. Michel (*) Have those mechanisms been purely astronomical up to now (long term cyclical Earth orbit variations due to interactions with other planets) does anyone know? - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:20 AM ... P.S. Same thing for water vapour which is also way more reactive than CO2 - it doesn't accumulate significantly because it precipitates out as rain or snow and similarly it does not affect the upper atmosphere (any vapour that gets up there changes into ice crystals)
RE: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
And cows pump out more methane globally than we do CO2 (my tribute to Fred)... methane is a way more harmful/reactive GHG (don't let the vegans find out, they are insufferable already). -j -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Actually, for the purposes of scientific argument, bollocks is much preferred. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:27:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls! On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. If the video gives no concrete reference point other than to state, 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources then it is useless data. Such a claim can be interpreted anyway that is most convenient. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Was that in reference to Africa's volcano Nyiragongo? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Thomas, so what? Are you saying you have no doubt that man can pollute unchecked and be assured no impact on the climate? Even if you did why should pollution and oil be supported, even in your right wing view of the world shouldn't Oil be given up for an alternative energy? Are you trying to support those evil Arab terrorists who hate your freedom and want to kill you? Am I 100% convinced by conventional GW, no. But there is a very real chance and I don't believe in fucking with nature for the sake of it and I believe in supporting alternative energy. And despite what someone said the most common topic of this list is alternative energy. (not the only topic) On 4/25/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
I knew that Volcaino sh*t was bunk, thanks for finding the evidence. On 4/25/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU You are greatly twisting and misinterpreting information. After some research it turns out you're terribly incorrect. Volcanoes spew out more *pollutants* such as SO2 than humans, but volcanoes do ***NOT*** create any where near as much CO2 as humans. In 2003 humans created ~140 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the entire planet combined, including all the volcanoes under water, and it's probably higher in 2007.. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Scroll down to Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html Here's Al Gores Global Warming speech: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2565436963450479963q=%22An+Inconvenient+Truth%22+al+gore+duration%3Alonghl=en Scroll to 27:12 minutes to see the CO2 temperature chart spanning the past 400,000 years that includes present humanity. See all of the ice age cycles, but when it hits modern time the CO2 spikes to ~5 times the maximum of any ice age!!! Here's an image of the chart -- http://www.indorphyn.com/images/al_gore-co2-temp-slide.jpg Notice how CO2, yellow line at the right, suddenly increases by ~5 times the max of any ice age when modern humanity arrives. That is Global Warming!!! It is *NOT* caused by volcanoes. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. Please clarify. You claim that was stated in An Inconvenient Truth narrated by Al Gore? Among other things, the video says that climate scientists who question man made GW do so at the risk of their career. It mentions volcanic produced gas, it contends that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in ocean temperature. It doesn't mention undersea volcanos, and do we know how many of them there are. In increase in under sea volcanos would cause the deep oceans to warm up. The video does mention that an increase in ocean temperature reduces it's ability to hold CO2. You really should watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU You are greatly twisting and misinterpreting information. After some research it turns out you're terribly incorrect. Volcanoes spew out more *pollutants* such as SO2 than humans, but volcanoes do ***NOT*** create any where near as much CO2 as humans. In 2003 humans created ~140 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the entire planet combined, including all the volcanoes under water, and it's probably higher in 2007.. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Scroll down to Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html Here's Al Gores Global Warming speech: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2565436963450479963q=%22An+Inconvenient+Truth%22+al+gore+duration%3Alonghl=en Scroll to 27:12 minutes to see the CO2 temperature chart spanning the past 400,000 years that includes present humanity. See all of the ice age cycles, but when it hits modern time the CO2 spikes to ~5 times the maximum of any ice age!!! Here's an image of the chart -- http://www.indorphyn.com/images/al_gore-co2-temp-slide.jpg Notice how CO2, yellow line at the right, suddenly increases by ~5 times the max of any ice age when modern humanity arrives. That is Global Warming!!! It is *NOT* caused by volcanoes. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial
Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult
to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being
spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing.
The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans
can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been
largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before,
lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some
solid science.
P.
- Original Message
From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM
Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times
New Roman;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;color:windowtext;}
_filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{}
--
Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of “global
warming”. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the
warmest ever and you buy it as gospel.
There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility
of some on this forum scares me.
It has been much warmer not so long ago.
Here is another example if your attention span will allow:
We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at
elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don’t
like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds.
There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the
Colorado rockies at Florissant
at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated
pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not
look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor’s center,
and was told that they are only 50% fossilized.
John. The rest is WOOD!
John. How old aren’t they?
Back in the 50’s, before this site was protected, Mrs.
Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband.
I saw it on display outside at Disneyland
around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near
Adventure Land .
Those of you who get to Disneyland may still
be able to see it if it hasn’t rotted away by now.
There are many things about this planet’s history that
don’t line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making
big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data.
Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were
threatened with in the late 70’s.
It’s ironic that many global warming events this past
season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions.
Jeff
P.S.
John. This is only my third post in over a year. I
read your stuff, and you post almost everyday. You could give me the
courtesy of reading all of what I said before you publicly call me an idiot,
and perhaps point out specific errors in my writings so that I may be
enlightened.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data. Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70's. It's ironic that many global warming events this past season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions. Jeff P.S. John. This is only my third post in over a year. I read your stuff, and you post almost everyday. You could give me the courtesy of reading all of what I said before you publicly call me an idiot, and perhaps point out specific errors in my writings so that I may be enlightened. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
No offense intended, but this topic is one of few that I take ***extremely*** seriously. I will be out right blunt and tell you that nearly all your statements are out right fuzzy logic -- Jeff Fink wrote: Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of “global warming”. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. Fuzzy logic. You really think Al Gore will make millions if not billion off global warming??? Gee, it couldn't be because Mr. Gore is concerned. ... Just unbelievable ... ! [snip] It has been much warmer not so long ago. Fuzzy logic. That's about as logical as -- My op-amp output generates thermal noise that has no upper crest limit. Man, last week the noise suddenly jumped higher than my 1 uV signal. Therefore, this 1 uV signal couldn't possibly be the main signal because last week the voltage rose to 112 uV! You recently posted, I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe had just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. Do you realize what that means? It means that 500 years ago it was warmer, and that human activity had nothing to do with it! It is well known to some historians that the period from 900 to 1100 AD was also warmer than today by about three degrees Take a look at all the global warming charts that go back to 1000 AD. There was no global warming between 1000 to 1100 AD, but even if Europe was hotter back then that in way insinuates man contributed CO2 is not the main causes of present global warming. Aren't you aware of the recent supercomputing simulations that utilizes every known related effect such as the way soils react? Were you aware the simulation shows how much man contributed CO2 will increase the planets temperature? Were you aware the simulation matches global warming charts? There are many things about this planet’s history that don’t line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data. Listen, neither you or I are climate scientists. Therefore it's only logical to listen to the mass majority of PhD climate scientists. Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70’s. Please show your references of leading climate scientists make such claims. It’s ironic that many global warming events this past season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions. Are you aware that climate scientists predict global warming would indeed cause wicked weather? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: --- Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. --- What's sad the aforementioned chaps, as few as there are, ignore the recent vast supercomputer simulation project that includes every known related effect down to the dirty details, which clearly shows known CO2 emissions that occurred over the past century would increase the planets temperature in accordance to the 1000 year temperature chart. You should watch GLOBAL WARMING: What You Need To Know with Tom Brokaw Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/ mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. Certain facts can be perceived as inconvenient. As such, there is the real danger of succumbing to the convenience of proclaiming that God and/or the mysterious forces of Nature must actually be responsible for the recorded GW data since we, ourselves, must be so puny and insignificant in comparison. After all, how can puny and significant ants be held responsible for ANYTHING so heinous as GW. I'm harmless. - To paraphrase a claim Rush Limbaugh once used in his own defense. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
John Berry wrote: Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if Did you watch the video John? Volcanoes pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human activity. The big volcano you mentioned blocked out the sunlight which cooled the climate, which resulted in a famine. There is a 1600 year cycle of warming and cooling. Greenland was once ice free, hence the name. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. What nonsense In the end I have heard of lots of theories, and the thing that convinces me that it is right to follow the mainstream (something i seldom do) is this: War caused by oil. Nonsense, war is caused by human evil Pollution caused by oil. Nonsense, pollution is caused by human activity Assholes supported by oil, and I don't just mean Arab ones. That's all of us. Quite frankly George Bush is enough reason for me. You're ignoring the civilizational war in which we find ourselves And then there is the fact that I do research in the field of alternative energy, shouldn't the question be why you on a FE based list support oil? This is a scientific anomalies list John Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. More Nonsense, people with lots of money support the Democrats. The middle income people, who want to be left alone by the government vote Republican. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. You're spouting more idiotic liberal nonsense John. We are in a civilizational war. The Radical Islamists have announced their intention to either convert us to Islam and impose Sharia Law, or kill us. Given the economic track record of Sharia Law, if they got their way, you'll get your wish of seeing human economic activity suppressed. Ok, sorry for the harsh words which are a result of frustration but can you please explain your pro pollution fuck with nature stance because I don't even slightly get it. If you want to offer people more hope then find a better way to solve the problem, don't deny that any problem exists. We have all sorts of problems, but, IMHO. if human caused G W is one of them, there's nothing that we can do about it. You've accepted the liberal's world view, which is insane and consequently the world makes no sense to you. I'd like to recommend Dennis Prager's show, which can be heard on radio in many markets, and on the Internet. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if Did you watch the video John? Volcanoes pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human activity. The big volcano you mentioned blocked out the sunlight which cooled the climate, which resulted in a famine. There is a 1600 year cycle of warming and cooling. Greenland was once ice free, hence the name. Climate scientists know about volcanoes, which ones have erupted and when. Volcanoes and asteroids can and have caused such climate changes. Fact still remains the largest climate simulation program utilizing supercomputers factoring in every know related effect predicts the amount of CO2 caused by humanity is the main cause of Global Warming. I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
-Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW No offense intended, but this topic is one of few that I take ***extremely*** seriously. I will be out right blunt and tell you that nearly all your statements are out right fuzzy logic -- Listen, neither you or I are climate scientists. Therefore it's only logical to listen to the mass majority of PhD climate scientists. It is the liberal way to silence dissenting voices. The size of the mass majority is skewed because the esteemed potential dissenters are keeping quiet to preserve their careers. I'm not part of the scientific community. I don't have that kind of threat hanging over me. Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70’s. Please show your references of leading climate scientists make such claims. You don't remember it? It was all over the news and in magazines during the late 70's. If I hadn't just thrown out my Popular Science collection last year I could have found a sample for you. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Jeff Fink wrote: Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70’s. Please show your references of leading climate scientists make such claims. You don't remember it? It was all over the news and in magazines during the late 70's. If I hadn't just thrown out my Popular Science collection last year I could have found a sample for you. I don't think so. Popular science has published articles on just about everything. Sorry, I just don't see any logic in your statements. What if someone said, Hey, popular science printed an article on Free Energy. Therefore the science community *MUST* believe such machines are real. Also you said I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe had just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. You recall a news caster making a statement?? Maybe some other effect is adding to global warming, but it's illogical to deny recent computer simulations. Climate scientists know there are cycles-- 60 year cycles, 500,000 year cycles, etc. etc. Indeed climate scientists are trying to verify if part of global warming is caused by another effect, but for the moment present data is very convincing that humanity is a major cause. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Jeff Fink wrote: Listen, neither you or I are climate scientists. Therefore it's only logical to listen to the mass majority of PhD climate scientists. It is the liberal way to silence dissenting voices. The size of the mass majority is skewed because the esteemed potential dissenters are keeping quiet to preserve their careers. No, it is not liberal. It is the conventional approach. It is apolitical, or perhaps slightly conservative, I suppose. Generally speaking, conservatives believe that you should pay heed to established experts and textbook science. (And I fully agree with them about that.) Conservatism means you honor and give special weight to established, mainstream standards. There is no question that the mainstream in climate science now supports the global warming hypothesis. Everyone involved in cold fusion knows that dissenters sometimes keep quiet, and that science, like all other human institutions, is sometimes political. That's human nature. (Primate nature, actually.) However, just because sometimes, in some cases, the majority lords over the minority, that does mean it always happens, or that the minority view is automatically correct. If that were true, all of science and technology would be dysfunctional, all textbooks would be wrong, and we would still be living in trees. The fact is, most of the time the majority of experts are right, and it is a good bet they are in this case. The majority does not go about squelching minority views unless it is motivated to do so, and unless the minority is powerless and despised. For example, plasma fusion researchers attack cold fusion because they fear they will lose their funding. In the case of global warming, the minority of experts who say it is not occurring is anything but powerless! On the contrary, this group has the full support of the U.S. President and both political parties, plus any amount of funding from industry. Influential columnists and other opinion makers often repeat claims made by the anti-global warming researchers, and others in the anti-global warming camp such as economists who claim it would cost too much to fix the problem, or the extreme nut-cakes who claim that global warming would actually be beneficial. Despite the fact that this minority is influential beyond its numbers, the majority of climate researchers are in no danger of losing their funding, so they are not motivated to attack the minority the way plasma fusion scientists are. I have never read one of them claim that the minority is doing schlock science or fraud but only that they are wrong. I have deliberately framed this discussion purely in terms of whether as a rule you can believe experts or not, without regard to the actual content of the claim. Along the same lines, in the previous message I wrote: I do not know enough about the technical issues surrounding global warming to judge whether the effect is real or not . . . That is an overstatement. I do know something, and I think the data is increasingly compelling. It will not be as compelling as a cold fusion experiment until we fry the planet and the damage is done. The statements circulated by anti-global warming researchers and by columnists such as George Will strike as being increasingly unsupportable. Furthermore, the steps required to reduce global warming would almost all be beneficial in other ways. For example, they would reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and the terrorism sponsored by some OPEC members. So even if global warming is not happening, we should take vigorous steps to reduce CO2 emissions anyway. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Also you said I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe had just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. You recall a news caster making a statement?? The newscaster reported a statement. I don't know if he named a source. The item was obviously intended to hype GW to the public, but it had the opposite affect on me. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
This Mars warming up is a red herring. The source of that idea is one man but it has been seized upon by the GW deniers as the basis of the latest in a series of last minute revelations that they have trotted out - designed to protect the status quo and muddy the waters. Most planetary climate scientists say the idea that Mars is warming because of increased solar output is rubbish - they lay the real blame at the door of Martian orbital variations (wobbles). Try this excellent website for a bit of realism to counter the (possibly deliberate) misinformation that is fooling the wishfully thinking. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 Yes, there really were warnings about precipitating an ice age from legit climate scientists (and environmentalists) in the 70's. This is often dragged out as some sort of proof that climate scientists and environmentalists got it wrong then and are now saying something completely opposite. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before I make my point I have to say that S.Fred Singer, one of the loudest and most eminent of the GW deniers, originally denied that global warming was happening because he claimed that measurements of temperature taken by other scientists were in error because of the urban heat island effect (measurements were elevated because of city development). Now that the evidence that GW is really happening is virtually unassailable, he has published a book claiming that OK, it is happening, but it's all down to natural causes and that it will be good for us anyway. Remember what happened to the punk who felt lucky in Dirty Harry? Back to the ice age theory. This was that as the long term cycles suggest that we are heading towards another natural ice age, the emission of acid gases (which form nuclei that generate increased cloud cover) and particulate matter (soot) in vehicle exhaust and smoke stack emissions would cause a global cooling effect because of the reflection of solar radiation before it got to Earth thus creating a runaway feedback effect of increased albedo leading to more ice and snow etc. As far as I recall there was very little consideration given to greenhouse gases at the time. One of the ironies of all this is that the cooling effect of the acid gases and particulates probably helped to mask the effect of global warming from the same fossil fuels (particularly coal) that were contributing to the increase in CO2 - potentially explaining why initial predictions of rising temperature were somewhat out. The hockey stick graph was mentioned as having been refuted - it's not as simple as that. Current thinking is that the original graph had problems with the methodolgy chosen and the error estimations but still the overall graph shape remains the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls! On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day thinking. Let
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
To expand on that, notice how the last thing Philip is interested in doing is refuting the evidence that CO2 and Temperature are linked. Or that CO2 is rising. The core of the argument is never argued. On 4/24/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Balls! On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess. CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss depth and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a balls rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying balls. Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. - Original Message From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The insufferable arrogance spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the discussion on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. - Original Message From: Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of global warming. He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one
Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Paul Lowrance wrote: thomas malloy wrote: John Berry wrote: I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity continues to pump out a steady amount of CO2 year after year. No, that's not what the video says, volcanos pump out 10 times as much CO2 as all human sources. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
