RE: [Vo]:wow I think we can call Irving Langmuir father of cold fusion.
-Original Message- From: Harry Veeder I suspect there is something important missing from this account. What prompted Moller to look at Langmuir's work in the firstplace? The impetus was that Moller, who is Danish, found and read private letters from Bohr (the great Dane) to Langmuir. These are in a collection of memorabilia in Copenhagen - in the Bohr library but have never been published. You will have to go there if you want to confirm this story - which was told to me first-hand by Nicholas Moller. These letters indicate that Langmuir when he was developing his hydrogen torch found and documented anomalous and large thermal gain but could not explain it. Bohr who was Langmuir's mentor at this time and the most respected physicist in the World (probably) strongly advised Langmuir NOT to publish this, for fear that he would be laughed out of the physic's establishment. Most ironic - in terms of what happened later. You remember the term pathological science, no? It has a twisted history. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Storms: Analysis of Celani calorimeter
I cannot access Quantumheat.org for some reason. If anyone here can access it, please copy Storms' analysis to it. - Jed
[Vo]:Giant potato just misses Earth
Giant potato barely misses Earth... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/17/chinese_probe_visits_asteroid_toutat is/ The Maya miscalculated its orbit 500 years ago - they thought it would hit us on Friday. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Storms: Analysis of Celani calorimeter
On 2012-12-17 15:53, Jed Rothwell wrote: I cannot access Quantumheat.org for some reason. If anyone here can access it, please copy Storms' analysis to it. It works for me. Storms' analysis has already been linked a couple times in their latest blog post. The MFMP team should better contact him directly, though. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Storms: Analysis of Celani calorimeter
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: It works for me. Storms' analysis has already been linked a couple times in their latest blog post. You mean you can access it? I can't for some reason. I am using my Chromebook, without access to the big computer. The log in screen vanishes before I get a chance to log in. If you can access it, you might as well copy the whole thing, for the convenience of readers there. The MFMP team should better contact him directly, though. I think they are in contact. I think their results prove that Celani's method is inadequate. It was not a waste of time doing this, but they should go on to something better. A Miles type calorimeter with the temperature measured in 3 or more locations might be good. The temperatures should all agree at all steps during the calibration. The outer wall should be copper or some other metal that evens out the heat. The problem with that is you can't see inside the cell. Either that, or go on to a flow calorimeter of some sort. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Giant potato just misses Earth
Good thing else mashed potato On Monday, December 17, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Giant potato barely misses Earth... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/17/chinese_probe_visits_asteroid_toutat is/ The Maya miscalculated its orbit 500 years ago - they thought it would hit us on Friday.
[Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news. Celani himself said the calorimetry was kind of primitive thermometry measuring the temperature at one point only. That is not how to do it well. If the temperature rise is large enough that can be definitive. But it is better to improve the calorimetry, I think. The MFM people set up a configuration similar to his. They got much more stable heat. As far as I am concerned, that's bad too. It is much too stable. Real anomalous heat does not look like that. Even Arata's ultra-stable heat declined gradually over time. The MFM found that one of the temperature sensors does not agree with the others, and it is stuck at the level it should be with no anomalous heat. That's really bad news! If it were malfunctioning it would not be at that temperature. It would be at some random temperature. All in all, things are not looking good for this wire experiment, but I would not draw any conclusions yet. We may never be able to draw conclusions. One conclusion I would reach, that I reached 20 years ago in fact, is that you really have to understand calorimetry to do these experiments. A lot of people don't understand it. I wish they would read Ed's paper on the subject, and books. They are learning. They can do it again. It will not take long, and it will not take a lot of effort to improve the calorimeter and try again. When you do research, you do things over and over and OVER again. It is like programming, or cooking, or -- as Martin used to say -- like riding a beat-up old bicycle. You do it until it is second-nature. You develop a deep feel for the instrument and its quirks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:wow I think we can call Irving Langmuir father of cold fusion.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder I suspect there is something important missing from this account. What prompted Moller to look at Langmuir's work in the firstplace? The impetus was that Moller, who is Danish, found and read private letters from Bohr (the great Dane) to Langmuir. These are in a collection of memorabilia in Copenhagen - in the Bohr library but have never been published. You will have to go there if you want to confirm this story - which was told to me first-hand by Nicholas Moller. These letters indicate that Langmuir when he was developing his hydrogen torch found and documented anomalous and large thermal gain but could not explain it. Bohr who was Langmuir's mentor at this time and the most respected physicist in the World (probably) strongly advised Langmuir NOT to publish this, for fear that he would be laughed out of the physic's establishment. Most ironic - in terms of what happened later. You remember the term pathological science, no? It has a twisted history. Yes it is ironic. Science comes from the Latin word scientia meaning knowledge The Renaissance had heretical science. Today we have pathological science. harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in such transparant tube. On Monday, December 17, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news.
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news. Celani himself said the calorimetry was kind of primitive thermometry measuring the temperature at one point only. That is not how to do it well. If the temperature rise is large enough that can be definitive. But it is better to improve the calorimetry, I think. The MFM people set up a configuration similar to his. They got much more stable heat. As far as I am concerned, that's bad too. It is much too stable. Real anomalous heat does not look like that. Even Arata's ultra-stable heat declined gradually over time. The MFM found that one of the temperature sensors does not agree with the others, and it is stuck at the level it should be with no anomalous heat. That's really bad news! If it were malfunctioning it would not be at that temperature. It would be at some random temperature. All in all, things are not looking good for this wire experiment, but I would not draw any conclusions yet. We may never be able to draw conclusions. One conclusion I would reach, that I reached 20 years ago in fact, is that you really have to understand calorimetry to do these experiments. A lot of people don't understand it. I wish they would read Ed's paper on the subject, and books. Ed Storms first post on the MFPM site sounded arrogant. However, I suspect even he will learn something about calorimetry from this experiment, because this is not an electrochemical cell which is his forte. They are learning. They can do it again. It will not take long, and it will not take a lot of effort to improve the calorimeter and try again. When you do research, you do things over and over and OVER again. It is like programming, or cooking, or -- as Martin used to say -- like riding a beat-up old bicycle. You do it until it is second-nature. You develop a deep feel for the instrument and its quirks. - Jed Harry
[Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
We just need a little more dark/vacuum energy increase over the next year to cool things even more. I am expecting the sun to lob some our way next year and cool things off further... On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Ransom, it makes sense when you consider that there is more money in oil than the survival of the earth and humanity. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: ** Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *To:* Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Look at the last paragraph from the second link: We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate. In this article it would seem global temperature refers to just the temperature at the *surface*. I guess a true global temperature would be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *To:* Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still . Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a may and a possibility is both expensive and irreponsible. What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including that most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it voluntarily. I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the AGW propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment. Like I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it down their throats. So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in weaning yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into promoting it, you would have gone a long ways. Jojo - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming I guess a true global temperature would be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
For what it's worth, Harry, there is a bit of early history that played out in a way similar to what you're describing. Back in 1994, Focardi, Habel and Piantelli published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Focardi-AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf After which some folks at CERN published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Cerron-InvestigationOfAnomalous.pdf YMMV. Jeff On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: ... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
The science will never be settled as long as there is a large financial interest opposing it. Consider that the science has not been settled for the efficacy of many vaccinations and pharmaceuticals especially when the placebo effect has apparently doubled in it's efficacy. You are erring on the side of destruction while overstating the impact of greener measures. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still . Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a may and a possibility is both expensive and irreponsible. What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including that most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it voluntarily. I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the AGW propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment. Like I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it down their throats. So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in weaning yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into promoting it, you would have gone a long ways. Jojo - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming I guess a true global temperature would be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jojo: I think it is unlikely that the science will be settled for everyone in the foreseeable future. Some will have a vested interest to oppose certain steps and will likely seek experts who will find reasons to call other opinions into question. It seems much more irresponsible in the face of opinion which rises above noise, to ignore the possibility of adverse consequences. As a result, I do not see the logic in waiting to make sure there is a problem before taking steps to avoid causing a problem. Especially, when the making sure part may be quite difficult and likely will occur after the adverse events are irrefutable. Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however, government has also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in certain areas. If you feel differently you will probably be forever unhappy because government intervention in some areas is unlikely to go away and in fact is demanded by a majority of your fellow human beings. If anything that kind of intervention is likely to increase in the future. But you answered my question, you are a libertarian, rather strong one it seems. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is something I very much would like to further. But surely you can see the difference between something that there is evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *To:* Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jojo: The sun is unlikely to go supernova in any time frame measured by human lifespan and indeed human societal lifespan. Further, at this point in our existence we can't do a thing about it. The effect of AGW if true will happen in our lifetimes and may be preventable. The first is thus discounted and ignored and the second even if much less certain must be considered. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Randy, That's funny, me being a libertarian. I guess I don't blame you for thinking that. No, not at all, I am not a libertarian. I am not all for free sex and free pot and I am not for freedom from any government or for anarchy. There is a level of government envisioned by our founding fathers that I am all for. For lack of better term, I am a constitionalist. Minimal government that works for the interest of the people. Not the occultic, environment worshipping shadow government we now have. This AGW propaganda is the agenda of this occultic shadow government. That is why I am so strongly opposed to it. Well, let me take that back. I am a Monarchist, much more than I am a Constitionalist. I am awaiting the return of the one true King Jesus Christ. A monarch who will establish justice, peace and equity. Imagine that, no corruption for a thousand years. On your other point. There is much that these climatologist can do to settle the science to make it more credible. For one, Don't fudge the data. Second, open up the discussion and don't stiffle it claiming it to be settled science. Third, promote more transparency and openness in the studies so people can see the actual data, not just the conclusions of these climatologists; which are just opinions. If these measures are implemented, it will go a long ways in settling the science. What's wrong with that? Why do you think it is, that conservative people like me, who do not have any oil producer agenda oppose this AGW? If you think opposition to AGW agenda is just from the oil lobby, you are grossly deluded. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I think it is unlikely that the science will be settled for everyone in the foreseeable future. Some will have a vested interest to oppose certain steps and will likely seek experts who will find reasons to call other opinions into question. It seems much more irresponsible in the face of opinion which rises above noise, to ignore the possibility of adverse consequences. As a result, I do not see the logic in waiting to make sure there is a problem before taking steps to avoid causing a problem. Especially, when the making sure part may be quite difficult and likely will occur after the adverse events are irrefutable. Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however, government has also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in certain areas. If you feel differently you will probably be forever unhappy because government intervention in some areas is unlikely to go away and in fact is demanded by a majority of your fellow human beings. If anything that kind of intervention is likely to increase in the future. But you answered my question, you are a libertarian, rather strong one it seems. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On 12/17/2012 03:50 PM, Randy wuller wrote: Jojo: [...]Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however, government has also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in certain areas. If you feel differently you will probably be forever unhappy because government intervention in some areas is unlikely to go away and in fact is demanded by a majority of your fellow human beings. If anything that kind of intervention is likely to increase in the future. But you answered my question, you are a libertarian, rather strong one it seems. Ransom Speaking as a libertarian, Jojo is definitely NOT a libertarian. :) Regarding the majority demanding that something be done about global warming... you're wrong on this one too. The political will, will never do anything about global warming, on a world-wide scale. Maybe in your local state or country, but not worldwide. There is too much money in oil. If cold fusion becomes wildly successful, then this will solve your problem, but it won't then be a political solution; it will be a market solution. You won't even be able to point to government subsidies as the reason for success. Craig
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John and Randy, It did seem that my point was missed altogether. OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we don't have enough data AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Global Warming (notice I said Global Warming not Anthropic Global Warming.) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even know if it is indeed happening. So, a lot of may, if and possibility. Why should we implement draconian measures to correct these may, if and possibility? Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is something I very much would like to further. But surely you can see the difference between something that there is evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo - Original Message - From: Randy wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Lost in all this discussion about global warming is a real discussion on why Global Warming (anthropic or otherwise) is such a bad bad thing. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Global Warming, of the degree that these 2000 climatologists are worried about, will actually be good for humanity. Before we go hog wild trying to prevent Global Warming, we should first determine if it is indeed such a bad thing. Evidence indicates that it may not be such a bad thing to live in a warmer Earth. Many civilizations in history did flourish in a warmer Earth and disminished in a colder Earth. This fact is true and beyond any reasonable and credible disagreement. Also, lost in these discussions is what happens in an atmosphere richer in CO2. My first elementary botany class tells me that plants will grow faster in a higher CO2 environment. In fact, this conclusion was confirmed in a large scale experiment with acres of trees. Faster plant growth is good for humanity. More food, more planting period, more planting area. What's so bad about that? Unless of course, you want to live 12 feet below sea level. And if you do, isn't it about time you start moving out of such a hazardous living location? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming John and Randy, It did seem that my point was missed altogether. OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we don't have enough data AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Global Warming (notice I said Global Warming not Anthropic Global Warming.) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even know if it is indeed happening. So, a lot of may, if and possibility. Why should we implement draconian measures to correct these may, if and possibility? Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is something I very much would like to further. But surely you can see the difference between something that there is evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
I stand corrected. But it will explode right? just not a super nova. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in such transparant tube. No, that is not an issue. He wrapped the cell in insulation. This allowed him to lower the input power a great deal while maintaining the activation temperature. But he was not able to lower input to zero. He hoped to do that to eliminate all doubts about the calorimetry. His plan was to trigger the effect with a heater and then gradually back off all heater power. I do not know why this did not work. I did not discuss it with him. I heard that it did not work. If the effect is an artifact, that would be a reason for it not to work. By the way, the Cerron-Zeballos paper is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf I am well aware of it, and it is one of the reasons I have remained wary of Focardi. I have heard reports that Focardi improved his calorimetry and addressed this. But he has not published any papers describing this improved calorimetry as far as I know, so I cannot judge whether he addressed these problems. Other researchers I know who have visited him have told me is is uncooperative. I have never met him or talked with him. Regarding Ed Storms' analysis, it applies to all isoperibolic calorimeters where you measure the temperature at the cell wall, regardless of what is happening inside the cell. The reaction inside the cell could be liquid, gas, or even nuclear plasma. The problem occurs when there is a lag in heating different cell wall components, and when the cell wall heating is not uniform. In an electrolysis cell, Melvin Miles recommends measuring the temperature wall rather than in the fluid. This eliminates all doubts about mixing the fluid. As I said, he uses a copper cylinder around the cell to ensure a uniform temperature. In other words, from the inside you have layers: cathode, anode, electrolyte, cell wall, copper wall, temperature sensor, crumpled up aluminum foil, second wall, ambient room air. His calibrations show that temperature sensors located in different places around the copper stay within a very small range of one-another. Changes in ambient air temperature and currents of air have little effect on the temperature sensors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous 'what if' that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about. Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to be causing and can do something about that is imminent. I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? Since I there is no consensus on what is healthy and because there are other unrealistic threats that I can't do much to avoid I should eat crap just in case it turns out there is no need to eat healthy food. BTW, there is a lot of disagreement about what is healthy and the today's research constantly overturns previously held beliefs. Now does all of this mean that I think that global warming prevention/reversal measures should be significantly detrimental to human society, No. I might disagree with some or all of the proposed measures. Being into alternative science I believe there are better ways that need to be explored. But you aren't arguing how to go about protecting the environment. You are arguing against protecting the earth. And your arguments are screaming intellectual dishonesty. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** John and Randy, It did seem that my point was missed altogether. OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we don't have enough data AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Global Warming (notice I said Global Warming not Anthropic Global Warming.) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even know if it is indeed happening. So, a lot of may, if and possibility. Why should we implement draconian measures to correct these may, if and possibility? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is something I very much would like to further. But surely you can see the difference between something that there is evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a possibility. This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Not super-nova, not nova, no explosion as such. In 4-5 billion years it will expand to a red giant apparently, then collapse into a white dwarf. But the argument is so dishonest it really shows you are not worth communicating with. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I stand corrected. But it will explode right? just not a super nova. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? I agree this is a good example of the logical fallacies in this argument. The point that I stress, which has been brought out in this discussion, is that the steps proposed to combat global warming are *not* draconian at all. Every one of them would be beneficial in its own right. Most of them would be profitable. A few might be fantastically profitable in the long term, unless cold fusion materializes. For example, developing gigantic CSP solar arrays in the U.S. southwest would probably soon cross the line to profitability, and they would continue to get cheaper after that until they are fantastically profitable. The technology cannot be used in other parts of the country, but for that matter, oil well drilling technology cannot be used in other parts of the country either. CSP technology could be exported at a profit to North Africa for the African and southern European market. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
I wrote: Regarding Ed Storms' analysis, it applies to all isoperibolic calorimeters where you measure the temperature at the cell wall . . . Plus, as he says, where you measure the temperature of unmixed fluid inside the cell. Many people claimed the FP made this mistake, but they quickly proved they did not. They showed a video of red dye rapidly mixing within a cell. I don't recommend adding red dye to a cold fusion cell. (joke) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I stand corrected. But it will explode right? just not a super nova. Sol will become a red giant and collapse into a white dwarf blowing off the surface layer. The earth will be consumed in the red giant stage. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jed, you see the problem. None of that is profitable to oil barons. Did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq for oil or sand? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? I agree this is a good example of the logical fallacies in this argument. The point that I stress, which has been brought out in this discussion, is that the steps proposed to combat global warming are *not* draconian at all. Every one of them would be beneficial in its own right. Most of them would be profitable. A few might be fantastically profitable in the long term, unless cold fusion materializes. For example, developing gigantic CSP solar arrays in the U.S. southwest would probably soon cross the line to profitability, and they would continue to get cheaper after that until they are fantastically profitable. The technology cannot be used in other parts of the country, but for that matter, oil well drilling technology cannot be used in other parts of the country either. CSP technology could be exported at a profit to North Africa for the African and southern European market. - Jed
Fwd: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/ What about the above? Frank z ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: We just need a little more dark/vacuum energy increase over the next year to cool things even more. I am expecting the sun to lob some our way next year and cool things off further... On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. We just need a little more dark/vacuum energy increase over the next year to cool things even more. I am expecting the sun to lob some our way next year and cool things off further... On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Terry, I understand that this is the current theory. But, like all of science theory, it is subject to being in error. I suspect that it would be very difficult to actually include all of the important factors involved in the super nova process and then produce an accurate model. Ask yourself how accurate the prediction might be? It would only take a minor change in the radius of the sun to make it have a mass 2 times (current super nova limit?) what we think it has. Also, stars of this mass range are notoriously long lived. How many accurately know examples do we have as reference since nearby super novas are extremely rare, thank God. I am sorry to take the critical questioning side of the argument, but I think it must be considered before any firm conclusions can be drawn. In this case we are most likely far removed in time from worry about the sun's fate, but it did come up in these discussions. Why do I tend to be suspect of science theories? Well, let me count some of the ways! First, it is well known by most of the physicists that LENR is not possible. Second, heavier than air flight was not possible until it was demonstrated many times. Third, the laser was not discovered until the 60's. Forth, the atomic weapon was seriously in doubt until proven. The list goes on and on. In general it seems that our science theories are way behind the facts that are discovered by pure chance many if not most times. Why have much trust in a system that has consistently demonstrated poor predictive power? Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Terry, I understand that this is the current theory. But, like all of science theory, it is subject to being in error. Theory and observation.
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Sol will become a red giant and collapse into a white dwarf blowing off the surface layer. The earth will be consumed in the red giant stage. Sigh. So what's the point of doing anything, right? We're doomed. The good news is that Bertrand Russell was wrong when he wrote: That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins . . . Nuh-uhh. No debris. Fire, not ice. He wrote that in 1903 when they knew about entropy but not solar evolution. Oh, and don't say we'll just go to some other star. See Asimov The Last Question which somehow ended up here at Case Western University: http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm . . . You're thinking we'll switch to another sun when ours is done, aren't you? I'm not thinking. Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one. I get it, said Adell. Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Ask yourself how accurate the prediction might be? It would only take a minor change in the radius of the sun to make it have a mass 2 times (current super nova limit?) Oh come now! You know better than that. Issac Newton computed the mass of the sun based on his laws and the distance from earth to the sun. (The solar parallax.) The radius has nothing to do with it. His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. There is no way solar mass can be off by a factor of 2! I don't know about the sun, but we know the distance to the moon to within a few centimeters these days thanks to the reflectors left by the Apollo missions. It is astounding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
I certainly did not approve of the invasion into Iraq by the Bush Administration. It is not proven that they intentionally fabricated the facts that were used to justify the invasion, but that is another story. Afghanistan is a different situation. The US had just been maliciously attacked by folks who were allowed to reside openly within that country. Something had to be done to prevent further events and to seek some form of retaliation for the great loss of life and property. Perhaps it would have been adequate to send thousands of bombs and cruise missiles into the cesspool, but who knew what would ultimately be the best policy. In retrospect, perhaps the bombs and missiles would have been a better choice. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jed, you see the problem. None of that is profitable to oil barons. Did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq for oil or sand? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? I agree this is a good example of the logical fallacies in this argument. The point that I stress, which has been brought out in this discussion, is that the steps proposed to combat global warming are not draconian at all. Every one of them would be beneficial in its own right. Most of them would be profitable. A few might be fantastically profitable in the long term, unless cold fusion materializes. For example, developing gigantic CSP solar arrays in the U.S. southwest would probably soon cross the line to profitability, and they would continue to get cheaper after that until they are fantastically profitable. The technology cannot be used in other parts of the country, but for that matter, oil well drilling technology cannot be used in other parts of the country either. CSP technology could be exported at a profit to North Africa for the African and southern European market. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jed sez: Quoting Asimov's The Last Question ... Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one. Wee…let me throw a little wrench into that argument if I may. Some of those trees will take a little longer to get thoroughly wet! Some a lot longer! While it's true all stars will eventually burn through their nuclear fuel we can at least delay the inevitable by choosing the right star system to migrate to. I believe there exist a class of Red Dwarfs that would be suitable for our purposes. Due to their small size and over-all low gravity they won't burn through their nuclear fuel very fast. We should either move (or build from scratch), a suitable planet and position it in the right goldilocks position of this red dwarf system. We can at least delay the inevitable by many many MANY billions of years. I believe the life-span on some of these Red Dwarfs has been estimated to be on the order of several magnitudes longer than our own hot tempered yellow sun. Plenty of time for additional hand wringing. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
LOL. I guess I made a serious error is language usage. I did not mean to suggest that the mass or radius of the sun were in question Jed. I was just attempting to suggest that it would not take much change in radius to place the sun within the currently accepted super nova explosion mass range. The minimum super nova mass has been modified many times over the years as the theories become more accurate. I would not be surprised to see the simulated explosive mass range continue downward to eventually include the sun. It is just too close for comfort! Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Ask yourself how accurate the prediction might be? It would only take a minor change in the radius of the sun to make it have a mass 2 times (current super nova limit?) Oh come now! You know better than that. Issac Newton computed the mass of the sun based on his laws and the distance from earth to the sun. (The solar parallax.) The radius has nothing to do with it. His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. There is no way solar mass can be off by a factor of 2! I don't know about the sun, but we know the distance to the moon to within a few centimeters these days thanks to the reflectors left by the Apollo missions. It is astounding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the concentration of entropy in that area of space. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters. Apollo missions had to take into account the varying gravitational acceleration as they orbited the moon else it would throw them off. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/news/grail20121205.html See the ball would not bounce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY1ITVF6tfc In the end gravity is the collapse of baryonic matter due to dark matter passing though it. Time also collapses on the surface of dark matter. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: LOL. I guess I made a serious error is language usage. I did not mean to suggest that the mass or radius of the sun were in question Jed. I was just attempting to suggest that it would not take much change in radius to place the sun within the currently accepted super nova explosion mass range. Ah. You mean the radius of stars that explode. Well, I guess this *is* one more thing for us to worry about! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Hiding under a tree might not be such a bad idea if you prefer to be hit by large drops instead of that annoying steady drizzle. The red giant might be a choice, but I understand that stars a bit lighter than the sun can continue shining for much longer. They would certainly not be as bright to look at, but you can move closer to them for warmth. I suppose that the main parameter of importance is that they be consistent in stellar output without danger of violent outbursts. Maybe our future generations will find one that is just right in size and that does not subject them to the mass ejections and solar cycles of today. I am not sure that we understand how the behavior of stars varies with mass once you get significantly smaller than the sun. Maybe there is a sweet spot. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Jed sez: Quoting Asimov's The Last Question ... Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one. Wee…let me throw a little wrench into that argument if I may. Some of those trees will take a little longer to get thoroughly wet! Some a lot longer! While it's true all stars will eventually burn through their nuclear fuel we can at least delay the inevitable by choosing the right star system to migrate to. I believe there exist a class of Red Dwarfs that would be suitable for our purposes. Due to their small size and over-all low gravity they won't burn through their nuclear fuel very fast. We should either move (or build from scratch), a suitable planet and position it in the right goldilocks position of this red dwarf system. We can at least delay the inevitable by many many MANY billions of years. I believe the life-span on some of these Red Dwarfs has been estimated to be on the order of several magnitudes longer than our own hot tempered yellow sun. Plenty of time for additional hand wringing. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Are we sure that new stars will not be born? If so then when could the last of those stop forming and burn out? This is of course all based on the Big bang theory,which is not the only theory nor the only possibility. If you decide to listen to the minority not the majority this theory too could be overturned Just because science is seldom ever settled on hardly anything to everyone's agreement does not mean we can't use sensible evidence based projections. Now if *everyone* does agree on something in science, it will probably be wrong. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the concentration of entropy in that area of space. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters. Apollo missions had to take into account the varying gravitational acceleration as they orbited the moon else it would throw them off. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/news/grail20121205.html See the ball would not bounce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY1ITVF6tfc In the end gravity is the collapse of baryonic matter due to dark matter passing though it. Time also collapses on the surface of dark matter. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Once I envisioned orbiting just above the mountain peaks of the moon. That would be quite scenic if possible, but as you suggest, the attraction of the moon to the ship varies along the orbit and I would eventually find myself flying into moon mountains which is not a good thing. When you integrate the effects of all of the tiny increments of moon mass to arrive at a net attraction you discover how important the inverse square law is. That rock that is 10 meters away and weighs 1000 kilograms has an effect that is billions of times greater than its sister on the other side of the moon. Both of these masses contribute to the total moon mass, but the close by ones dominate the final tally. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the concentration of entropy in that area of space. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters. Apollo missions had to take into account the varying gravitational acceleration as they orbited the moon else it would throw them off. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/news/grail20121205.html See the ball would not bounce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY1ITVF6tfc In the end gravity is the collapse of baryonic matter due to dark matter passing though it. Time also collapses on the surface of dark matter. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
I think you got it right John. When everyone is in agreement, a few years pass and then someone finds a problem with the theory. That is actually good since it keeps scientists interested and employed. I believe it is safe to assume that new stars are being born all the time since we can observe large clouds of hydrogen in space. The Hubble has photographed several regions of star forming that is apparently occurring on a continuous basis. Who knows when the last star will form, but I imagine it will be a very long time into the future. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Are we sure that new stars will not be born? If so then when could the last of those stop forming and burn out? This is of course all based on the Big bang theory,which is not the only theory nor the only possibility. If you decide to listen to the minority not the majority this theory too could be overturned Just because science is seldom ever settled on hardly anything to everyone's agreement does not mean we can't use sensible evidence based projections. Now if everyone does agree on something in science, it will probably be wrong. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the concentration of entropy in that area of space. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters. Apollo missions had to take into account the varying gravitational acceleration as they orbited the moon else it would throw them off. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/news/grail20121205.html See the ball would not bounce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY1ITVF6tfc In the end gravity is the collapse of baryonic matter due to dark matter passing though it. Time also collapses on the surface of dark matter. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still . Here is the paper on which the article is based. Check the graphs and judge for yourself whether the steady temperatures from 1998-2008 is strong evidence there that is no AGW . http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_Paper_Final_with_figs.pdf Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a may and a possibility is both expensive and irreponsible. What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including that most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it voluntarily. I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the AGW propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment. Like I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it down their throats. So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in weaning yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into promoting it, you would have gone a long ways. Everyone doesn't enjoy direct command over their power resources as you do. Most people have to act collectively through their government to effect change. Harry - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming I guess a true global temperature would be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John, You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by me. You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is fallacious. First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you postulate a question on what to do with that problem. You say AGW is happening, so what is the consequence if we do something or we don't do anything. I refuse to be drawn into a discussion discussing an assumption. That is the purpose of my response, with the supernova premise. My point being is, and the point that I was trying to make which apparently you missed is that; before you can postulate a What if question, you have to establish that what you are analyzing is occuring to begin with. First establish the fact that AGW is occuring, then, we can discuss whether we need to worry about it or to do something about it. You can not assume a problem and go hog wild trying to force people to adopt a solution to the problem, or whether it is even wise to try to solve that problem. Like I said, Global warming (anthropic or otherwise) may be a problem that does not require a solution. Let it get warmer. It's better for humanity. BTW, I don't consider adopting free energy solutions like wind and solar to be a solution to AGW. These things need to be adopted because they're free and make financial sense whether there is AGW or not. I adopt these solutions because I don't want to be dependent on raghead oil anymore; not because there is global warming. I want global warming. I want it. I don't know of many people who want to freeze every winter. The misery, the widespread property damage, the crop failures, etc. A slight increase in temperature would make severe winters very mild, allowing for a better life. Haven't we learned this from history? Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous 'what if' that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about. Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to be causing and can do something about that is imminent. I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? Since I there is no consensus on what is healthy and because there are other unrealistic threats that I can't do much to avoid I should eat crap just in case it turns out there is no need to eat healthy food. BTW, there is a lot of disagreement about what is healthy and the today's research constantly overturns previously held beliefs. Now does all of this mean that I think that global warming prevention/reversal measures should be significantly detrimental to human society, No. I might disagree with some or all of the proposed measures. Being into alternative science I believe there are better ways that need to be explored. But you aren't arguing how to go about protecting the environment. You are arguing against protecting the earth. And your arguments are screaming intellectual dishonesty. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: John and Randy, It did seem that my point was missed altogether. OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we don't have enough data AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Global Warming (notice I said Global Warming not Anthropic Global Warming.) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even know if it is indeed happening. So, a lot of may, if and possibility. Why should we implement draconian measures to correct these may, if and possibility? Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Harry, I will be honest with my limitations. I neither have the knowledge or the requisite background to make sense of raw data, as I am not a climatologists. Neither are you, unless you can correct me. In fact, I don't believe there are any climatologists in this list. But like I said. If people would do the suggestion I've outlined, it will go a long ways in minimizing controversy and settle the science. First, Don't fudge the data. (At least, don't get caught fudging the data. LOL...) Second, Open up the discussion. Don't stifle research into contrary views by unilaterally declaring it settled science. This is the best way to bomb your credibility. By refusing to discuss as if you have the last word on the subject. That is what Bob Parks, et al, do with cold fusion, and don't you think it is so annoying. Third, Open up the raw data to other experts. Open up your models. Discuss your data gathering techniques. Don't hide these things and only put out your conclusions, which is just your opinion. What is wrong with what I am asking. You will convince me and people like me if people would simply implement these suggestions. The more you hide behind your settled science position, the more people like me become more recalcitrant and stubborn. People instinctly know you are trying to pull a wool over their eyes; and this AGW propaganda smells of that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still . Here is the paper on which the article is based. Check the graphs and judge for yourself whether the steady temperatures from 1998-2008 is strong evidence there that is no AGW . http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_Paper_Final_with_figs.pdf Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a may and a possibility is both expensive and irreponsible. What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including that most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it voluntarily. I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the AGW propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment. Like I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it down their throats. So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in weaning yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into promoting it, you would have gone a long ways. Everyone doesn't enjoy direct command over their power resources as you do. Most people have to act collectively through their government to effect change. Harry - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming I guess a true global temperature would be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** John, You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by me. You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is fallacious. First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you postulate a question on what to do with that problem. You creepy troll. Are you ok with that too? I did not say that. What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? There are 2 possibilities. 1. Is that it is happening and that humanity is causing or contributing to it and by taking different actions can likely stop or reverse it. 2: There is no global warming, at least nothing of consequence. If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth. If 2 is the case (what you seem to think) and we do something about a non-existent problem then what is the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario for the latter truly insignificant, compared to the worst case for the former. Since the evidence from Global warming is significant and accepted by many this makes this 'what if' very appropriate. You say AGW is happening No, I didn't actually. , so what is the consequence if we do something or we don't do anything. I refuse to be drawn into a discussion discussing an assumption. That is the purpose of my response, with the supernova premise. So first you try a straw man attack by making up a laughable supanova threat comparison. Now you try another mischaracterization to make it seem I am assuming something I am not. My point being is, and the point that I was trying to make which apparently you missed is that; before you can postulate a What if question, you have to establish that what you are analyzing is occuring to begin with. First establish the fact that AGW is occuring That will only be a fact once it is all over. Before we should call an ambulance because you seem to be having a heart attack we should make sure by letting you die and rot a little before we can speculate if we should ring an ambulance. After all it could be a panic attack, you could be joking, you may recover better on your own. We clearly won't get a room full of scientist to agree that you are in fact having a heart attack until the autopsy is complete. , then, we can discuss whether we need to worry about it or to do something about it. You can not assume a problem and go hog wild trying to force people to adopt a solution to the problem, or whether it is even wise to try to solve that problem. Like I said, Global warming (anthropic or otherwise) may be a problem that does not require a solution. Let it get warmer. It's better for humanity. BTW, I don't consider adopting free energy solutions like wind and solar to be a solution to AGW. These things need to be adopted because they're free and make financial sense whether there is AGW or not. I adopt these solutions because I don't want to be dependent on raghead oil anymore; not because there is global warming. I want global warming. I want it. I don't know of many people who want to freeze every winter. The misery, the widespread property damage, the crop failures, etc. A slight increase in temperature would make severe winters very mild, allowing for a better life. Haven't we learned this from history? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:13 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous 'what if' that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about. Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to be causing and can do something about that is imminent. I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? Since I there is no consensus on what is healthy and because there are other unrealistic threats that I can't do much to avoid I should eat crap just in case it turns out there is no need to eat healthy food. BTW, there is a lot of disagreement about what is healthy and the today's research constantly overturns previously held beliefs. Now does all of this mean that I think that global warming prevention/reversal measures should be significantly detrimental to human society, No. I might disagree with some or all of the proposed measures. Being into alternative science I believe there
[Vo]:Swedish TV (SVT) show on Rossi Ecat
Courtesy of Hampus at - http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/e-cat-plant-sighting/ Swedish TV - SVTs sciences show Vetenskapens Världs documentary about Andreas Rossi´s news invention the Ecat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-yHkmmkDcfeature=youtu.be (Mostly Swedish, but Rossi segments are in English)
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth. I do not think the worst case scenarios are that bad. They are awful, but not quite that bad. If 2 is the case (what you seem to think) and we do something about a non-existent problem then what is the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario for the latter truly insignificant, compared to the worst case for the former. The worst case scenario is: 1. We develop a bunch of useful technology that we will need anyway as fossil fuels run out. 2. We reduce pollution, smoke and particles, which kill roughly 20,000 people per year in the U.S. and many more in China. 3. We make a huge profit. There is no down side to it. The only demerit might be that we transition a little sooner than necessary as oil runs out. I don't see that happening because we are going slowly as it is. I would prefer to see proactive moves away from oil now, rather than waiting until high prices force a rapid change. Panic does not motivate good engineering. What you want is a profit motive. Before we should call an ambulance because you seem to be having a heart attack we should make sure by letting you die and rot a little before we can speculate if we should ring an ambulance. After all it could be a panic attack, you could be joking, you may recover better on your own. We clearly won't get a room full of scientist to agree that you are in fact having a heart attack until the autopsy is complete. Good analogy! By the way, when quoting these messages, please truncate older portions that extend below. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John, Why is it that when people can not sustain a discussion, they always resort to name calling? It never fails to happen. People who don't have the facts always do this to hide the fact that they are losing the argument. OK, I'm fine with the insult for now. Don't get used to it. You are making assumptions again. Like in your statement 1. below. You make the following assumptions that you want me to accept. a. That there is global warming. b. That humanity is causing and contributing to it. c. That the consequence of such global warming is the end of all (notable) life on earth. d. That the suggested solutions will stop or reverse it. First for a. There is wide disagreement that global warming is indeed occuring. Why not settle this first? You seem to assume that it is occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not convinced it is happening. And the latest data indicates that. Second for b. There is wide disagreement if human CO2 emissions is contributing to global warming, if it is happening. You seem to assume that it is occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not convince it is happenning. Third for c. The consequence of a little global warming that is feared by most people is NOT the end of life on earth. Where did you get this fallacy. The fact is, plant life will be enhanced, and that will enchance animal life with more food. Fourth for d. Suggested solution is to stop using oil will NOT stop any sort of warming that is happening. Many people have pointed out non-manmade reasons. You seem to want to ignore all this because you are convinced that CO2 is the only and primary reason for the warming. You want to put caps on CO2 emissions to solve something you may not have control over. First establish that CO2 emissions are causing warming. Establish it in an open and credible way. Not call people names if they ask for evidence. Don't say 2000 climatologists are convinced that it is happening. That's a lame argument and you know it. Appeal to authority only when these same authorities have not been caught fudging the data. LOL You say that global warming is a fact. Then explain why we've had steady global temps since 1998 when all that time, CO2 emissions have accelerated exponentially? Where is the correlation of global warming to increased CO2 emissions that you want people to accept. My friend, when you are losing the argument with data and facts, it does not help calling people names. What do you expect, that you would call people names and they would immediately accept your argument. LOL The basis of my supernova challenge is exactly the same level of credibility with your Global Warming challenge. Both are non-existent, made up problems. You assume a problem, then want people to accept that assumption. Well my friend, you'll probably get away using that fallacious premise with some people, but not with me. Maybe, it's best you do stop discussing with me cause the more you do, the more fallacious your arguments become and people can see that you are arguing from emotions rather than facts. Jojo - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: John, You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by me. You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is fallacious. First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you postulate a question on what to do with that problem. You creepy troll. Are you ok with that too? I did not say that. What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? There are 2 possibilities. 1. Is that it is happening and that humanity is causing or contributing to it and by taking different actions can likely stop or reverse it. 2: There is no global warming, at least nothing of consequence. If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth. If 2 is the case (what you seem to think) and we do something about a non-existent problem then what is the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario for the latter truly insignificant, compared to the worst case for the former. Since the evidence from Global warming is significant and accepted by many this makes this 'what if' very appropriate. You say AGW is happening No, I didn't actually. , so what is the consequence if we do something or we don't do anything. I refuse to be drawn into a discussion discussing an assumption. That is the purpose of my response, with the
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
It's all a matter of perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q
RE: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Terry sez: It's all a matter of perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q OMG... The Score!!! The Horror The Horror http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzQ8gYxkIg Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
Jaro, If you were a reasoned person, I would note that I made 'what if' projections under 2 opposite assumptions, that global warming is an issue. And that global warming isn't an issue. But you only assume the latter. You of course have not proven that it isn't an issue. Of course, that your reply consists of restating things I never said shows who is unable to sustain a discussion inside of reality. But you are correct, I can't sustain a discussion with you beyond insulting you because your replies show no indication of reasoned intelligence. And I'm just responding to someone trolling for flames. Now if we were to actually look at the issue, Jed is correct. It is not an argument of doing something or not, rather it is an issue of doing it now as an option, a graceful transition from Oil to cleaner greener technology. Or an emergency when oil is finally getting scarce, in the not too distant future. Since one option can possibly save the earth from a catastrophe in the bargain. And yes if done right lead to greater prosperity (for many, but not all). It must be wondered what motivation you could possibly have. IF you are not in the pocket of oil barons. IF you are not just starting arguments for fun. IF you do not just take contrarian positions because it suits you. IF you are not just toeing the conservative line. Then what is your motivation for such an apparently illogical stance? John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** John, Why is it that when people can not sustain a discussion, they always resort to name calling? It never fails to happen. People who don't have the facts always do this to hide the fact that they are losing the argument. OK, I'm fine with the insult for now. Don't get used to it. You are making assumptions again. Like in your statement 1. below. You make the following assumptions that you want me to accept. a. That there is global warming. b. That humanity is causing and contributing to it. c. That the consequence of such global warming is the end of all (notable) life on earth. d. That the suggested solutions will stop or reverse it. First for a. There is wide disagreement that global warming is indeed occuring. Why not settle this first? You seem to assume that it is occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not convinced it is happening. And the latest data indicates that. Second for b. There is wide disagreement if human CO2 emissions is contributing to global warming, if it is happening. You seem to assume that it is occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not convince it is happenning. Third for c. The consequence of a little global warming that is feared by most people is NOT the end of life on earth. Where did you get this fallacy. The fact is, plant life will be enhanced, and that will enchance animal life with more food. Fourth for d. Suggested solution is to stop using oil will NOT stop any sort of warming that is happening. Many people have pointed out non-manmade reasons. You seem to want to ignore all this because you are convinced that CO2 is the only and primary reason for the warming. You want to put caps on CO2 emissions to solve something you may not have control over. First establish that CO2 emissions are causing warming. Establish it in an open and credible way. Not call people names if they ask for evidence. Don't say 2000 climatologists are convinced that it is happening. That's a lame argument and you know it. Appeal to authority only when these same authorities have not been caught fudging the data. LOL You say that global warming is a fact. Then explain why we've had steady global temps since 1998 when all that time, CO2 emissions have accelerated exponentially? Where is the correlation of global warming to increased CO2 emissions that you want people to accept. My friend, when you are losing the argument with data and facts, it does not help calling people names. What do you expect, that you would call people names and they would immediately accept your argument. LOL The basis of my supernova challenge is exactly the same level of credibility with your Global Warming challenge. Both are non-existent, made up problems. You assume a problem, then want people to accept that assumption. Well my friend, you'll probably get away using that fallacious premise with some people, but not with me. Maybe, it's best you do stop discussing with me cause the more you do, the more fallacious your arguments become and people can see that you are arguing from emotions rather than facts. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jojo Jaro
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
John and Jojo, It is apparent that the two of you are not going to agree on the path to take and therefore it would be advantageous for you to settle down and treat each other with due respect. I am hesitant to enter into the fray because the water is looking pretty deep and muddy. There are reasons to avoid spending the immense sums of capital in an effort to slow down the global warming that is perceived by most of the climatologists. This situation reminds me of a war in many ways. Much of the domestic production can be diverted toward items or systems that are redundant and end up being destroyed. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of planes, trucks, tanks, and so forth replaced refrigerators, stoves, cars and other domestic consumption items that were not produced. Each of the domestic things would have made someone's life a bit easier, but were not built for obvious reasons. When something as expensive as wind turbines are produced to replace less expensive coal fired electricity production then that money is not available to use for productive purposes. People make a case for the jobs that are created to build these beasts, but those same folks could be producing cars. Usually, if it takes some form of incentive to make a desired thing happen, then that proves that the desired outcome has a cost associated with it. Production of items of this sort are no better than busy work for extra government spending projects. Of course on occasions this is just what the country needs to achieve reasonable employment numbers. John, you must admit that Jojo has a point about proving that a problem truly exists before excess expense and time is dedicated to solving it. I expect that you could dream up many possible scenarios of problems that might arise if you made an effort to do so. For instance, everyone is convinced that one day soon a major earthquake will hit the west coast of the US. If we applied the same logic to this possibility as to the global warming issue, then it is time to force everyone to move out of that area or rebuild every house that is not capable of withstanding a large earthquake. I doubt that it would cost more to fix the earthquake problem than what you propose for global warming. In the case of global warming fears time is on our side. The worse case expectation that might occur by the end of the century is a long way into the future. None of us will be around to worry about it I suspect, but we do need to worry about our grandchildren.We all brag about the new technology that is going to improve the Earth in the future, but some seem to have little real belief in what they predict. Why would anyone be so negative about what can be achieved during such a long time frame? Look at what has been developed within the last 50 years alone. Go back 100 years and the world looks very different than today. Electronics has come of age, space travel is real, radio is now everywhere and used by everyone. First, tubes were discovered and then replaced by solid state devices. Computers are prevalent now, but only in their dreams back then. The world is not even close to how it was 100 years ago, so why assume that it will not improve significantly during the next 100? New processes and technologies will be developed that we have no clue of at this point. Our best solutions to global warming now will most likely look ignorant in just a few decades. I suspect that the future generations will laugh at our stupidity if we shoulder ourselves with immense costs now when the cost might be insignificant later if a little time is allowed to pass and truly good solutions discovered. And of course, if there is really no problem to begin with as many think, then the future peoples will not be burdened by our quick. ignorant attempts at fixes today. People within this group should realize that LENR is just around the corner and will most likely eliminate the problem by itself with no necessary action toward carbon controls. Let me mention one example that demonstrates how fast technology can solve problems. Do you recall the human genome project and what transpired? In the beginning no one knew how to sequence genes quickly since it had not been done on a large scale. The first group under government control worked diligently for many years by using a process that was less than intelligent. This was unfortunately the only way that was understood at that time. They came up with an answer at great cost. Toward the end of the task a private group had a brilliant idea about breaking the material into small pieces and then assembling them into the whole. This stroke of genius worked orders of magnitude faster than the other approach. Now, the old technique is history as it should be. I believe that the future solutions to the assumed global warming crisis will be subject to the same
Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, you must admit that Jojo has a point about proving that a problem truly exists before excess expense and time is dedicated to solving it. Ok, so you are correct in that if there was no or very little and insubstantial evidence for global warming, if there was a minority of scientists who concluded it was genuine. And if the measures were not a good idea anyway. And if they had to cause hard ship and not give benefits of being free from oil. But as it turns out there IS evidence. There is the backing of the vast majority of climate scientists It is a very good idea anyway with many benefits I expect that you could dream up many possible scenarios of problems that might arise if you made an effort to do so. For instance, everyone is convinced that one day soon a major earthquake will hit the west coast of the US. If we applied the same logic to this possibility as to the global warming issue, then it is time to force everyone to move out of that area or rebuild every house that is not capable of withstanding a large earthquake. I doubt that it would cost more to fix the earthquake problem than what you propose for global warming. Ah ha. So you are saying that the cost of saving the earth from a catastrophe that threatens both human society and much of the worlds wild life is about the same as reducing earth quake risk that could reduce the number of deaths from earth quakes. Now I live in New Zealand and Christchurch has recently had a number of devastating earthquakes. Hundreds have died. I am aware of earthquakes in western countries that have killed tens of thousands. But without researching it that is all I am aware of. The point is that this is relatively minor compared with the fall out of global warming. Now if you were to ask if I think that Nuclear plants should not be in areas with any Earthquake risk then I would agree. Even if that means they should not exist. In the case of global warming fears time is on our side. The worse case expectation that might occur by the end of the century is a long way into the future. My understanding is that if a tipping point exists and it well might, then the process of either melting the ice caps or paradoxically triggering an ice age might be unable to be stopped at least by any reasonable means. In fact inertia alone is enough to make a situation very hard to stop. This sound like very irresponsible logic. Compared to ignoring a fire because it isn't very big yet, or isn't quite at your place yet. but we do need to worry about our grandchildren. Ok, good save. BTW I am not convinced the repercussions are as far away as you seem to think. Now your advanced technology argument, yes I do agree with it. But I do not think that excuses abuse now, on the speculation that future technology will be able to undo anything. Actually I believe I am in the process of making such breakthroughs that may indeed be the start of what you talk about. But that still does not mean I would gamble with the earth on it. To bring this to a health analogy, this is abusing yourself today in the hopes that advances in medicine with help fix it all. As true as it is that advances can be astounding, they are also highly unpredictable. If you told people as the moon landings were happening that at the close of 2012 the US would have not visited the moon in a long time (and no one else has), not have any space transport of it's own in operation. I doubt you would find very much agreement, speculation would have had moon bases at the very least by now. John
