Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite effective at mobilizing public opinion. Eric Isn't that the truth, For a few million bucks you too can turn an orange into a turnip. That is pretty much the gist of it. That is the purpose of propaganda when used as a weapon. Best Regards, Chuck
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Yes Eric, I understand the thought. Deniers should be allowed their opinion like everyone should. There is a danger though in letting the deniers push propaganda as scientific fact. It's propaganda by the big energy corps I fear. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few planted trolls on here just to stifle cold fusion discussion. So, the only way I've learned to defeat this nonsense is to just bring it on. If you look at what is at stake, it's the whole planet that could be baked with just a 2 to 4C rise in global average temp. Sometime you just need to poke the bear to see if it moves. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. I'm sympathetic to the idea that climate change deniers are in denial. But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and to be honest it doesn't seem like the matter of the sources of climate change is all that easy for a nonspecialist (like me, anyway) to sort out. We can troll, which I derive great satisfaction in doing from time to time; but perhaps we should troll subtly, so as not to raise the temperature and inadvertently offend anyone. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/07/2013 02:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians, I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I think that proves the point that temperatures are trending higher. If you have positive anomalies for 16 years, that seems to be a trend. Yes, I agree. My issue is, and has been, what is the cause? The issue should resolve itself in the next couple of decades. The solar influence cannot continue to rise as it did during the latter part of the 20th century. The solar influence is trending lower now. So one theory or the other will diverge from the data. Craig
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming -- NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!
Chuck Sites, You need to read the forum RULES again. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. There are 2 scientist that say so against your 5. Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. That now makes several derogatory comments toward any forum members who have a different opinion. I don't think it warrants banning at this time, however, if you can't engage members in a respectful manner then Bill may decide otherwise. CCing Bill. -mark From: Chuck Sites [mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat. Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? I assume that is a joke. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Not really, I believe the sun can trigger both of them On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? I assume that is a joke. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
David and Fellow Vortexians. I have used a few Ad-homens to describe a class of people that have a stubborn contrary and confounding point of view with respect to anthropogenic global warming. For that I apologize and I will refrain from the short little quips and Ad-homens. For me, AGW is a hot button issue. It really bothers me when people are duped by anti-agw propaganda sites like wattsupwiththat. You do realize that Mr Watt is paid better than $90,000/year by the Heartland Institute to provide counter arguments to make the climate change debate look unsettled even if Mr. Watt just makes it up. Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. The also fund ALEC and many other rightwing causes. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute Scroll down to find the link to Mr. Watt. Personally I don't like to be a tool or a fool of a dark money based propaganda machine. David, I've always enjoyed reading your comments. In science, I've changed my mind on a number of held beliefs. For example, an accelerating universe expansion took me a year before I could see that that data was correct and all of the cosmology I studied was relegated to junk. So maybe a good exchange of ideas will make someone see the light, or understand the science a little better. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:51 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chuck, I have reframed from entering this discussion because of the emotions that become entangled. You should apologize for that comment since it is out of order. What good would it do if people on the other side directed the same type of attacks toward you? We recently went through a long disgusting series of a similar nature and it resulted in vortex being closed for a week and a couple of members being banned. Do you want to see that happen again? Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 2:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite effective at mobilizing public opinion. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Sunspots also correlate with higher rates of solar flares and coronal mass
ejections (CMEs). The average CME is 1e+12 kgs of energetic stuff.
Don't you believe that stuff affects Earths energy balance also?
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Chuck Sites wrote:
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark
spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less
Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature
rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The
Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer
to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the
solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables
that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening
for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now.
Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average
global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human
activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity
creating CO2 as a byproduct.
Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts
and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high
altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional
thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage
everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds.
--
Chuck
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig
cchayniepub...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cchayniepub...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers
(or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that
matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
global warming.
I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically
against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets
start with this graphic
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is
cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year,
releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back
into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic
effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.
The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2
from human activity.
I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global
warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a
certain causation.
I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now,
that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so
this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during
the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point.
Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to
global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't
pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming
either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's
rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is
that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.
It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much
heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space.
Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't
look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more
active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider
the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot
possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe
so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the
correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures
are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between
sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that
increases in CO2 can show?
So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as
it has been for the past 1million years.
No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the
previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise?
Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 02:48 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. It's well documented that sunspot number correlates directly with total solar irradiance. The easiest source is Wikipedia: The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.^[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#cite_note-25 This group reconstructed historical solar irradiance levels from using sunspot data: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html If this is a sticking point, we can certainly find more information on this. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. But this is a big leap. Sorry. It may be correct, but it's not obvious to me. What I want to do is dig deeper into how the models are being constructed which recreate the historical temperature record. I don't know when I can get to this, but that's the next step. I'll also look into finding the objections by those on the AGW side against the correlations with total solar irradiance. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. Are you suggesting that we have more cirrus clouds than we used to have? The convincing arguments should not be something you see in the sky, but rather something you can demonstrate that goes back centuries. For instance, if CO2 directly correlated with increases in temperature on an annual basis, and could explain, by itself, all the peaks and valleys of the temperature record for the past couple of centuries, and if there was not an alternative hypothesis, then it would be hard to deny the correlation with the CO2 record and global temperature anomalies. However, with an alternative hypothesis present, which may better explain the temperature record with all of its fluctuations, doubt will always remain with any explanation based on correlations for the simple reason that it's not possible to prove cause with correlations. One side will 'win' this argument, (if it's possible to 'win' in science), when one correlation or the other diverges significantly from its expected result. Solar output has been decreasing these past 10 years. Now global warming has stalled. It continues to look like solar output will continue to decrease for the next couple of decades. If this happens and global temperatures fall, then more credence will be given to the impact of solar irradiance. If global warming continues, however, diverging from the models based on the alternative hypothesis, then the issue will be effectively resolved, as well, in favor of the CO2 correlation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
You forgot cows On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You forgot cows Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Ouch! On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You forgot cows Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
I guess bovine=cow, duh
Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?...
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Ouch!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
wrote:
You forgot cows
Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I guess bovine=cow, duh I thought you were joking. Whew! Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?... Kobe. Massage parlor.
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck. The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the phrase means. With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase will often become 'welfare check to welfare check'. But fear not for the climate ! The Drudge Report just posted ( today) a link to a study that says that less labor will mean fewer co2 emissions. A dream come true. Halleluyah.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Please stop hijacking this discussion. Thanks, Craig On 02/06/2013 09:27 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck. The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the phrase means. With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase will often become 'welfare check to welfare check'. But fear not for the climate ! The Drudge Report just posted ( today) a link to a study that says that less labor will mean fewer co2 emissions. A dream come true. Halleluyah.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Speaking of cows and CMEs... I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move towards heat, like a cow's butt. Keep an eye on your wife, especially when it is cold outside and she is the warmest thing around http://darkmattersalot.com/2012/12/15/holy-cow/ There are people ones too http://darkmattersalot.com/2012/12/06/dont-eat-popcorn/ :) On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: I guess bovine=cow, duh I thought you were joking. Whew! Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?... Kobe. Massage parlor.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:36:38 -0500 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of cows and CMEs... I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move towards heat, like a cow's butt. I enjoy reading your stuff; you are much funnier than Ed Conrad.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that increases in CO2 can show? So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as it has been for the past 1million years. No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. In space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there is no surrounding gas to condense, until they reach Earth @ 1000 miles/sec with that CME On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Alexander Hollins wrote: Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over t
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
AGW supporters have a number of mostly derogatory names for people who aren't on board with their theories: Deniers, skeptics, lunatics, morons, anti-science. A lot of us in the skeptic camp aren't so much skeptical of the science (although there is plenty to be skeptical of, as predictions have rarely been accurate or provable. It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) The majority of skeptics are simply skeptical of the solutions being proposed to fix it. Anti-AGWer are more likely to want to ride it out rather than try spend AGW into submission. Whether that is stupidity or not depends on the economics and the possible outcomes. One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). The outcome, depending on where the money is spent, is unknown. Some scientists have said that we've already passed a tipping point and that we might be able to delay GW for a decade or two, but otherwise it is inevitable. Beachfront property should be going down in value (but I suspect it isn't). In the US, we have lots of things with trillion dollar price tags.. Wars/military spending, Health Care Costs, Social Security, disability/welfare payments, financial bailouts, stimulus programs, unfunded pensions, infrastructure spending... Then there are future unanticipated expenditures-- maybe a city gets destroyed or an anti-aging breakthrough (google C60 or sirt3) increases the lifespan of retirees by 50%... maybe a state or two goes bankrupt We might be able to afford 2 or 3 of those trillion dollar expenditures, but the rest are unfunded and can't be paid for--taxing the life out of every citizen just won't cover it. (Look at Apple, a $431B company, and take all their profits, and sell their business off to the highest bidders, and you could run the US without a deficit for a month.) We have a seriously underfunded set of liabilities that low-cost solar panels are not going to help. People think that when we end the war, we'll have a peace dividend that we can spend on green programs, social benefits, etc. Well, we've left Iraq and spending has not gone down a penny. That, and we didn't have the money to go to war in the first place-- it was all borrowed and any dividend of lower spending will mean less to pay back (or print). But don't hold your breath that the dollar printing press will slow down. By the way, China has been dumping our debt and buying hard assets -- gold, rare earth minerals, real estate, infrastructure... So they won't be left holding the bag. So is printing trillions of dollars to spending on green technology the best economic decision? No one knows.. but there are strong hints that printing money 24/7 may not be a good thing in the long run. So.. back to the OT AGW.. Is it one of the top 5 solvable unfunded trillion dollar+ problems? MaybeBut maybe it will solve itself using the time-honored system that sucks the least... Free market capitalism.. And maybe, just maybe, we are seeing it in action with Rossi and DGT. Respectfully, - Brad On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:48 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. In space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there is no surrounding gas to condense, until they reach Earth @ 1000 miles/sec with that CME On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Alexander Hollins wrote: Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Please stop referring to economic considerations of climate change as 'hijacking'.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions of dollars. The money will not be wire transferred to Mars. Unlike the money spent on wars, it will produce positive values in addition to preventing global warming. For example, imagine a massive project to produce synthetic liquid fuel in the U.S. from wind and solar sources. As I have mentioned, from wind alone the U.S. could produce more liquid fuel than the Middle East produces oil. That would be very profitable for us. It would cost a lot initially, but in the end we would be raking in more money than Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the Middle East. The fuel would not only be carbon neutral, it would be very pure and it would cause no pollution. This would be a tremendous benefit even if it turns out global warming is not caused by CO2. With plug-in hybrid cars we could power every automobile on earth with this source. You may think this would take a long time. Not necessarily. Consider how long it took the U.S. to build 1,200 warships during WWII: about three years. That is assuming: 1. Cold fusion does not come along. 2. Liquid synthetic fuel really can be produced as cheaply as projections indicate. I think that is likely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to fill the holes in. This is the result of insane political economics. So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed people to fight it would result in trillions of dollars of benefit simply because wealth is so insanely maldistributed that the demand side of the economy is failing to attract capital to job-creation. The first thing you do in any business plan is look at whether there is demand for the thing the business provides: No demand -- no investment. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions of dollars. The money will not be wire transferred to Mars. Unlike the money spent on wars, it will produce positive values in addition to preventing global warming. For example, imagine a massive project to produce synthetic liquid fuel in the U.S. from wind and solar sources. As I have mentioned, from wind alone the U.S. could produce more liquid fuel than the Middle East produces oil. That would be very profitable for us. It would cost a lot initially, but in the end we would be raking in more money than Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the Middle East. The fuel would not only be carbon neutral, it would be very pure and it would cause no pollution. This would be a tremendous benefit even if it turns out global warming is not caused by CO2. With plug-in hybrid cars we could power every automobile on earth with this source. You may think this would take a long time. Not necessarily. Consider how long it took the U.S. to build 1,200 warships during WWII: about three years. That is assuming: 1. Cold fusion does not come along. 2. Liquid synthetic fuel really can be produced as cheaply as projections indicate. I think that is likely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx See the video here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html As I said, please stick to the fact. I will not discuss this again, so you are welcome to have the last word. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com mailto:vorl@antichef.com wrote: I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png and you can draw it yourself and take your own copy of the data here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere And to Chris Zell, Your post on the economics of global warming is relevant. Your message came in when several other messages came in, which were just making jokes. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to fill the holes in. That would be something like war. WWII was a tremendous boost to the U.S. economy, even though it mainly consisted of digging holes, blowing things up, and killing people. So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed people to fight it would result in trillions of dollars of benefit simply because wealth is so insanely maldistributed that the demand side of the economy is failing to attract capital to job-creation. In the case of global warming, unlike war, all of the steps proposed to stop it would be beneficial in their own right. Most would be profitable. Some -- such as making as much liquid fuel as the Middle East does -- would be insanely profitable. The first thing you do in any business plan is look at whether there is demand for the thing the business provides: No demand -- no investment. Businesses are often wrong when they make these evaluations. The minicomputer companies all rejected the idea of making personal computers in the 1980s because they saw no profit in it. That is why they all went bankrupt. Large companies today see no profit in doing cold fusion research. That is very foolish. In the 1850s, there were millionaires in San Francisco so wealthy they could could gamble away $100,000 a night at poker. I mean $100,000 at the time, now worth $2.5 million. They had money to burn, but they would not invest $600 in a venture to build the Transcontinental Railroad. No one did, until Lincoln put Uncle Sam in charge of funding it, loaning the money ($48,000 per mile of rail in California), and giving huge rewards to the companies that took the risk, including 33 million acres of land. The loans were paid back. Most decision makers at large businesses, banks, Wall Street and government agencies such as the DoE are not very smart, in my opinion. I have often read their books and opinions. In 1929 and again in 2008 they destroyed the economy by making very stupid mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Hi Craig and other vortexers. I would like to respond to several of your comments. First on the issue of Solar Irradiance or the solar forcing as it's described in the computer models. it is certainly the main contributing factor to heat of the atmosphere. No doubt about it. Sometimes it easy to neglect the primary driver of the earths dynamics, that being the sun. Solar Irradiance is effected by solar weather and sun spots and magnetic storms. The total solar irradiance does change with the 11 year solar cycle, but it's not by that much. It's about ~1.1 W/m^2 for a total irradiance of 1366 to 1368 W/m^2. Sunspot darkening can easily equal or exceed the 1.1W/m^2 variance in the 11 year solar cycle. But like all of the climate change forces, it's data is scattered and noisy too. Here is one of the classic papers on Solar Irradiance impact on Climate Change from 1995. See Figure 1, in that paper. It explains better than I can the variation of Solar Irradiance with respect to the solar cycle. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf By the way, it even shows your facular brightening. There is no doubt about how technical all of the science aspects are. It comes down to, do the equations balance, does the input equal the output? or is one side of the equation having more of an effect than the other. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: --- It's well documented that sunspot number correlates directly with total solar irradiance. The easiest source is Wikipedia: The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.^[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#cite_note-25 This group reconstructed historical solar irradiance levels from using sunspot data: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html If this is a sticking point, we can certainly find more information on this. - Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. But this is a big leap. Sorry. It may be correct, but it's not obvious to me. So this is where I just don't understand the AGW deniers. When add 900 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (a well understood green house gas) and you don't think that will have an effect? Do you think that CO2 is going to magically loose it's green house qualities?Also, lets look at it from another angle; If the solar irradiance (sun cycles or what ever you think is increasing the solar input), if that was the cause you would certainly not want to temp faith by loading your atmosphere with as much CO2 as you could dig out of the ground! I think even the deniers will agree that no one wants a scorched earth. Craig, get a window seat the next time your on a plane and when your 30,000ft up I hope you notice how incredibly thin the atmosphere really is. If we foul our own nest, shame on us. What I want to do is dig deeper into how the models are being constructed which recreate the historical temperature record. I don't know when I can get to this, but that's the next step. I'll also look into finding the objections by those on the AGW side against the correlations with total solar irradiance. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. Are you suggesting that we have more cirrus clouds than we used to have? The convincing arguments should not be something you see in the sky, but rather something you can demonstrate that goes back centuries. For instance, if CO2 directly correlated with increases in temperature on an annual basis, and could explain, by itself, all the peaks and valleys of the temperature record for the past couple of centuries, and if there was not an alternative hypothesis, then it would be hard to deny the correlation with the CO2 record and global temperature anomalies. However, with an alternative hypothesis present, which may better explain the temperature record with all of its fluctuations, doubt will always remain with any explanation based on correlations for the simple reason that it's not possible to prove cause with correlations. One side will 'win' this argument,
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 04:20 PM, Craig wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png Actually, we can calculate this value. I started with Jan 1948 and took the trend line up until Jan 1998. Then I extended this trend line unto the end of the data set at Dec 2011. This gave us a projected temperature value of 0.282 above the entire mean of the HadSST3 series for Dec, 2011. (My dataset is using the global sea surface temperatures.) Then I took the standard deviation over the whole set of data from Jan 1948 - Dec 2011, and this was 0.177. So the final value should be within 0.282 +/- 0.177 off the mean, which would be 0.105 to .459, and it is within one standard deviation with a value of 0.363, which is still ABOVE the 50 year trend line. Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? I am not saying that CO2 does not have a contribution to our climate, I just want us to all realize we are a freckle on the Sun's butt and at its mercy whenever it decides to fart. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat. Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. I'm sympathetic to the idea that climate change deniers are in denial. But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and to be honest it doesn't seem like the matter of the sources of climate change is all that easy for a nonspecialist (like me, anyway) to sort out. We can troll, which I derive great satisfaction in doing from time to time; but perhaps we should troll subtly, so as not to raise the temperature and inadvertently offend anyone. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians, I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I think that proves the point that temperatures are trending higher. If you have positive anomalies for 16 years, that seems to be a trend. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:20 PM, Craig wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png Actually, we can calculate this value. I started with Jan 1948 and took the trend line up until Jan 1998. Then I extended this trend line unto the end of the data set at Dec 2011. This gave us a projected temperature value of 0.282 above the entire mean of the HadSST3 series for Dec, 2011. (My dataset is using the global sea surface temperatures.) Then I took the standard deviation over the whole set of data from Jan 1948 - Dec 2011, and this was 0.177. So the final value should be within 0.282 +/- 0.177 off the mean, which would be 0.105 to .459, and it is within one standard deviation with a value of 0.363, which is still ABOVE the 50 year trend line. Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chuck, I have reframed from entering this discussion because of the emotions that become entangled. You should apologize for that comment since it is out of order. What good would it do if people on the other side directed the same type of attacks toward you? We recently went through a long disgusting series of a similar nature and it resulted in vortex being closed for a week and a couple of members being banned. Do you want to see that happen again? Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 2:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism.
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
I'm more conservative tha many on tha subject. ther is no doubt that a pile of stupidiy, of scientific errors, of biased data and interpretation, exist on both side. It is surprising tha having suffered in LENr about pathologic consensu, funding propelled corruption of scientific method, ego-propelled denial of changing of data, that we are not more careful on that subject. First consider the position of judith curry which is honest (like Duncan, Dawn Dominguez, celani, she is a traitor, having supported the mainstream vision, and finally admited facts). Her position is more or less that we have too much uncertainties, not even imagined, to have a serious opinion, and that todays mainstream confidence is a big lie. note on recent article on the master-key of AGW theory : the sensibility... big battle between integrating recent data, recent change in hypothesis after measurements... sensibility seems much lower in mainstream paper, reaching the skeptical level... yet IPCC, like SciAm, continue on the old data... http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/ this article, among - I agree- many bad critics on WUWT, is presenting a good reasoning : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/ beside that questioning (WG1) whether AGW is real or not (note the A... the warming is more or less validated, even if there is some very strange tendency to correct always to more warming every version of report, and to round up or low the data to more warming...) , the question of impact (WG2) is nearly clear... it is judged as bullshit when presented to any specialist of the domain. Example is teh stern report that when analysed under the assumption IPCC, by an economist , is clearly judget as a big manipulation designe to justify a policy, and not as presented to deduce a policy. the report on disease, on wars, is also pure bullshit when presented to experts of malaria, of disease, of geostrategy... the WG3 about solution is pure lobbying that make all engineers not selling renewable, laughting out loud... even if AGW is real, this process is so crony that I understand that some reject even blatant fact. That is giving bad image to the skeptical camp, like magnetic motors fan are giving bad image to LENR. This AGW subject have became a bubble like I have seen earlier. the bubble is exploding partially because some supporters (those afraid of peak-oil happy with shale boom, those hoping for nuclear energy desperate of anti-nuclear lobbies so powerfull) are leaving. there is however strong lobbies, the Malthusians hoping that fighting CO2 will allow comfort and demography decrease, the renewable energy whose survival depend on WG3 bullshit scenarii... Balance today is endangered also because even rich countries cannot afford energy at 5-10 times more expensive, and population seems to see it, and industry which hoped to capture artificial growth from subsidized waste investments realize that mostly Chinese industry capture the benefit. LENR will disintegrate the balance of power because the price different will be even greater. It will motivate the majority to fight the ultra-motivated lobbies. surprisingly the fact that LENR produce no CO2 won't be a real argument, because it is long time since there is nobody honest in that domain. CO2 argument is not followed but exploited to defend a lobby, neo-religious or economic. However with LENr as cheap as expected, some lobby, including poor people, will refuse to submit to todays dominant lobbies. note that if people were honest about CO2 they will fight about soot, not CO2... note that this starts to happens in France where wood heating start to be criticized (health, soot) after some subsidies period. times are changing, underground first, like what i see about LENR. about LENR : be happy, it is moving underground. 2013/2/5 mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. I agree that Solar activity also influences the temperature, which probably explains the drop between maxima over the last 10 years. However the net effect is rather like a staircase. The variation in Solar activity is responsible for the steps on the staircase, while the CO2 increase represents the inclination of the staircase. In short, on average temperatures are going to continue to rise, however with a roughly 11 year periodicity superimposed upon it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
It isn't just AGW we need to worry about... EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate Change Research. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the experts. - Brad On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught -- they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck to paycheck. In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your expenditures until the time that disaster strikes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It isn't just AGW we need to worry about... EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate Change Research. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the experts. I actually don't take a strong position on AWG. I'm inclined to go with expert opinion on the matter, with the following caveats: * I'm not sure that expert opinion is as lopsided towards support for the AWG thesis as has been represented in the media; perhaps it is that lopsided, and perhaps it isn't. * I think it's an interesting epistemological challenge to try at the same time to go with expert opinion on AWG, on one hand, and to buck mainstream expert opinion on LENR, on the other. I suspect it can be done, but it's a rickety ship for a hobbyist to try to keep afloat. * From a purely risk-based approach, one should take the bad consequences that could ensue from a given outcome and multiply them by the probability of their occurring On the basis of my limited analysis of the AWG question, the risk alone justifies well-conceived, proactive action in connection with AWG. * I am not persuaded in the slightest that money spent on clean technology is money down the drain; quite the opposite. I suspect it would over the medium term create jobs, revitalize local economies and do the world some good. My earlier point about having have money and having to be willing to spend it in order to save money over the long run is more general and had sort of been made tangentially to the whole AWG debate (which is mercifully civilized now). I just think it's a basic principle that you have to be willing to pony up funding for what you care about, even or perhaps especially if it means that there will be some sacrifice on your part as a consequence. This line of reasoning for me does away with most of the parochial US-specific all-star wrestling death match body-slam budget debate, but I don't have in mind AWG all that much, specifically. I do think the AWG debate carries depressing overtones of the war back in the 1970s and 1980s on whether smoking tobacco is bad for your health, but I'll leave it to future generations to be the final judge of the accuracy of the parallel there. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as it has been for the past 1million years. The Earth has been as it has for the past 1million years. The only thing that makes these past 63 years different is actually several points; The population growth; the demand for energy, and the commercialization of agriculture and burning fossilized carbon!All are effecting that carbon cycle and pushing more carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) into the air (CO2 a green house gas) that is trapping even more solar input. I'm ignoring all of the feedback environmental mechanism that accelerate warming, like the polar ice caps melting, glacier melts or excessive amounts of atmospheric water vapor from warming oceans that effect weather patterns globally. So when you look at your graph that shows from 1958 to 2005 showing a hockey stick slope from 315 to 395 just remember this equation; T= 10.31 degreeC + (0.0114 degreeC /ppmv). That is the take away the AGW contrarians need to answer. -- Chuck On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It isn't just AGW we need to worry about... EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate Change Research. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the experts. - Brad On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught -- they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck to paycheck. In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your expenditures until the time that disaster strikes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that increases in CO2 can show? So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as it has been for the past 1million years. No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that increases in CO2 can show? So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as it has been for the past 1million years. No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
I'm probably going to make a few enemies, but the deniers of global warming (skeptic is too kind, Contrarian is more like it) really need to head over to NOAA.gov or Climate.gov and see what all of many different satellite data are showing. First, let's answer Craig's comments about not knowing if CO2 was from man burning fossil fuels or something. Some people have the mistaken idea that atmospheric CO2 can come from other places, like space. The total amount of carbon in earth is actually fix. The total amount neither increases or decreases. It's just that it moves from on place to another. It's either sequestered in the earth in the form of carbon based minerals, fossil fuels, shale, coal... etc, or its biomass on the earth's surface and oceans, or it is CO2 uptake into the oceans, or lastly it's in the air. I'm describing what is called the Carbon Cycle. Wikipedia has nice entry about the carbon cycle that is worth a good read if you want to talk about global warming and understand all of the issue. There are sources of CO2 and sinks of CO2. The interesting point about the carbon cycle is that of millions of years, the carbon cycle has not really changed much in it's amounts up until the 1950's So when we are talking global warming from CO2, we mainly are referring to atmospheric CO2 levels. There are naturals sources of CO2, like Volcanoes, wild fires, and ocean out gassing. The source-to-sink was balanced with atmospheric CO2 levels from 170ppmv to 289ppmv. So for millions of years, CO2 has been less than 300ppm until 1950, the era of Big Oil, Coal, Gas. From 1950 to present, CO2 levels have skyrocketed from 289 to 396ppmv (part per million volume). Everything is the same except, burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. And it is massive; 362.7 kilograms of C02 produced per barrel of oil; or 0.3627 Tons of CO2 per barrel of Oil. So more than 1/3 of a ton per barrel of crude oil. Coal is even better; it produces 3.7 tons of CO2 per ton of coal (the extra tonnage comes from the 2 oxygen atoms that are pulled from the air during combustion). A 1 ppmv rise in global atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 7.82 Gigatons (billion tons) of additional atmospheric CO2. Since 1950, that comes out to just about 900 BILLION TONS of ADDITIONAL atmospheric CO2 in just 63 Years! The deniers must believe in Unicorns and pixie dust if they think they can account for that amount of CO2 without it coming from fossil fuels. So to the climate deniers out there, how do you explain the build up of an additional 900Gigatons of CO2 since 1950? http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/co2-emissions-changes-in-atmospheric-levels/ Next question, we know the CO2 is a green house so how does that directly effect global warming. This is best explained in a diagram; http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/heattrapping-gases-faq.PNG http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming (an excellent source of real sicence). From wikipedia Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The bottom line is that there a plenty of examples of the greenhouse gas effect, from the planet Venus, to your friendly little terrarium that your kids might have. CO2 concentration is a major player in the efficiency of the heat trapping. So it is very logical to see the connection between CO2 concentrations and gobal average temperature. A simple extrapolation of current data gives this nice little linear equation, the predicted temp is about 10.31 degreeC + (0.0114 degreeC /ppmv). The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. Of course, I should add humorously that that is what some people think of cold fusion too, but we all know they are wrong. Best Regards, Chuck On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the earth system to any change man might make. This makes no sense to me. The earth system is responding to CO2. Suppose we quickly remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, with a megaproject to plant trees and with reverse combustion, as I suggested in my book. As soon as we do that the earth system will stop responding. It will not gradually warm up once CO2 levels return to where they were before people began burning large
[Vo]:OT Global Warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-live-on-the-edge-of-financial-ruin-cfed-report-2013-2 The above provides the latest evidence that the US economy is hanging by threads. Much the same goes for Europe and Japan. About half of US households cannot weather any financial emergency nor finance long term needs such as housing, healthcare or college. and if you like graphs of nonlinear effects, then you ought to consider what happens when gasoline or food increases in price yet again and people can't afford medication or car repairs. I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically, as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Falling technology to lower levels due to slow degredation, and burning (literally) of our infrastructure won't end up being more greenhouse gases? On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-live-on-the-edge-of-financial-ruin-cfed-report-2013-2 The above provides the latest evidence that the US economy is hanging by threads. Much the same goes for Europe and Japan. About half of US households cannot weather any financial emergency nor finance long term needs such as housing, healthcare or college. and if you like graphs of nonlinear effects, then you ought to consider what happens when gasoline or food increases in price yet again and people can't afford medication or car repairs. I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically, as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically . . . That does not follow at all! Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico and China than they are in the U.S. and Japan. Poverty causes pollution. Rich nations can afford things like nuclear power, wind power, electric lighting and modern hybrid automobiles. Nuclear and wind are more expensive than coal up front. They are far cheaper when you factor in the cost of the damage and the people killed by coal. A country that can afford to pay a little more upfront for clean energy ends up saving much more money. It is a vicious circle. Kerosene illumination is the bane of the Third World. It causes huge damage and cost far more per capita than electric lighting, and hundreds of times more per lumen. , as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured. Poverty tends to increase birth rates. Also infant mortality, but not as much. The poorest countries in the world, in Africa, have the highest birthrate. This causes catastrophic levels of overpopulation and environmental degradation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. Virtuous cycle? That would be theology. The birthrate in the US just plunged to the lowest ever. Much of Europe and Japan isn't even replacement level anymore.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
I wrote: Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico and China than they are in the U.S. and Japan. Poverty causes pollution. Rich nations can afford things like nuclear power, wind power, electric lighting and modern hybrid automobiles. To be a little more concrete, look at the recent photos of the catastrophic air pollution in Beijing. You can find similar pictures from Mexico city. Now look at photos of London in 1952, and Philadelphia, PA in 1950. You see the same thing: massive, uncontrolled air pollution caused by horribly inefficient industrial processes and lack of air pollution control equipment. In the 1990s before the Chinese began to modernize, they produced ~20 times less economic output per joule of energy than the U.S. or Japan did. (I think it was ~20.) They were throwing away vast amounts of coal and oil. Now they are building 30 nuclear power plants and the equivalent number of wind plants. They are fixing the problem, just as we fixed our problems in the 1950s and 60s. Our pollution is WAY down, and our efficiency is WAY up. Driving in 50 mpg Prius get you to your destination just as quickly as 12 mpg car did circa 1965. In the event of an accident you are far more likely to survive unhurt in a Prius than you would have been 1965. That means insurance costs are way down, and so is overall cost of ownership. Highway fatalities are way down. You pay more upfront, but much less overall. Go to Mexico city and you find a million cars using 1970s technology, wasting fuel and destroying the environment. The 10 most polluted cities in the world. They are all in the Third World: http://opishposh.com/most-polluted-cities-in-the-world/ I expect you would find ~90 of the top 100 most polluted cities are in the Third World. The ones in the U.S. and Japan are the poorest. As I said before, our power companies still kill ~20,000 people per year with impunity, because these are poor people living downwind of coal fired plants. If they killed off that many middle class people they would be shut down in no time. Poor people have to live with pollution and filth because they have no money and no political influence. In the U.S., if they would vote, we would clean up their communities and we have far less pollution than we now have. The air pollution in London in 1952 killed ~4,000 people and this -- finally -- triggered public outrage and reform. Many of the technical solutions had been sitting on the shelf for 200 years. Even in Elizabethan times they knew how to reduce smoke and improve efficiency. Pollution is misplaced resources. It is useful material in the wrong place. It is money flushed down the sewer for no reason. It is caused by stupidity, and foolish self-destructive greed. There is no need for pollution, and no need for global warming either. It would not cost any money to fix these problems even with present-day technology, never mind cold fusion. We could fix them and save money doing it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. If we would start to address the problems we will grow richer, not poorer. In the past when we built the transcontinental railroad, the highway system, the Internet and when we invested to reduce pollution that increased everyone's wealth. Nations grow poor when they sit on their butts doing nothing. Not fixing problem. Not reducing pollution or improving efficiency. When you build high speed railroads and nuclear power plants like in Japan or China, everyone gets wealthier. It does not COST money, it MAKES money. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. Developing nations such as China are improving efficiency and implementing things like nuclear power faster than any nation in history. Much faster. The birthrate in the US just plunged to the lowest ever. Much of Europe and Japan isn't even replacement level anymore. That could be fixed overnight. Literally. That is not a problem at all. As soon as the government and corporations in Japan start treating women with respect, and start providing decent childcare, they will have children again. Many Japanese women and young couples have said that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. What's blatantly obvious in the data is a correlation. But it's not possible to prove causation from a correlation. That's just a fact. It just means that CO2 is not an independent variable. What I think is happening is that CO2 is contributing something to the temperature rise, but it's also being pulled by the temperatures. We can see this on an annual basis, as the CO2 level moves up and down in response to seasonal temperature variations. http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif But there's no way to know if CO2 is driving the correlation, or if it's the temperature. So you have to guess and say, Well, it's probably the CO2 which is the primary cause of the change in temperature. It's just a guess because you can't model the entire world, with all of its complexities and feedback loops. Even if you know that CO2 WILL act as a greenhouse gas in a sterile environment, you don't know how it's acting in the atmosphere. But check this out! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSMHExcF9OVFRQSGM/edit?usp=sharing Just the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81! So if the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81 and the simple correlation between temperature and CO2 is 0.96, then isn't it 'possible' that solar activity is driving the temperature and the temperature is driving the CO2 increases -- to SOME degree? Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. Craig PS: I put the worksheet together. It averages temperature anomalies and sunspots over each solar cycle. I am basically compiling a total number of sunspots for each solar cycle, and then subtracting a base number. If the number of sunspots is greater than the base number, then temperatures go up. If the number of sunspots is less than the base number, then temperatures go down. Then I'm scaling down the curve, and centering it, but that's it. There's no forward referencing or any thing else. It also correlates to temperature at 0.916 from 1954 'til present.
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Craig, I agree with your thinking. We are intrinsically connected to the sun thru sunspots, solar flares CME's as well as the solar wind and typical radiation . I think Earth is just a nodal battery in what is primarily a dark matter/entropic Matrix... On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. What's blatantly obvious in the data is a correlation. But it's not possible to prove causation from a correlation. That's just a fact. It just means that CO2 is not an independent variable. What I think is happening is that CO2 is contributing something to the temperature rise, but it's also being pulled by the temperatures. We can see this on an annual basis, as the CO2 level moves up and down in response to seasonal temperature variations. http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif But there's no way to know if CO2 is driving the correlation, or if it's the temperature. So you have to guess and say, Well, it's probably the CO2 which is the primary cause of the change in temperature. It's just a guess because you can't model the entire world, with all of its complexities and feedback loops. Even if you know that CO2 WILL act as a greenhouse gas in a sterile environment, you don't know how it's acting in the atmosphere. But check this out! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSMHExcF9OVFRQSGM/edit?usp=sharing Just the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81! So if the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81 and the simple correlation between temperature and CO2 is 0.96, then isn't it 'possible' that solar activity is driving the temperature and the temperature is driving the CO2 increases -- to SOME degree? Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. Craig PS: I put the worksheet together. It averages temperature anomalies and sunspots over each solar cycle. I am basically compiling a total number of sunspots for each solar cycle, and then subtracting a base number. If the number of sunspots is greater than the base number, then temperatures go up. If the number of sunspots is less than the base number, then temperatures go down. Then I'm scaling down the curve, and centering it, but that's it. There's no forward referencing or any thing else. It also correlates to temperature at 0.916 from 1954 'til present.
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
In reply to Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. I agree that Solar activity also influences the temperature, which probably explains the drop between maxima over the last 10 years. However the net effect is rather like a staircase. The variation in Solar activity is responsible for the steps on the staircase, while the CO2 increase represents the inclination of the staircase. In short, on average temperatures are going to continue to rise, however with a roughly 11 year periodicity superimposed upon it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught -- they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck to paycheck. In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your expenditures until the time that disaster strikes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. . . . I do not know enough about climatology to critique this critique, but I do know about other fields such as cold fusion, Japanese linguistics and Battle of Midway. I mean I know a lot -- enough to write a graduate thesis. I have also read critiques of these subjects written by amateurs. Some of these critiques are excellent. Others suffer from a particular set of problems, and my guess is that your critique has these same problems. They are: 1. You need to establish that your points have scientific merit. That means you have to spend weeks or months reading textbooks and the literature to be sure you are really right. 2. You need to establish that experts in the field have not overlooked the issues you raise. It is likely they have already answered all of your objections. Not just likely; it is virtually certain they have. Ed Storms often points this out in discussions of cold fusion. All of amateur critiques, such as the Wikipedia article, fail for both of these reasons. They list imaginary problems that are not physically possible, such as recombination. If these problems were possible, the researchers knew all about them before they began. These are professional electrochemists so they know a great deal about recombination and shuttle reactions. Mel Miles once gave a lecture on that subject with way more detail than you can imagine. Bockris probably wrote the book on it (literally). The dweebs of Wikipedia know less than nothing about recombination compared to any of these people. In other words, don't teach grandma how to suck eggs. Before you write a critique of global warming, you better read a half-dozen books and major papers on the subject or you will only make yourself look like a fool. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the earth system to any change man might make. This makes no sense to me. The earth system is responding to CO2. Suppose we quickly remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, with a megaproject to plant trees and with reverse combustion, as I suggested in my book. As soon as we do that the earth system will stop responding. It will not gradually warm up once CO2 levels return to where they were before people began burning large amounts of fossil fuel, circa 1800. This megaproject would be expensive, but it would cost any a tiny fraction of what it will cost if the sea level rises 9 m. Also, this project will not hurt or kill anyone, whereas a 9 m increase will kill millions or hundreds of millions of people. So I think it is a better option. It could be done cheaply with cold fusion. It would cost far more to do it with fission, solar and wind energy, but it could be done. - Jed
[Vo]:OT - Global Warming
I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least active it's been since 1915, when global temperatures hit another multi-decadal low. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml * There is a correlation between solar activity and global temperature. The correlation is not as strong, only .53 as I calculate it, going back to 1880, but still a correlation which is being completely ignored by all serious modelers. And if this correlation is real, then it's highly likely that it's the Sun which is causing the Earth's temperature to vary, and not the other way around. * Amateurs are able to build very good climate models based on solar activity. This one correlates to .87, and forecasts a cooling climate until the year 2050, at least. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/ This is something the professionals are completely overlooking. It may be the Sun that is responsible for the warming Earth. Who would have figured? That's all I've got. But note also, that this is all that anyone has. There's no mysterious proof lying around anywhere. The whole thing is just an inference from correlations. And correlations can't prove anything. There's a strong correlation between the number of firefighters and the size of town fires. Thankfully no one is suggesting that we should get rid of the fire fighters so that we can reduce the town fires. Craig
RE: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Thanks for the summary Craig... I like it when Vorts take time to look into an issue and then report back and provide references... Here's a link to a site which keeps track of the peer-reviewed papers which present the skeptical side of AGW: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htm l And, unfortunately, scientists are only human: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/duplicate-science-funding-agencies-may -have-awarded-millions-and-possibly-billions-of-dollars-to-scientists-for-du plicate-studies/ As usual, our tax $ being wasted... -Mark -Original Message- From: Craig [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least active it's been since 1915, when global temperatures hit another multi-decadal low. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml * There is a correlation between solar activity and global temperature. The correlation is not as strong, only .53 as I calculate it, going back to 1880, but still a correlation which is being completely ignored by all serious modelers. And if this correlation is real, then it's highly likely that it's the Sun which is causing the Earth's temperature to vary, and not the other way around. * Amateurs are able to build very good climate
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Nice analysis, Craig. However, I think the wrong issues are being discussed. I think we can agree and a wide range of date show that the average temperature of the earth is going up, the ocean levels are rising, and the pH the ocean is shifting in a more acid direction. All of these effects are having bad consequences regardless of the cause. Personally, I believe that even if the CO2 is being produced by man and this is the major cause of warming, we are too late do do anything about this. The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the earth system to any change man might make. The question is, How must each country respond to what is happening. The consequences will be slow in coming so that time is available to respond. Rather than fight over the cause, I suggest we should work on adjusting to the obvious future. For example, discourage building in regions that will flood first. Design the infrastructure so that it is either above the early flood or anticipate in its design the use of dikes and barriers. Personally, if I were young, I would not buy a house near the coast or where severe weather was known to occur or would make the electric system unusable for extended times. We know what is coming so let's work to reduce the consequences. Ed On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Craig wrote: I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least
