On Sep 7, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote:
Nick -
you simply cannot keep stating what you have said previously and
retain
any credibility.
With you, perhaps, and that doesn't concern me a bit. The position
I take is
based on my and others' interpretation of the facts, and I'll
Rick wrote
The position I take is based on my and others' interpretation of the
facts, and I'll stand on that. Lindzen is entitled to his opinion, as are
you to yours.
Your position would only be acceptable if the various opinions were of
equal weight. They are not. Lindzen's opinion
Nick -
Nick You claim to have interpreted the facts but your postings reveal
that you are not looking at facts, you are looking at what the deniers tell
you are the facts - these people are lying to you - frequently,
relentlessly, blatantly. /Nick
Where the heck are you getting that from my
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote:
snip
Just to try to level the field wherein all the argument takes place over
AGW.
Richard Lindzen is probably the most respected of the atmospheric scientists
who are sceptical about catastrophic climate change. He has been the AGW
sceptical scientist-of-choice on many TV programmes and writes
While all you say very well Nick is true and reasonable. Nevertheless
the basic issue is not addressed. The basic issue is that burning
fossil fuels is harmful for several important reasons, only one of
which is global warming. Therefore, we should make every effort to
phase out this
Edmund Storms wrote:
While all you say very well Nick is true and reasonable. Nevertheless
the basic issue is not addressed. The basic issue is that burning
fossil fuels is harmful for several important reasons, only one of which
is global warming. Therefore, we should make every effort to
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
snip
So, when the Arctic Ocean is free of ice and the last polar bear is
stuffed and placed in a museum, it will *STILL* not be obvious that
humans had any effect at all on the climate: The apparent connection
Nick -
The skeptics point to those three things because those things correctly
expose the serious problems AGW has - a lack of evidence for CO2 as a cause
for warming.
1) there has been warming
...and cooling. And warming. Etc. (I figured you meant currently since human
CO2 contribution, but
Apologies for the shouting in this post!
Rick wrote:
The skeptics point to those three things because those things correctly
expose the serious problems AGW has - a lack of evidence for CO2 as a cause
for warming.
There is tons of evidence for CO2 as a (but not the only) cause for
warming.
Nick -
you simply cannot keep stating what you have said previously and retain
any credibility.
With you, perhaps, and that doesn't concern me a bit. The position I take is
based on my and others' interpretation of the facts, and I'll stand on that.
Lindzen is entitled to his opinion, as are
A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote:
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad.
Sorry if it sounded like I thought you shouldn't have
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no
control over human-generated carbon dioxide.
How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course
we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down
our
, 2008 11:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
The argument is whether
there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are
incapable of directing that conclusion because
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:14:36 +:
Hi,
[snip]
What I see here is a peak around solar max superimposed on a general upward
trend. It's a pity about the missing years.
This is perhaps more use:
Rick Monteverde wrote:
My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality?
Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too,
validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest
about how they work. You can't expect a recursive
Jed -
That's preposterous.
If you wish. It's also a fact. It's inherent in how the math works.
If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work
for a very brief time before their results
Rick Monteverde wrote:
If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work
for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they
are only good before they reach that point .
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts
predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter
rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just
look at melting ice...
Just ask Horace. He's in
/LENR results. Oh wait, that's what I'm saying about the cause of
the warming we see. Ok, maybe not so bad after all.
- Rick
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:26 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick
writings from some completely different person. I
myself would disagree with 'that person' you've constructed as well.
- Rick
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote:
If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not
work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only
work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless
noise, so
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
capable of doing anything practical to change it.
Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual
content of my posts
Was I responding directly to you? Don't
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
The argument is whether
there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of
directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings.
[snip]
I agree that the models are only models
I sent a voice input reply on this topic without any checking, be warned,
the grammar etc is rubbish (but the ideas and the picture are good if you
can sort them out).
To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
capable of doing anything practical to change it.
You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded,
pocket-protector scientific type
: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're
not capable of doing anything practical to change
to
engage in.
- Rick
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Edmund Storms; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter
Jed Rothwell wrote [to Rick Monteverde]:
... as you and I agree it [global warming] is happening. The cause is the
only question.
Yes, you and Rick agree, and only argue over the cause.
However, part of the reason I posted my comments about Alaska and
Canada, and almost posted a snide
Jed: I am saying that both are based upon the same knowledge of
atmospheric physics that knowledge is demonstrably impressive. When you say
that the hypothesis cannot possibly be right and the experts ought to know
better, I say that's chutzpah, it is insufferable, and it irks me!
C'mon Jed,
-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're
not capable of doing anything practical to change it.
You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded
]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
The argument is whether
there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are
incapable of directing
Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think
CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the
evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can
all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin -
Well and concisely put.
I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be
trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a
bad thing in the long run. Used
Rick Monteverde wrote:
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad.
Sorry if it sounded like I thought you shouldn't have replied; I wasn't
trying to shush you! I was just saying those remarks were not directed
specifically at what you said. It was nothing more
There will be a new book on global warming coming out, provisionally titled
What's the Worst that could Happen?. It's written by wonderingmind42 AKA
Greg Craven, a school science teacher from Oregon. He did a 10 minute
Youtube video that went viral called How it all ends
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about
global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we
try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if
we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep more
money in the
Edmund Storms wrote:
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about
global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we
try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if
we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about
global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we
try to do something, it will result in economic damage.
[snip]
It will
Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point?
Ed
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something
about
global
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:37:43 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point?
Are you really sure that those who keep making the point are not influenced by
the oil barons?
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good point Robin. Perhaps we should turn this around and use this as a
criteria of who is influenced by the oil barons. For example, Obama
made the point that development of alternate energy would put people
to work. Using this criteria, Obama is apparently not under their
influence.
Ed
PROTECTED]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick, I ask you where you get your information and why does the claim for
global warming causes such an emotional reaction? The world is clearly
warming. The only issue is how much of this warming is caused by burning
fossil fuels. Regardless
: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick, I ask you where you get your information and why does the
claim for
global warming causes such an emotional reaction? The world is clearly
warming. The only issue is how much of this warming is caused by
burning
fossil fuels. Regardless of the answer
, September 04, 2008 1:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Edmund Storms; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick, you don't need computer models. All you need is the fact ice is
melting everywhere. In addition, the plants are moving up the mountains to
cooler regions. The average
Nick, I think we can see that the deteriorating financial situation in
Britain could create irrational behavior there as well. However, is it
focused on religion being the solution as it is in the US? Do the
Brits expect God to save them from their poor decisions?
Ed
Umm, tricky question.
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Taylor J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Taylor J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Vo]:Sunspotless
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 5:05 AM
Jones Beene on 2 Sep 2008 wrote:
``One interesting point which I am surprised is not often
At the risk of having not followed this discussion thread too closely, this
issue could bend to another perspective, that of specific effects of carbon
build up and not the global and more vague nut that's so hard to pin down.
Chemical oceanographers Ken Caldeira and Long Cao presented a paper in
... apologies for previous null-posting .
I am sensing the rumblings of some kind of email software revolt...
Jack,
Thanks for the update and particularly the strange message of Bill Arnold .
Do you have a url for his paper? I cannot find it in a quick goggling. Common
name.
It is bizarre
One interesting point which I am surprised is not
often mentioned in this polarized debate:
Blow up the third chart on Michael's cited reference,
and contemplate the full implication of the Maunder
Minimum and the so-called little ice age ...
... and the likelihood that we could be on the brink
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
snip
If flat earth is too extreme, even for biblical
literalists; but creationism is OK to teach, then I
would like to ask the various candidates who might
support 'creationism,' although there is only one of
that persuation, where do you draw
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
Is there enough of a small asymmetry in macro magnetic
effects, such that one pole can be slightly hotter
than the other due to solar wind; and could that
dynamic enter into the ice mass situation ??
As
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:32:23 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger question,
is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing
irrationally?
[snip]
Rational behaviour is a luxury. Irrational
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:25:15 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
The bigger question for the rest of us - what is the
true situation? -- and the true unpoliticized risk of
this situation? -- i.e. IF both Algore AND also his
critics are partly correct in that yes, humans are
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:32:23
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger
question,
is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing
Ed wrote:
The problem is to determine what fraction of the
population is not rational. I submit that the answer to such a
question would help reveal the fraction of rational individuals that
are present in a society. Apparently, according to my analysis, the
level of rationally is decreasing in
Sounds scary. But why are sea ice levels still reported to be so low in the
arctic if it's getting colder? Why is NOAA saying this July was the 9th
warmest globally on record?
http://www.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080815_ncdc.html What do sunspots have to
do with global climate? Noctilucent clouds
Howdy Jones,
Now look what you've done.. trashed the world's oldest scientific
organization... the Flat Earth Society. These people have proof the earth is
flat and they'll send you the proof if you'd send in your membership dues.
Richard
58 matches
Mail list logo
