Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 stand on that. Lindzen is entitled to his opinion, as are you to yours. I haven't had time to read this thread and some other long threads, but I've caught the end of it, so here's my two cents worth. There is opinion, and then there is reality. Somewhere out there is a true reality, past and coming, independent of our opinions. The following shows my perspective on what this reality is, so I'll just post the URL: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/MJonesSPF.pdf We know what's happening and we know what we can do about it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 counts a lot because he is the just about the most serious climate sceptic and even he admits the things I have listed. Some of the rest may have been scientists previously but they are no longer speaking scientifically, they have mutated into pundits and they use false logic, misleading half truths and out and out lies to sway opinion. 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. Their method is to keep on telling the Big Lies over and over, changing them slightly, introducing new variations to keep things fresh, but still non-stop lying. They keep on relaunching the same old propaganda methods with plausible lies, massive omissions etc.The very best light that can be put on what they say is that, due to the nature of the Internet, old ideas and websites just keep on surfacing and people keep coming upon the supposed facts without realising, OR BEING TOLD BY THE PROMULGATORS, that these facts and theories have been shot to pieces a million times already, sometimes as long ago as 15 years. The denier arguments are like Freddy Kruger - you just can't seem to kill them permanently. It comes down to this. You seem to have a BELIEF, that has little genuine scientific credibility, massaged and encouraged by professional liars and deceivers that we are not screwing up the climate. Then there are those who have a BELIEF, backed up by the most credible scientific knowledge we have that there is a very strong chance that we are indeed screwing up the climate. If we weigh the various opinions, yours is of less worth because, by looking at the consequences of the various beliefs, reckless or cautious, we can easily ascertain what to do about greenhouse gases. You have no right to risk everybody else futures with your over-confident view. I know you are American, but Christ does your national ego know no limits?
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 posts? I don't read much from deniers (sounds very political and I like to avoid that), but this exchange here on Vortex has inspired me to take a closer look at their material. I said the models upon which AGW rests are critically flawed. I noticed that long before anybody told me that because this was something I knew about first hand. Subsequently I noticed that others who had better credential than mine were picking up on the same theme. Are people lying about the ice and CO2 and other historical records? I base my position an interpretation of facts that is primarily my own, but it is shared by a significant minority of scientists have arrived at similar conclusions based on those facts. We all are for the most part working off the same data set. There's been discrepancies in temperature readings in the past that have been well documented, but much of what my argument is based on goes to the ice and fossil record. Nick It comes down to this. You seem to have a BELIEF, that has little genuine scientific credibility, massaged and encouraged by professional liars and deceivers that we are not screwing up the climate. /Nick I founded my position on the science as I stated above and have referred to those facts in the thread. Your perception that I'm basing them on belief despite facts is simply wrong. I've made attempts to present my case as clearly and as briefly as possible and I've stated the facts connection with them. Do you understand this? It's only belief in that it's a conclusion that I hold based on facts I know about now. I have no goal in mind! I don't work for the oil or tobacco companies or George Bush or Blackwater or Haliburton or the Christian Coalition for Extremist Right Wing Nationalist Policy or whatever! I don't care if the outcome IS that AGW is proven, in fact I would have to admit that I would indeed favor that outcome instead because it would give us a handle on what would otherwise be hopelessly out of our control - but unfortunately... Do you see? I actually *wish* I could be with you on this but the facts and the inescapable conclusion based on those facts prevents me from doing so. I'm honest and fair. I have no political or economical or National ego interest in the outcome, only an interest in the discovery of the truth. Nick Then there are those who have a BELIEF, backed up by the most credible scientific knowledge we have that there is a very strong chance that we are indeed screwing up the climate. If we weigh the various opinions, yours is of less worth because, by looking at the consequences of the various beliefs, reckless or cautious, we can easily ascertain what to do about greenhouse gases. You have no right to risk everybody else futures with your over-confident view. I know you are American, but Christ does your national ego know no limits? /Nick I have no right, you say? Perhaps you would be among those who would take away my right to disagree if you were given the chance to wield such power? Time for a little introspection I think, Nick. I would have to say that yours is the overconfident view that proposes to wreck everyone's future by destroying economies and liberty (including free speech, apparently) with hopelessly unnecessary government restrictions and programs aimed at a non-existent problem, which would additionally steal money and effort from real problems. An error in the wrong column doubles the magnitude of the error. If we could in reality address the problem, then perhaps the efforts would be worth it. That would be another debate. You're overconfident because yours is a belief founded in an absence of facts to support the CO2 theory. And you reveal, at last, that your reaction to my postings is indeed rooted in unfortunate belief that I'm writing these thing out of some crazy national ego, and you reveal a lurking desire to silence criticism! Nick, you are s far off base here I can't ...I just don't know how to proceed. I present my facts, present the logical conclusions to those facts, and present cases of scientific agreement regarding that interpretation. That's all a man in my position can do. If you think that this is anything but what I've just stated, then ... I just don't know. I've said my piece. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
Stephen - I'm not ignoring .4% per year. I actually nailed it from memory, but didn't bother spelling it all out because I was dismissing the tangential subject of CO2 volume in general which has already been considered. It's just another diversion you presented and is irrelevant to the point I've made. I'm growing tired of your and others' hairsplitting argumentative 'corrections' and non-sequiturs. We can dismiss AGW because there is no scientific evidence based on the observation of the natural world that C02 in the amounts we have released In Total or Per Year or Measured on the Historic CO2 Instrument on Mauna Loa or *whatever* have anything to do with any global warming. The primary so-called evidence that it does consists of: Sagan's greenhouse theory for Venus, a coincidental and debunked hockey stick graph, and computer models containing at least one fundamental flaw so great as to render them completely useless for actually predicting the effect of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere on global temperatures. The A in GW hinges entirely on these theories, coincidences, and models, and therefore doesn't add up. That is a reasoned conclusion due to the crucial lack of any good evidence to support AGW, in addition to some pretty good evidence against it. The temperature driver is not yet understood. (Wanna bet it's the sun?) Sounds like a confession of faith to me. Then you have a tin ear. It's the conclusion of scientists who study climatology and other fields where the question of AGW has some impact. They know what they're looking at, and I happen to agree with them. Perhaps you need to be reminded that faith is when you believe in something for which there is no evidence, and AGW is precisely that. Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the evidence. That snide remark isn't a fair consequence of anything I've posted (or failed to post) here. Perhaps you feel I was disregarding you instead of the evidence. I apologize if that's what you thought. I wasn't disregarding you or the content of your post, it's just that I had already answered it satisfactorily. The evidence has indeed been carefully regarded by scientists, and to the reasonable degree possible for myself as an interested and concerned lay person. It simply doesn't stack up to support the conclusion that mankind's CO2 release drives temperatures up, so I and quite a few others, many of whom are much better educated on those subjects than myself, see no need to take the faith-based position that it does. - Rick -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 2:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: snip
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 leading articles for newspapers such as the Wall St journal. From the Wall St Journal that Terry Blanton linked to http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Lindzen said a variation of the position he has held for many years (early 90's). BTW, this is not cherry picked - it represents his frequently expressed opinion. To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. I hope that Vorts are sufficiently literate to understand exactly what he is saying here... The most serious sceptic is admitting that 1) there has been warming 2) that CO2 has increased in parallel with that warming 3) that CO2 should contribute to future warming. Virtually all of the AGW denier propaganda and deliberately deceptive claims can therefore be thrown in the bin - their main sceptical scientist does not back them up. Throw in the bin the urban heat islands, the increased solar irradiance, the so called debunked hockey stick (the debunking has since been debunked), the warming on other planets and all of the other, often mutually contradictory, theories and logical falsehoods that the denier industry propagates ad nauseam, despite them having been answered time and time again - they just keep on endlessly resurrecting them, like the killer in a Freddy/Jason slasher movie, as long as there are new gullible people to swallow it. Lindzen's argument is that he does not agree with the IPCC projections because he comes up with a different, lower, figure for the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks. He tacitly admits that there has been warming, that there will be further warming and that we are responsible for some of it. Where he differs from the majority is that his lower sensitivity figure leads to predictions of lower temperature rise and much lower probability of excess positive feedbacks adding to the problem. He states that there will be further warming and we will be responsible for it but it won't be a problem. He is effectively claiming that, according to his research, assumptions, projections and logic that in a similar situation, Dirty Harry usually has shot 6 bullets, or the last bullet always misfires, so challenging him won't be dangerous. The IPCC models say that their sensitivity figure, projections, assumptions and logic etc show that Dirty Harry will almost certainly have bullets left and that it will be at least risky to definitely dangerous to challenge him. A fundamental problem is that the actual sensitivity figure to various inputs CANNOT be known with certainty without a lot of experimental climate science, which I have pointed out, over the years, would need a time machine, as we only have one test tube to do the experiment in. It comes down to this - both the sceptical scientists and the far greater number of pro AGW scientists are advising us that they're assessments and assumptions about reality are better and more accurate than the opposition's. Neither has got sufficient experimental climate science behind them to fully validate their positions. Who do we trust? Answer - neither. What we should do is use the techniques of risk assessment to decide what to do.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 source of energy. This will not be done unless the public can understand the reason. The most easily understood reason is the effect on the climate. Therefore, what is the point of fighting this argument no matter how distorted its presentation might be? Besides, the debunkers might be wrong, a fact that would not become obvious until it is too late. Is it not wise and prudent to use every argument that can be found to get people to support alternate energy, including climate change? In contrast, I would expect people who get financial benefit from the fossil fuel industry to fight any argument for eliminating the use of oil and coal. Consequently, it is easy to see where the self-interest lies by the argument each person uses. Ed On Sep 7, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: 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 leading articles for newspapers such as the Wall St journal. From the Wall St Journal that Terry Blanton linked to http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Lindzen said a variation of the position he has held for many years (early 90's). BTW, this is not cherry picked - it represents his frequently expressed opinion. To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. I hope that Vorts are sufficiently literate to understand exactly what he is saying here... The most serious sceptic is admitting that 1) there has been warming 2) that CO2 has increased in parallel with that warming 3) that CO2 should contribute to future warming. Virtually all of the AGW denier propaganda and deliberately deceptive claims can therefore be thrown in the bin - their main sceptical scientist does not back them up. Throw in the bin the urban heat islands, the increased solar irradiance, the so called debunked hockey stick (the debunking has since been debunked), the warming on other planets and all of the other, often mutually contradictory, theories and logical falsehoods that the denier industry propagates ad nauseam, despite them having been answered time and time again - they just keep on endlessly resurrecting them, like the killer in a Freddy/Jason slasher movie, as long as there are new gullible people to swallow it. Lindzen's argument is that he does not agree with the IPCC projections because he comes up with a different, lower, figure for the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks. He tacitly admits that there has been warming, that there will be further warming and that we are responsible for some of it. Where he differs from the majority is that his lower sensitivity figure leads to predictions of lower temperature rise and much lower probability of excess positive feedbacks adding to the problem. He states that there will be further warming and we will be responsible for it but it won't be a problem. He is effectively claiming that, according to his research, assumptions, projections and logic that in a similar situation, Dirty Harry usually has shot 6 bullets, or the last bullet always misfires, so challenging him won't be dangerous. The IPCC models say that their sensitivity figure, projections, assumptions and logic etc show that Dirty Harry will almost certainly have bullets left and that it will be at least risky to definitely dangerous to challenge him. A fundamental problem is that the actual sensitivity figure to various inputs CANNOT be known with certainty without a lot of experimental climate science, which I have pointed out, over the years, would need a time machine, as we only have one test tube to do the experiment in. It comes down to this - both the sceptical scientists and the far greater number
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 phase out this source of energy. This will not be done unless the public can understand the reason. The most easily understood reason is the effect on the climate. Therefore, what is the point of fighting this argument no matter how distorted its presentation might be? Besides, the debunkers might be wrong, a fact that would not become obvious until it is too late. This is not quite correct. Rather, it will *never* become obvious that the debunkers were wrong -- or at any rate, it will never become obvious to the debunkers. We need merely look at the history of the debate to see this. Decades ago I started seeing mention of global warming. The debunking argument then was to deny that it would happen. Later, as modeling got better and the awareness of CO2 generation spread, the argument was that it wouldn't have much effect. For evidence the debunkers pointed to the fact that the Earth wasn't getting much warmer, according to then-current measurements. Each string of exceptionally cold years (which do occur, of course) would result in once again hearing that global warming was hokum, because it obviously wasn't happening after all. Oh, yes, and here's another classic argument which found currency back around 1980: Greenhouses don't actually get warm because they retain heat through IR reflection by the glass; most of their warming just comes from the fact that they're an enclosed space. Therefore any argument which uses the term greenhouse gas is wrong too. Frequently one would also hear the old argument that people used to say there was an ice age coming, so the current claim that things are going to warm up is wrong, too. That's still occasionally quoted on Vortex, come to think of it. And when the warming became clearly measurable, the argument was that it was insignificant -- Lindzen's reference to the small amount of warming that has occurred is classic. Finally we are in the position where only blind people who never listen to the radio can deny that things are getting hotter. And finally, the argument against GW ... has MUTATED!! Now, the argument goes something like this: It's a COINCIDENCE that you AGW true-believers said all along that things were going to warm up if we kept burning fossil fuels, and now things are warming up. Things are warming up for unrelated reasons which *just* *happened* to come along at the moment in history when climate modeling predicted AGW would start happening. It's a COINCIDENCE that we're burning ever increasing quantities of fossil fuels and thoughtful individuals predicted this result years in advance; your predictions are all still worthless 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 will be written off as coincidence, and the models dismissed as fallacious, and the additional carbon dioxide and methane dumped into the atmosphere by humans dismissed as insignificant (never mind the amount, 0.4% was insignificant, so 35% must be insignificant too, and presumably 75% will be just as insignificant). Ed, you cannot convince a true believer of anything which is contrary to his faith. Is it not wise and prudent to use every argument that can be found to get people to support alternate energy, including climate change? In contrast, I would expect people who get financial benefit from the fossil fuel industry to fight any argument for eliminating the use of oil and coal. Consequently, it is easy to see where the self-interest lies by the argument each person uses. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 will be written off as coincidence, and the models dismissed as fallacious, and the additional carbon dioxide and methane dumped into the atmosphere by humans dismissed as insignificant (never mind the amount, 0.4% was insignificant, so 35% must be insignificant too, and presumably 75% will be just as insignificant). Ed, you cannot convince a true believer of anything which is contrary to his faith. While I agree completely with you Stephen, the argument for climate change can still be used to the advantage of mankind in spite of the true believers. In fact, true believers on both sides of this or any argument cannot be educated. Only people who can look at reality with an open mind can see the best path. Unfortunately, the number of such people in the US seems to be dwindling. For this reason, open minded people need to unite to fix the problems the true believers have created. In fact, that is the basic issue behind the current election in the US. We have been ruled by true believers for 8 years with disastrous consequences. Now we have the choice between another true believer or an open minded person. Everything else about the candidates is irrelevant. Ed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 I'm pointing to the larger picture here.) and... 2) that CO2 has increased in parallel with that warming Indeed that's the case. And it follows warming as if driven by it, not as a driver of it. Easy to understand this, and already a staple of the tipping point folks. But they see CO2 as a driver, so they claim large accelerating feedback. Problems: there's no evidence it's a driver, so the alleged feeback loop is broken. And for confirmation, no historical evidence of runaway when CO2 was much higher. 3) that CO2 should contribute to future warming. And it should because that's the greenhouse *theory*, not the observation. CO2 might be expected to *coincide* with warming, because that's been a fairly reliable historical trend. But apparently we don't have all the information we need about this one because although our carefully crafted models can be coaxed to display outcomes conforming to the theory, nature seems to have other ideas. (psst...again, want to bet it's the sun?) - Rick
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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. The basic theory and experimental evidence goes back over 100 years. Rick - did you miss that it was Lindzen, the most credible scientist of the delayer/denier lobby saying that there HAS been, and WILL be further, warming and that WE ARE partially responsible for it because of our fossil fuel emissions. HE REALLY SAYS THIS and it is easy to check up because he has been saying much the same thing since the 90's. Because of this, the vast majority of the delayer/denier propaganda can be ignored as mutually contradictory stories made up to deceive people who don't check up the stories they are fed or are too willing to believe what they want to believe. It really seems as if Americans have a much larger per centage of their population who are vulnerable to this professional lying than elsewhere in the world. Here is another example of Lindzen's position http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html Lindzen doesn't dispute that the planet has warmed up in the past three decades, but he argues that human-generated CO2 accounts for no more than 30 percent of this temperature rise. Much of the warming, he says, stems from fluctuations in temperature that have occurred for millions of years-explained by complicated natural changes in equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere-and the latest period of warming will not result in catastrophe. and also http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog/2007/04/09/global-warming-crisis-not-based-in-science-lindzen-speaks-out/ He doesn't dispute that global warming is happening: There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? The most serious scientist that the delayer lobby has got admits that global warming IS happening and that humans ARE responsible for some of it because of our emissions of fossil fuels. He further acknowledges that continuing to increase CO2 levels WILL cause further warming. His only real difference is that he thinks the warming will be a lot less than the IPCC forecasts and that the bad effects will be much less. Having read that, and hopefully having checked it out for yourself, you simply cannot keep stating what you have said previously and retain any credibility. (psst...again, want to bet it's the sun?) Err, no. The irradiance of the Sun has been comprehensively measured and at most 20% of the measured warming is down to this source. Try looking at this comprehensive rebuttal of some of the myths and false logic purveyed by the deniers and delayers http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 you to yours. Err, no. The irradiance of the Sun has been comprehensively measured and at most 20% of the measured warming is down to this source. I didn't say anything about irradiance. - Rick
[Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
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 economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously accept the second, and we'd all love the third. Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you get when arguing with True Believers. Makes me gain even more respect for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF. Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to most of the participants. I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a suspicion that someday they will. - Rick -Original Message- From: Stephen 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 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 than an attempt at defending myself against the accusation that I had not read your message before I disagreed with it. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. Hmmm. 0.4% ... yeah, that's how much we've been boosting the CO2 level in the air ... EVERY YEAR for the last 50 years. To estimate how much CO2 will increase in the coming years, though, you need to *integrate* that value; you're looking at the derivative of the measured total level and calling it the anthropogenic change in the total CO2 generation rate. That's, at best, misleading, and at worst it's just wrong. Total CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently around 0.04%. This is 35% higher than historic levels determined from ice cores in the 1800's. So says Wikipedia; I'd guess that they're not grossly far off. They also show a chart of measurements made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicating CO2 levels have risen smoothly from about 315 ppm in 1960 to about 380 ppm in 2007, which is a rise of about 20% in the last 48 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere A 20% increase in the atmospheric CO2 level in the last half-century seems pretty substantial to me. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road See above. With a 20% rise in total atmospheric CO2 in 50 years, and with the rate of increase continuing to increase (curve is concave up), we've essentially got our foot jammed all the way to the floor on the accelerator. Yes, I agree, we're lost in the weeds, but maybe it would make sense to try slowing down a little -- *before* we careen over a cliff, eh? Nobody's suggesting seeding the ocean or other pro-active things
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
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 economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously accept the second, and we'd all love the third. Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Sounds like a confession of faith to me. I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you get when arguing with True Believers. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It's like when someone says that humans only contribute 0.4% to the Earth's CO2 load which is pretty insignificant, and someone else takes the time to look it up and finds that what's actually meant is that humans are causing a 0.4% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration *every year*, and that the net rise in global CO2 levels since the start of heavy human CO2 generation has actually been at least 35% ... and the person who made the 0.4% claim to start with just ignores the larger numbers and says anyone who thinks that there might be a problem is just a true believer. Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the evidence. Makes me gain even more respect for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF. Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to most of the participants. I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a suspicion that someday they will. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
If we keep on texting, we'll lose those opposable thumbs. Big brains? Fat heads. Some food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html http://snipurl.com/3nolp [sciencepolicy_colorado_edu] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html I think drastic measures will require more evidence. Terry On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? - Rick -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif It seems to indicate that we *may* be at the peak of a wave with a 180-200 year period. (previous minimum in 1910). The next 10 years or so should be quite revealing. Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 1997 0.36 1995 0.28 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. That's preposterous. If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. In fact, they work amazingly well. As I have said before, opinions such as this remind me very much of the assertions made by anti-cold fusion skeptics, and also assertions made by people who think that the New York fire Department experts cannot recognize arson when they see it. On one side we have careful research over decades by thousands of experts. People who have worked with the instruments and data every day for decades. On the other side we have opinions of people who know little or nothing about the subject and yet who assert that they know better than the experts. In cold fusion there are dozens of self-appointed instant experts including Nobel laureates who imagine that they know much more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann or Bockris. And in climate studies everyone thinks he is an expert! One other parallel trend strikes me. Anti-global warming instant experts often ascribe these views to Al Gore as if he made up the data. They ignore the fact that he is merely repeating what genuine experts say. In exactly the same fashion, countless anti-cold fusion instant experts have attacked me, instead of trying to critique the actual papers written by experts. Some have even accused me of inventing the data and writing the papers at LENR-CANR myself. I take that as a compliment. If I could write ~500 papers covering such a broad range of topics I would be a scientific genius. If Al Gore could come up with all of the information he presents he would deserve two more Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry. It is at least conceivable that the climate experts are wrong. I suppose that is somewhat more likely than the possibility that 2000 researchers have done calorimetry, tritium detection and mass spectroscopy wrong. Climate studies or more nebulous than electrochemistry after all, and the results are not as clear-cut. But I do not think it is plausible that people outside the field who know practically nothing about the basics will find problems that the real experts have overlooked. McKubre said that the self-appointed experts have criticized his experiment have NEVER pointed out to him a single aspect of the experiment that he was not already well aware of. And I am quite sure that Steve Jones -- who is so far removed from reality that he imagines McKubre's closed cell may be producing false excess heat from recombination -- is incapable of recognizing or characterizing arson. I am sure he knows less about that subject than I do, just as he knows much less about calorimetry than I do. (Or if he knows more than he lets on, he lies about it.) Frankly, I am sick to death of such people. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point - which is PDQ. An interesting thing is that no matter how large or how good your data set is, the same thing happens - unless you add artificial buffering or other programming contrivances to manipulate things towards the results you or your sponsors would like to see. The current attempts to model the ongoing workings of greenhouse gasses as they actually perform in the real world is nothing more than an exercise in computer science and chemistry which probably would only be interesting to academics had such work not come to be abused so badly in this current politically charged situation. There's quite a few other things besides this one that undo AGW, but this is the major deal breaker on the models issue which has driven a large part of the claims in favor of it. - Rick
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 they are only good before they reach that point . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. 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, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 Alaska, where the glaciers are vanishing and the permafrost is melting. Do you think Horace believes in global warming? Or just ask me. I live in Canada, where the Northwest Passage has suddenly become a political football. There wasn't any Northwest Passage up until very recently, as I hope everyone on this list is aware! The North Pole is a big deal, too, because at the rate things are going there's going to be *clear water* over the Pole during the summer in a very small number of years ... I mean, like 2 or 3, not like 50 or 70. And that makes the issue of who owns that water very significant indeed. Our very conservative Prime Minister is all hot under the collar to beef up Canada's defenses to protect our sovereignty in the far north, and particularly in the Northwest Passage. Harper is a hyperconservative, but in the face of *obvious* step-out-the-door-and-trip-over-it rock-solid evidence, even he has had to admit that things are getting a lot warmer, very fast, and we need to do something about it. His preferred solution seems to be to buy more helicopter gunships, but whatever, at least he admits there's a problem.
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed - What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another (often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here, then 90% of the time B will follow in about C time and last for D time. Don't know why, but it just does.) Those situations can be exploited to make useful long term predictions in certain realms, even when the actual real world physical drivers are not well known, measurable, or even, as I have said, calculable. Are you missing my point entirely? On purpose? Both you and Ed essentially say that I refuse to look at melting ice, and you imply that I'm like the CF skeptic who lets papers placed in his hand fall to the floor. My argument is not that there is no such thing as climate change. 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. Scientists who are experts in the field also make this observation and have published it. Your attempt to mischaracterize my statements as the personal opinion of myself alone as a diminished instant expert is not only very far off the mark, it's surprising from one who seems to share, as observed from years of reading your postings on this forum, my view that such rhetorical tactics are a poor substitute for an honest and fair minded investigation and exchange on known facts. I have personal exposure and experience in computer science and am capable, just as you claim Gore is, of reading and understanding the papers of scientists in the field. If this were CF/LENR I'd be saying sure I see all that excess energy from some obviously extraordinary and non-chemical source, but I think it's not caused by this particular mechanism you have proposed. Instead it is from some other for which there is better evidence. Not a great analogy, but sorta. I don't think anyone has a real solid track yet on what is behind the various CF/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 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 . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. 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, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 and are willing to recast them as if they were completely different 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 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 Alaska, where the glaciers are vanishing and the permafrost is melting. Do you think Horace believes in global warming? Or just ask me. I live in Canada, where the Northwest Passage has suddenly become a political football. There wasn't any Northwest Passage up until very recently, as I hope everyone on this list is aware! The North Pole is a big deal, too, because at the rate things are going there's going to be *clear water* over the Pole during the summer in a very small number of years ... I mean, like 2 or 3, not like 50 or 70. And that makes the issue of who owns that water very significant indeed. Our very conservative Prime Minister is all hot under the collar to beef up Canada's defenses to protect our sovereignty in the far north, and particularly in the Northwest Passage. Harper is a hyperconservative, but in the face of *obvious* step-out-the-door-and-trip-over-it rock-solid evidence, even he has had to admit that things are getting a lot warmer, very fast, and we need to do something about it. His preferred solution seems to be to buy more helicopter gunships, but whatever, at least he admits there's a problem.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter if the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up and get on with life. Ed On Sep 5, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Jed - What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another (often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here, then 90% of the time B will follow in about C time and last for D time. Don't know why, but it just does.) Those situations can be exploited to make useful long term predictions in certain realms, even when the actual real world physical drivers are not well known, measurable, or even, as I have said, calculable. Are you missing my point entirely? On purpose? Both you and Ed essentially say that I refuse to look at melting ice, and you imply that I'm like the CF skeptic who lets papers placed in his hand fall to the floor. My argument is not that there is no such thing as climate change. 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. Scientists who are experts in the field also make this observation and have published it. Your attempt to mischaracterize my statements as the personal opinion of myself alone as a diminished instant expert is not only very far off the mark, it's surprising from one who seems to share, as observed from years of reading your postings on this forum, my view that such rhetorical tactics are a poor substitute for an honest and fair minded investigation and exchange on known facts. I have personal exposure and experience in computer science and am capable, just as you claim Gore is, of reading and understanding the papers of scientists in the field. If this were CF/LENR I'd be saying sure I see all that excess energy from some obviously extraordinary and non-chemical source, but I think it's not caused by this particular mechanism you have proposed. Instead it is from some other for which there is better evidence. Not a great analogy, but sorta. I don't think anyone has a real solid track yet on what is behind the various CF/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 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 . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. 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, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
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 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 think so. I was commenting on a point Jed had mentioned. In any case, from what I've read, the experts, while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing in parallel with the global temperature, which is, as they say, 'highly suggestive'. If you don't agree with those statements, then I don't know where you get your news but it's not the same science rags I see. From what I've read it's also the case that the long term climate on Earth is highly unstable, according to the geological record. We've benefited from a relatively stable period which has lasted a good while now. Injecting a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- which, again, I hope you admit humans have been doing -- could conceivably destabilize things rather badly, sending the global climate into a Superball mode, which is unlikely to be good for humans, animals, coral reefs, or just about anybody else. In the general science community I don't think anything I just said can be considered controversial or even doubtful. And even if you think the probability that the current changes are human-generated is smaller than the numbers I've seen bandied about -- which, IIRC, range from ~65% to ~90% -- it's hard for me to understand how you can feel that efforts to reduce the extremely high rate at which we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere can be misguided. As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the experiment, eh?
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 of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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).
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, pocket-protector scientific type people by rephrasing a little. Just throw in some weasel words. You do not even have to be sincere; you may be thinking your version in your mind, but instead of saying it directly and forcefully, you say: Never said there was no warming, I said there are indications that sources other than CO2 emissions from human sources may not be the only cause. Natural CO2 emissions may also play a role, and there is evidence that other factors contribute. Furthermore, although I agree that atmospheric physics are well understood, computer models predicting long-range change have notable weaknesses which are comparable to or at least analogous to the well-known tendency of short range forecasts to degrade into noise because of their probabilistic nature. See? That wasn't hard! You can say anything you like as long as you pad it with doubts, evasions and escape clauses. I will disagree but you will not get my goat. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad. Stephen, I don't care what a majority of scientists or mainstream publishers or whatever have concluded, just as 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 they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road, whether or not we caused it to go off the road in the first place. Heck, we don't even know if where we want it to go is the right place anyway. It may seem right for us, sure, but... ? Our time and treasure, as I've pointed out before, should not be wasted trying to comandeer that over which we have no effective control, and instead should be directed towards planning for just being off-road for a while. Trying to mitigate climate changes with light bulbs and stuff is the experiment we need to scale back on. But alternative energy? Great idea under any circumstance for many reasons, chief among them *real* deadly pollution (ask Jed how many die from lung disease from ICEs every year) and political reasons of course. CO2 reduction along for the ride? Hey, if it makes you happy then I'm happy. But there's no scientific evidence for it deserving a significant place on the list, and I object stongly to it being hijacked by unprincipled hacks like Al Gore as a means to consolidate their own wealth and political power. - Rick -Original Message- From: 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 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 think so. I was commenting on a point Jed had mentioned. In any case, from what I've read, the experts, while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing in parallel with the global temperature, which is, as they say, 'highly suggestive'. If you don't agree with those statements, then I don't know where you get your news but it's not the same science rags I see. From what I've read it's also the case that the long term climate on Earth is highly unstable, according to the geological record. We've benefited from a relatively stable period which has lasted a good while now. Injecting a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- which, again, I hope you admit humans have been doing -- could conceivably destabilize things rather badly, sending the global climate into a Superball mode, which is unlikely to be good for humans, animals, coral reefs, or just about anybody else. In the general science community I don't think anything I just said can be considered controversial or even doubtful. And even if you think the probability that the current changes are human-generated is smaller than the numbers I've seen bandied about -- which, IIRC, range from ~65% to ~90% -- it's hard for me to understand how you can feel that efforts to reduce the extremely high rate at which we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere can be misguided. As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the experiment, eh?
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
I'm not missing your point Ed, I'm agreeing with it and I believe I said so. And fortunately, it does not require that we support Gore to develop alternative energy. I will disagree with you there if you insist that's so, but that is purely a political debate, which it is not my intention 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 if the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up and get on with life. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 comment about those who think a few cool months in 2008 prove global warming isn't happening, is because not all participants in this thread agree with the two of you. In a message early in the thread it was stated -- *not* by Rick: Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Again, that was not Rick talking. However, Rick did make a point here which you, Jed, may have overlooked. You said: And I say [ ... ] if people can predict the weather tomorrow in six months or a year in advance they can darn well predict it 10 or 20 or even 50 years in advance, although obviously not for any particular spot on earth. If you understand how the atmosphere will work in the next 24 hours you can understand to some extent how it will work cumulatively for the next 20 years. Evidence suggests that the climate on Earth is a chaotic process, and chaotic processes may behave in such a way that they are simply *not* *predictable* over the long term, save within very broad bounds. A common example seems to be El Nino. Its behavior can be predicted for a few months, but trying to predict whether there will be an El Nino event in progress as few as 24 months from now is hopeless -- it's chaotic, and flips from one mode to another as a result of tiny perturbations. So, while it makes intuitive sense to say if people can predict the weather tomorrow ... they can predict it 10 years in advance, it doesn't actually follow from the science. The process could be such that error accumulation renders predictions worthless when trying to look more than a small number of months out into the future. This sort of effect is not an artifact of current computers; it's apparently a fundamental feature of the process being modeled. It's like an NP-complete problem -- you can solve it for small datasets, but the nature of the problem makes it intractable when the data set grows large. In the case of an NP-complete problem the complexity (and time to solve the problem) grows geometrically with the dataset size. In the case of a chaotic process, the precision required in the calculations (and measurements) grows rapidly with the length of time over which you want your prediction to be good. In both cases, no matter what sort of hardware you're running on you'll run out of horsepower in short order. It's no coincidence that one of the most powerful machines in the world is named thunder. Weather prediction consumes incredible numbers of computrons.
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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, buck up and suffer it. It's not my intention to irritate you. I'm saying it because I see it. And others who, unlike me, have legitimate claim to expertise in the field, also see it and published it. It's not chutzpah, I actually do have enough experience in computer science to understand what they are talking about, having myself written recursive code and observed first hand the same characteristics they describe. That at least qualifies me a bit to make somewhat educated comments on the matter, regardless of whether you agree with the comments or not. And now you've got me making excuses for my having made some comments here on Vortex, which is silly. It's not about me at all. The computer models are not the whole deal. There's other evidence against the A in GW. It is not a tiny minority of scientists who take this position, nor is it only those employed by oil or coal. It is a significant minority and it is growing, not declining in number, not that I'm a big fan of determining scientific issues by polling numbers. But I have no problem being in the minority if I have a good reason. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
You make a good points about persuasive writing, and Stephen just wrote a good description of the nature of the fundamental problem of modelling chaotic systems. - Rick -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:43 AM To: vortex-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, pocket-protector scientific type people by rephrasing a little. Just throw in some weasel words. You do not even have to be sincere; you may be thinking your version in your mind, but instead of saying it directly and forcefully, you say: Never said there was no warming, I said there are indications that sources other than CO2 emissions from human sources may not be the only cause. Natural CO2 emissions may also play a role, and there is evidence that other factors contribute. Furthermore, although I agree that atmospheric physics are well understood, computer models predicting long-range change have notable weaknesses which are comparable to or at least analogous to the well-known tendency of short range forecasts to degrade into noise because of their probabilistic nature. See? That wasn't hard! You can say anything you like as long as you pad it with doubts, evasions and escape clauses. I will disagree but you will not get my goat. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? - Rick -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much. I disagree. Scientific consensus is meaningful and important. BUT you have to define it carefully. It has to be a legitimate consensus among scientists who have the right to an opinion: A real consensus: members have relevant qualifications, have done the research (or something very similar), and have read other people's papers. They are reasonably objective and open minded, and willing to entertain alternative hypotheses. In the case of CF, 99.9% of the group is certain the effect is real (everyone except Britz), and I expect 99% are sure it is a surface effect. You should pay close attention to that consensus, and not dismiss it without very good reasons. A fake consensus: people on Wikipedia claim they are scientists in various fields unrelated to cold fusion have strong opinions and loads of facts that they made up on the spur of the moment. They have read nothing and understand nothing about the research. Being a scientist doesn't count if you have not done your homework, or if you make up facts as you go along. You can ignore this crowd. A person who knows a thing or two about computer modeling and recursive models may have an informed opinion about global warming models. That opinion should be respected, but only so far. It should not be given the same level of respect and attention we give to people who have made computer models about climate and also physics models, and who have in-depth knowledge, and data, and years of work in the field. When that person categorically dismisses the consensus of the real experts, I say he has overstepped the bounds, and overstated his qualifications. At best he can express doubts or question the results. If you want to go further you have to write a paper and get it past peer-review, assuming that peer-review in the field in question is reasonably fair and objective. (We all know that it is not, in some fields.) Of course you can always find a legit experts who disagrees. We have Britz. Heck, there are probably real, accredited, professional biologists who believe in creationism (and by the way, I don't want to hear about them if there are), but the consensus of opinion is that Darwin's theory is correct, and that consensus was carefully and thoughtfully arrived at. To give a relevant example, I know a good deal about data collection and consumer applications with lots of small transactions, such as grocery store scanners. I used to write code and documentation for that sort of thing at NCR, back when they were first invented. Plus, DeKalb County GA trained me on the Georgia voting machine operations, so I know how they work. I spent a day working at a poll watching the machines work, and not work -- malfunction and lose track of at least three votes. Plus I read some fairly detailed technical reports on the problems with these machines written by experts at Johns Hopkins. I know more than enough about operating systems, apps and computer security to understand these papers. So, I am well qualified to have an opinion about the reliability and wisdom of using these machines. But, you would not want to call me to testify before Congress on this subject, or to make recommendations to the County. You would want to call the profs. at Johns Hopkins. There is a huge difference between my level of knowledge and theirs, and if we disagree I should probably defer to their judgment. The consensus of informed opinion about these machines is that they are riddled with errors and design faults and should not be used. I am sure you can find legitimate, sincere computer experts who disagree and who say the possibility of vote fraud is overblown. They may not be on the payroll of the vendor. But if you are a politician or County computer expert assigned to dealing with these machines, you should definitely go along with the consensus, and get rid of the damn machines as soon as possible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? [snip] While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity. 1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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 than an attempt at defending myself against the accusation that I had not read your message before I disagreed with it. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. Hmmm. 0.4% ... yeah, that's how much we've been boosting the CO2 level in the air ... EVERY YEAR for the last 50 years. To estimate how much CO2 will increase in the coming years, though, you need to *integrate* that value; you're looking at the derivative of the measured total level and calling it the anthropogenic change in the total CO2 generation rate. That's, at best, misleading, and at worst it's just wrong. Total CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently around 0.04%. This is 35% higher than historic levels determined from ice cores in the 1800's. So says Wikipedia; I'd guess that they're not grossly far off. They also show a chart of measurements made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicating CO2 levels have risen smoothly from about 315 ppm in 1960 to about 380 ppm in 2007, which is a rise of about 20% in the last 48 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere A 20% increase in the atmospheric CO2 level in the last half-century seems pretty substantial to me. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road See above. With a 20% rise in total atmospheric CO2 in 50 years, and with the rate of increase continuing to increase (curve is concave up), we've essentially got our foot jammed all the way to the floor on the accelerator. Yes, I agree, we're lost in the weeds, but maybe it would make sense to try slowing down a little -- *before* we careen over a cliff, eh? Nobody's suggesting seeding the ocean or other pro-active things that might really whack the climate -- we're just suggesting that it would make good sense at this point to slow down the rate at which we're changing the atmosphere. We like stability, in climates at least, and whacking a climate that's obviously already warming up with a big hammer which everyone(?) agrees is likely to warm it up even more, whether just a little or a whole lot, does not seem sensible. , whether or not we caused it to go off the road in the first place. Heck, we don't even know if where we want it to go is the right place anyway. It may seem right for us, sure, but... ? Our time and treasure, as I've pointed out before, should not be wasted trying to comandeer that over which we have no effective control, and instead should be directed towards planning for just being off-road for a while. I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. A beaker full of bacteria have no control over the waste products they produce, which may eventually strangle the whole colony, but humans are hopefully a little better at self-management than bacteria. Trying to mitigate climate changes with light bulbs and stuff is the experiment we need to scale back on. What's experimental about trying to reduce energy consumption? It's continuing to boost carbon dioxide levels at a rate of 0.4% per year which seems like the big experiment here to me. But alternative energy? Great idea under any circumstance for many reasons, chief among them *real* deadly pollution (ask Jed how many die from lung disease from ICEs every year) and political reasons of course. CO2 reduction along for the ride? Hey, if it makes you happy then I'm happy. But there's no scientific evidence for it deserving a significant place on the list, and I object stongly to it being hijacked by unprincipled hacks like Al Gore as a means to consolidate their own wealth and political power. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for Joe Schmoe to use for deciding what to do about potential climate change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 economy. In the video, the choice of spending a lot of money to develop the atom bomb was used as an example of having to make a costly decision based on a lack knowledge about what the Germans were doing. Actually, by developing the atom bomb we also created nuclear power for energy production, which added greatly to the economy. As a result the initial investment was trivial compared to the eventual advantage. The same would be true of our response to global warming. In short, we actually have nothing to lose. Why can't this idea be accepted? Ed Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for Joe Schmoe to use for deciding what to do about potential climate change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 more money in the economy. With gasoline at $4 per gallon, alternative energy for transportation is cheaper than oil. That is to say, a mass produced plug-in hybrid car driven by electricity from wind turbines is cheaper per mile than gasoline at $4. It would be cheaper still to drive that car with coal, and coal would produce less CO2 per mile than oil, but wind is much better measured by CO2 emissions. It is unclear whether the price of gasoline will fall. It would be wise policy to make sure that it does not by taxing it, but I do not think any Washington politician could accomplish this. The voters would not stand for it. For other energy applications such as space heating and industry, fossil fuel will remain cheaper than alternatives such as wind and large-scale solar thermal for a while. In the southwest US, solar thermal has the potential to be far cheaper than any other conventional source of energy, and it is especially well-suited to the area because most electricity is used for air conditioning. But there has been essentially no investment in this technology since the electric power companies and fossil fuel companies drove Luz out of business. (That was as much a scandal as General Motors' destruction of electric car.) Alternate energy would also solve many political problems such as U.S. economic support of terrorism in the Middle East. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 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 result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: 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]
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Ed - 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 computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use is being *legislated* (incandescents banned - loss of liberty to choose) because they may reduce the emission of a harmless gas! The only real advantage is saving a small amount of oil, but the cost is real pollution vs. imaginary AGW. That is wrong. Food as energy (ethanol) is wrong. Failure to properly and safely exploit our own existing energy resources for those same false reasons is wrong. Yes we need to get off foreign oil in the very short term and eventually all oil as a fuel source. I'm in the tank for that. But we cannot afford to waste any more precious time and resources acting on the basis that AGW exists, much less do we have any predictive ability or practical capacity to mitigate such changes in any way. Notice where the posts trailed off about slowing a harmful cooling cycle? Good at a bad time, or maybe bad at good, but ... ft. The point is even if we were granted the power to begin directly manipulating the weather, we have no clue as to how to wield that power to obtain the desired result. So, what is the point of fighting this process? In addition to the practical matters above, our integrity and more. It's wrong to direct public policy based on a lie. For instance, I think most people here, including perhaps yourself Ed, feel that certain policies arising from the war on terror or at least the Iraq invasion are based on a lie. How does that make you feel? Sad? Angry? There you go. Let's use truth and good science this time. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL 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 of the answer to this question, what is the advantage of being so angry about the debate? Reducing the use of fossil fuel has great advantage regardless of its contribution to CO2. So, what is the point of fighting this process? Ed On Sep 2, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: 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 not forming? Do they matter? I know there's some coincidence between low sunspot cycles and colder climate, but how good is that circumstantial data? Better than the data associating warming with human greenhouse gas output? One thing is very certain: we do not have any possibility of predicting a global 'trend' either way in the absence of any real handle on the actual causes of such trends. That otherwise rational people have concluded that human activity is a significant climate change driver based on untenable models and theories is very sad, especially when false 'solutions' are proposed, even demanded and *legislated*, right at the time when real solutions such as you mention below are actually called for. I wouldn't want to repeat that mistake with sunspots
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL 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 of the answer to this question, what is the advantage of being so angry about the debate? Reducing the use of fossil fuel has great advantage regardless of its contribution to CO2. So, what is the point of fighting this process? Ed On Sep 2, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: 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 not forming? Do they matter? I know there's some coincidence between low sunspot cycles and colder climate, but how good is that circumstantial data? Better than the data associating warming with human greenhouse gas output? One thing is very certain: we do not have any possibility of predicting a global 'trend' either way in the absence of any real handle on the actual causes of such trends. That otherwise rational people have concluded that human activity is a significant climate change driver based on untenable models and theories is very sad, especially when false 'solutions' are proposed, even demanded and *legislated*, right at the time when real solutions such as you mention below are actually called for. I wouldn't want to repeat that mistake with sunspots or anything else until we really know what we're talking about. What might look like blood in the water could really just be an algae bloom due to global warming.g But you're right when you imply that dealing with climate change means preparing for it, not making foolish attempts to mitigate it. I posted here before why it's absolutely certain that the models and notions about anthropogenic global warming are totally nonsense (not false per se, simply nonsense as in completely detached from reality). At the same time everyone can see that the climate is always changing. You either have the courage to accept science despite social and political pressures, or flee to your comforting illusions and stick your head right up where NOAA must be putting their thermometers. Since the faith based AGW movement has apparently become a government favored and sanctioned religion in violation of our Constitution, I'm inclined to engage in civil disobedience with regard to any laws or regulations based on that religion, and to oppose the activities of its zealots with appropriate actions of my own. C'mon you alternative thinkers here, join the revolution. Cells of resistance are popping up all over. Free beer while it lasts. - Comrade Rick-0 -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Sunspotless Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home as well, all frozen. The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela Lugosi? There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Ed - Melting ice may tell us that some places have been warming, though it doesn't always indicate why. Whatever. As I said, climate changes are inevitable and ongoing. I'm taking issue with the computer model driven ideas that we caused warming, we can mitigate it, and giant Algore or worse versions of socialism are the only way to administer the effort. Instead we must prepare for and adapt to changes. And of course government should play an appropriate role in regulating and guiding us in that effort, since free markets, capitalism, and politics are not known for being very forward thinking, despite their strong instincts of self preservation. GW may or may not be real, but evidence is clear that global changes are always occurring, pollution will kill us and make us miserable, AGW is a hoax, and politicians are sometimes nothing more than dangerous posers or hoodlums. Knowing all that pretty much points us in the right direction, and there are some parallels in that direction to general AGW solutions like weaning off oil, but there are also some significant diversions. But like I said in my previous response, let's let truth guide us, not the lies. I believe the difference there is very important, and evidence supports my conclusion. As to the battles I pick, I first make sure they're right ones. Then I know that the price I pay, regardless of how high it is, is worth it. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 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 temperature is going up. This has nothing to do with liberals or socialists. You can bitch all you want about government control but this will not change reality. Even if a cooling cycle is in the works, no harm is produced by putting as much effort into alternative energy as possible. It creates jobs and it gives us more energy in the long run. This is a win-win situation. The political battles can be fought over other issues, such as why wealth is moving out of the middle class and into fewer and fewer hands. As for government control, you well know that without control, society simply cannot function. Without control, the rich, the strong and the ruthless dominate everyone else. Total freedom has never lasted long in history. The only issue is how much control is required and where is it applied. The debate between liberals, conservatives, and now the religious right involves just what is to be controlled. As for voting, the closer a society is to a true democracy, the more likely it is to fail. This happens because the average person wants to receive as much as possible from the government and give as little as possible. Eventually, in their ignorance, the average person supports a government that bankrupts the country. We are now on this path. I suggest you pick you battles more carefully because unless we take a different path, you and many other people will pay a very dear price. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Ed - 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 computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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. Britain is such a multiracial, multicultural society nowadays that there is no average Brit anymore - just a whole group of people with different conflicting beliefs. With the exception of the fundamentalist Islamics, I don't think anyone seriously expects any God to ride over the hill like the US cavalry. Even the Christians, while still believing in the power of Jesus to redeem etc, cling on to a rather theoretical hope as far as an interventionist God is concerned. We never really had your rather weird religious/healing TV channels, although now they are available on satellite. I think the Internet has made things worse now everyone can focus on totally immersing themselves in a topic with a narrow but concentrated range of psychological input. People are programming their perceptions by limiting their inputs to what they want to see - self brain-washing. The undoubted ability of the Internet to disseminate greater and more varied amounts of knowledge, to discerning types, than humans could ever access in the past is one thing. Much greater is the way people are using it to narrow their view and consolidate their (weak) positions by not seeing or ignoring the wider picture. The Internet, via forums and comment slots, allows people to see that there are thousands of other people who are brainwashed just like them and they feel strengthened in their position - as if somehow the fact that a lot of people believe the same as you makes your viewpoint automatically right or at least valid. This spread of an irrational way of looking at things is the true danger of modern communication. As political power comes from numbers of people believing the same stuff, I think we are in the early stages of the sort of unconscious, unquestioning group think that made the rise of the Third Reich so dangerous. The only reassuring aspect at the moment is that there many different groupthinks with conflicting belief systems. If we're heading into a period where human irrationality is further amplified by our technology, the last thing the world needs is just one set of beliefs. With the US neo-con think tanks having successfully propagandised many people into disbelieving in science, the world today is more dangerous than it was.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
--- 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 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 of a repeat of this in 2008... If it turns out that what humans are doing to the environment is in fact - on the bottom line, and after all is said and done - NOT harmful in itself due to these unusual circumstance - and that wanton CO2 release is simply forestalling another little ice age then - YES - that can seen by most of us non-specialists as a *good thing*, at least in the short term. However, it does not follow that what Algore is promoting is itself unscientific. Quite the contrary. Like it or not, he IS the spokesperson for the majority of specialists in the field - although admittedly there exists a strong and vocal minority of specialists who do not go along with most of it and especially the way it has been politicized. 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 rapidly changing the normal course of environmental change in a way which could have been harmful, BUT that change, as it turns out is not harmful at all, and in fact the short-term benefit is poised to have the (unforeseen by the polluters) effect of forestalling another little ice age Interesting moral dilemma, if nothing else ... wrong for the right reason, or right for the wrong reason? Jones Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home as well, all frozen. The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela Lugosi? There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder climate, agricultural output will plummet. More energy and higher crop yields in a shorter growing season will be essential to prevent the starvation of millions or even billions. Here is a link to the observations about the lack of sunspots:'' http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm - Hi All, Enclosed below are some interesting posts from the Cycles Group. Jack Smith PS: I am strongly in favor of energy alternatives to rock oil regardless of the causes of global warming. This is the most pressing national security problem that we face. We should not be trapped into sending young Americans to die for oil in the Kazakh War of 2020. - ``Source: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [cyclesi] Digest Number 2556 Date: Thu Jul 3, 2008 4:13 pm ((PDT)) 53.5 and 210 year Solar Cycles Peaked in 1990s Posted by: Ray Tomes [EMAIL PROTECTED] rjtomes Date: Thu Jul 3, 2008 4:13 pm ((PDT)) I just noticed that the 53.5 year cycle is modulated also, being stronger when the 210 year cycle is high and weaker when itis low. Such a
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 the December 14 issue of Science. The work is based on computer simulations of ocean chemistry under levels of atmospheric CO2 ranging from 280 parts per million (pre-industrial levels) to 5000 ppm. Present levels are 380 ppm and rapidly rising due to accelerating emissions from human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. By the time we reach 550 ppm all the coral reefs are dead. Likely other ocean species will bite the dust as well. The human side? Coral reefs and their species are a beautiful manifest expression of life (genetic diversity). Its a quick ending to hundreds of thousands of years of development. Kinda sad when it's possibly preventable. As an aside, here is a Chart of CO2 emisions (not atmospheric buildup) over the last century. From I think 600 million to 6000 million tons per year. A ten-fold increase over the time since the year 1900. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20356.pdf Brian Prothro -Original Message- From: Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Sunspotless Jones Beene on 2 Sep 2008 wrote: ``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 of a repeat of this in 2008... If it turns out that what humans are doing to the environment is in fact - on the bottom line, and after all is said and done - NOT harmful in itself due to these unusual circumstance - and that wanton CO2 release is simply forestalling another little ice age then - YES - that can seen by most of us non-specialists as a *good thing*, at least in the short term. However, it does not follow that what Algore is promoting is itself unscientific. Quite the contrary. Like it or not, he IS the spokesperson for the majority of specialists in the field - although admittedly there exists a strong and vocal minority of specialists who do not go along with most of it and especially the way it has been politicized. 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 rapidly changing the normal course of environmental change in a way which could have been harmful, BUT that change, as it turns out is not harmful at all, and in fact the short-term benefit is poised to have the (unforeseen by the polluters) effect of forestalling another little ice age Interesting moral dilemma, if nothing else ... wrong for the right reason, or right for the wrong reason? Jones Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home as well, all frozen. The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela Lugosi? There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder climate, agricultural output will plummet. More energy and higher crop
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
... 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 enough to be insightful, if not accurate. Is he saying that sunspots create corresponding earthspots which are responsible for such things as the extremely rainy weather in the midwest USA. He needs to lighten up a bit on the caps, but is there a grain of truth there? As the sun is NOW in its SUNSPOT NODAL CYCLE PHASE it means that the NUMBER of SUNSPOTS counted on the sun are at MINIMUM. During this time, the SUNSPOTS have basically disappeared from the surface of the sun IN/AND AT its EQUATOR. By the same token, INDUCTION in the EARTHSPOTS are equally LOW and EQUATORIAL. Let us also POINT out that INTENSITY factors are noted. When the sun begins to create NEW and REVERSED POLARITY SUNSPOTS in its next CYCLE, they will appear halfway toward EACH pole, and as noted, POLARITY will be REVERSED. The CAUSAL EFFECT on EARTHSPOTS has been pointed out in my *Cycles* papers decades ago: and REAFFIRMED.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 of a repeat of this in 2008... If it turns out that what humans are doing to the environment is in fact - on the bottom line, and after all is said and done - NOT harmful in itself due to these unusual circumstance - and that wanton CO2 release is simply forestalling another little ice age then - YES - that can seen by most of us non-specialists as a *good thing*, at least in the short term. However, it does not follow that what Algore is promoting is itself unscientific. Quite the contrary. Like it or not, he IS the spokesperson for the majority of specialists in the field - although admittedly there exists a strong and vocal minority of specialists who do not go along with most of it and especially the way it has been politicized. 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 rapidly changing the normal course of environmental change in a way which could have been harmful, BUT that change, as it turns out is not harmful at all, and in fact the short-term benefit is poised to have the (unforeseen by the polluters) effect of forestalling another little ice age Interesting moral dilemma, if nothing else ... wrong for the right reason, or right for the wrong reason? Jones --- Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home as well, all frozen. The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela Lugosi? There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder climate, agricultural output will plummet. More energy and higher crop yields in a shorter growing season will be essential to prevent the starvation of millions or even billions. Here is a link to the observations about the lack of sunspots: http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm http://tinyurl.com/562srq M.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 the line between biblical truth and metaphor? Is that question unfair? This a very good question. The bigger question is why anyone needs to even ask such a question. A rational society of thinking individuals would never confuse reality with faith. We all know that many people are not rational. 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 the US. This conclusion is not only consistent with this criteria, but it is supported by the behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger question, is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing irrationally? Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 unlikely as this may seem at first... [snip] I think the asymmetry is primarily due to the fact that the North Pole is all sea level floating ice, while the South Pole is high altitude ice on land. That means that as Arctic ice melts, water is revealed with a very large change in albedo (promoting further warming), whereas the high altitude ice in the Antarctic doesn't get warm enough to melt at all (whereas low altitude ice in the Antarctic does melt - ice shelves disintegrating). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 behaviour based upon fear is a part of human basic instinct. Fear arises when people perceive their existence threatened. The cure is to ensure that it is less threatened, by improving the quality of life. This will flow automatically from the introduction of a sustainable economy based upon sustainable energy. That's where we come in. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 rapidly changing the normal course of environmental change in a way which could have been harmful, BUT that change, as it turns out is not harmful at all, and in fact the short-term benefit is poised to have the (unforeseen by the polluters) effect of forestalling another little ice age Interesting moral dilemma, if nothing else ... wrong for the right reason, or right for the wrong reason? [snip] It's even possible that CO2 based global warming may trigger a state change in the climate leading to regional global cooling (e.g. failure of or drastic change in the Atlantic conveyor). IOW the changes we are experiencing may not be an either/or situation (the Sun or human influence), but rather due to both combined (an and situation). It's possible both are working in concert, rather than in opposition. however it's also possible that the sunspots will pick up again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 irrationally? [snip] Rational behaviour is a luxury. Irrational behaviour based upon fear is a part of human basic instinct. Fear arises when people perceive their existence threatened. The cure is to ensure that it is less threatened, by improving the quality of life. This will flow automatically from the introduction of a sustainable economy based upon sustainable energy. That's where we come in. I agree, Robin. The problem is having an irrational society make rational choices that would reduce the fear. This same problem confronts every individual in a society. The greater the fear a person has, the greater the chance they will make an irrational decision. I think Obama is right when he observed that in the time of fear, people tend to turn to religion, i. e. God, to protect them. While this can be beneficial in reducing fear, a problem is created when the power structure uses this attitude to gain more power. That is what got Bush elected the second time and is being used to get McCain elected this time. In other words, the greater the faith in God, the greater the susceptibility to manipulation. This is where the level of rationally becomes important. If the level of faith in religion is high, the possibility of an irrational decision is high. Unfortunately, I don't think we will solve the energy problem in time to reduce the fear to sustainable levels. Too many people are benefiting from the fear and too many people are out to generate more. Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 the US. This conclusion is not only consistent with this criteria, but it is supported by the behavior of the stock market and the government. Well, actually I was going to write the same sort of thing about spreading irrationality in my anti Yank piece of a couple of hours ago but I held back because I think exactly the same thing has happened in Britain. Not quite as much as in the good ol' US of A with your talk radio and Rush Limbaugh types but who's counting? Not quite sure if it is as bad in mainland Europe?
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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 not forming? Do they matter? I know there's some coincidence between low sunspot cycles and colder climate, but how good is that circumstantial data? Better than the data associating warming with human greenhouse gas output? One thing is very certain: we do not have any possibility of predicting a global 'trend' either way in the absence of any real handle on the actual causes of such trends. That otherwise rational people have concluded that human activity is a significant climate change driver based on untenable models and theories is very sad, especially when false 'solutions' are proposed, even demanded and *legislated*, right at the time when real solutions such as you mention below are actually called for. I wouldn't want to repeat that mistake with sunspots or anything else until we really know what we're talking about. What might look like blood in the water could really just be an algae bloom due to global warming.g But you're right when you imply that dealing with climate change means preparing for it, not making foolish attempts to mitigate it. I posted here before why it's absolutely certain that the models and notions about anthropogenic global warming are totally nonsense (not false per se, simply nonsense as in completely detached from reality). At the same time everyone can see that the climate is always changing. You either have the courage to accept science despite social and political pressures, or flee to your comforting illusions and stick your head right up where NOAA must be putting their thermometers. Since the faith based AGW movement has apparently become a government favored and sanctioned religion in violation of our Constitution, I'm inclined to engage in civil disobedience with regard to any laws or regulations based on that religion, and to oppose the activities of its zealots with appropriate actions of my own. C'mon you alternative thinkers here, join the revolution. Cells of resistance are popping up all over. Free beer while it lasts. - Comrade Rick-0 -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Sunspotless Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home as well, all frozen. The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela Lugosi? There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder climate, agricultural output will plummet. More energy and higher crop yields in a shorter growing season will be essential to prevent the starvation of millions or even billions. Here is a link to the observations about the lack of sunspots: http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century /article12823.htm http://tinyurl.com/562srq M.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
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
