global tepid

[benj]

Not catastrophe, just progressively increasing difficulties. One of the
adaptions we may have to make is giving up on agriculture - we've spent
the last ten thousand years selectively breeding our food crops to do
well in the more or less stable climate we've enjoyed for most of this
interglacial. Change the climate and they won't be well adapted any
more.

<snipped the usual twaddle>

The Twaddle is yours. A fraction of a degree climate change is what most
of us call "normal", but you alarmists call a "disaster". Of course your
fear in the marketplace isn't what HAS gone on, but rather the curves you
generate by taking a ruler and extending any up-tick you find off the
page.

Talk about plant catastrophe, Monsanto seems to have installed
mitochondria that make roundup in many important food plants (like oats)
so they'll be immune to the weed killer. Never mind what it might do to
US sucking in all that roundup! And they've so contaminated the fields
with their Frankenstein monstrosity that now you simply CANNOT find a
field free of contamination no matter how careful you try to control your
seeds. And the bonus? Well, then Monsanto will sue you for millions for
patent infringement because you are "using" their round-up genes that
THEY contaminated you with! Sweet.

Obviously they are cut from the same cloth as all the climate warmists.

Your ass in already in a sling and you are off chasing some false useless
theory that you hope to get rich off of. Shame on you.

 

[Bill Sloman]

All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in the
newsgroup. You can use all the variables you want besides CO2, but you
have to produce a hypothesis that shows that as CO2 rises, warming rises,
and that hypothesis has to predict.

Sure. Here it is

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

It's a little too complicated and voluminous to post here, but if you
ask Harvard nicely they'll let you download the whole package and you
can run it on your own computer. Have fun.

If you want to shut up the "denialist", then that's all you have to do,
is produce a falsifiable hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. It
is not up to denialist to prove you wrong, it is up to the AGW frauds to
prove they're right.

HITRAN embodies the hypothesis in enough detail to make sensible
predictions. If you think you can falsify it, go ahead and try. Keep
in mind that scientists love falsifying other scientist's hypotheses,
so all the easy options have long since been tried.

Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years.

When we've got more of the Argo buoy data we may be able to do better,
but 16 years is about 0.1K of global warming, and the short term noise
is a lot bigger than that.

All we heard from you guys
is a lot of "yeah but!" and "just wait!" Not only did those models fail
to predict the last 16 years, they always fail to agree with known
observation when you go far enough into the past - that's because they're
all curve fitting.

The ice age/interglacial modelling does rather better than that. I'm
afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.

On the other hand, there's this guy named Svensmark who's simple
hypothesis agrees with the last 4 billion years of the climate record,
and DID predict the recent cooling. All you "scientist" do is pretend you
don't understand the theory, lie about the theory, and slander the guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

presents a rather less flattering assessment.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Climate_Challenge

puts him in the denialist camp.

That's not how science is done, son. Go sue your school and try to get
all the money back. You were supposed to learn science, not fraud.

Oh, I not only learned science, but also how to detect fraud. You
clearly can't tell shit from shinola.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

   Sloman is a chemist.  Nothing more.

I certainly went through ten years of university education in
chemistry, and emerged with a Ph.D. On the other hand, I haven't
published in chemistry - my first publication in a peer-reviewed
journal was on photomultiplier linearity, and the only publication
I've got that's been cited enough to suggest that it might have been
useful was on using a Peltier junction to get +/-1mK temperature
control.

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-
based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK
in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor
sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

None of the chemists I know would describe me as chemist. Mike Terrell
may know better than they do, but the odds are against it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can explain
what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2.

In principle, it comes out of solution. In practice, we are increasing
the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a lot faster than we are decreasing
the solubility of CO2 in sea-water (which is - in fact - a rather
complicated chemical equilibrium).

And what happens to the
ocean water that was in contact with the surface 800 years ago that
submerged into a deep ocean current  when it resurfaces now.

It picks up more CO2. About half the CO2 we are currently injecting
into the atmosphere ends up in the oceans,

His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd never
have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make it.

I made the point because I know more about the vibrational and
rotational modes of CO2 than most practicing electronic engineers.
It's not something you get taught in the average undergraduate
electronics course.

central to their argument, they just state the science.

As I did. You don't seem to be able to follow it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

From the website;
"HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular
absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters
that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the
transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

Do you even read what you post? This isn't a climate model. What it does
is predicts "the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere".

Never the less, it's what you need to know if you want to understand
the greenhouse effect.

Do you understand why that isn't producing a temperature and a climate
model?

It's the tool you use to model the radiative transfers up and down
through the atmosphere. Adding in convection makes life more
complicated, and you've got to figure in the Joule-Thompson cooling
you get as you more up through the progressively less dense layers of
the atmosphere, to explain the "lapse rate" - why atmosphere is cooler
at higher altitudes, up to the tropopause.

Since modelling always involves simplification, HITRAN is where you
need to start.

I'm asking because posting this indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

Your reaction indicates that you don't know what you are talking
about.

People have been doing it for a while now.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/

casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf

Same problem as before, that's not a climate model that predicts AGW.
It's about atmospheric transmission of electromagnetic radiation. IT
doesn't say "Set the variable of d[CO2]/dt = 5 gigatons of carbon and the
equation says that the dT = +1 Kelvin of mean earth temperature".

You've got walk before you can run.

It is pretty clear you don't understand what a climate model is. You need
to state something of the form:

f([CO2_g],x1,x2,...,xN)= T_global

That's where the process ends up. It takes a few years in graduate
school to get there.

CO2 absorbs at (aprox) 14-20, 3.2, 1.7, 2.8 and 1.2 micrometers.

Except that the symmetric stretch is symmetrical and thus inactive in
absorbtion and emission, though you can see it in the Raman

the 3.2 and 1.7 micrometer bands don't have any energy to block, they're
longer than the Sun's IR curve and higher than the earth's black body
curve.

"Longer than the Sun's IR curve"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg

The Sun is actually a 6000K radiator, and it's still pushing out
plenty of energy at 1.7 and 3.4 micron, though the peak is in the
visible

<snipped the rest of the pathetic ignorance>

 

[Bill Sloman]

..



Gee, so at least you admit that it has melted before.

What has melted before? The Laurentian ice sheet melts at the start of
every interglacial.

You do agree that
it wasn't CO2 based AGW that caused it to melt before, right?

The ice ages have only been going on for a few million years, but
modern humans haven't been around for more than about 200,000
year,which puts paid to the anthropogenic component.

Can you show us the model that explains why it melted before?

No. It's tolerably complicated. Models do exist, and are described an
discussed in the literature. You find clicking on URL's to be beyond
you, so I won't bother trying to find one to point you at.

If you can't, then how do you know it isn't a natural melt now?

It's happening rather faster than it did before, and CO2 levels are
going up a lot faster than they ever have before.

Now, OTOH, Svensmark explains his theory here:

<snip>

It's a pity it's rubbish.

 --
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[[email protected]]

   Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

www.denier.com

(the conspiracy spreads)

 

[Wally W.]

This is much better...

CO2 and its effect on climate
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

This is better yet:

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
The object of this study is to demonstrate the nonexistence of the
so-called "greenhouse effect" (GHE) based on established physical laws
of thermodynamics and material hydrostatics as well as relevant
experimental data.

 

[DraconisExtinctor]

Damn! I used to work less than 10 miles from there.

I grew up less than 20 miles from there 1960 thru 1980

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

[snip]

Maybe if you called more names your vapid post would be more credible?
Nah.

You are the one using profanity and vulgarity and waving your arms trying to
baffle with BS. The last frantic and desperate efforts of a loser who is out
of ammo.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

   Damn!  I used to work less than 10 miles from there.

Uuh huh--hence, a denier!!!!! But what sort? Are you an electrical
contractor, or do you wear ladies' stockings?

(P.S. You're better off today. I was there in October--it was mighty
cold even then.)

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

Then YOU state the Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis.

Please cite HERE how much CO2 is going up each year do to human
activities:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

Please cite HERE how the equation for the warming as a function of CO2
concentration:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

If you haven't got that (and no one does) then you don't have science,
you have SHIT.

And all wormley does is selects from a list of cut and pastes and posts
them to the usenet. He doesn't even read the replies. He's here to SPAM,
not discuss, and that means he deserves to be even that he's EARNED to
be cursed.

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity. Your obvious anger
seems to have displaced any civility and ability to accept and analyze
evidence and opinions differing from yours, and unless you have done
extensive original research on the subject, you are relying on what is
presented by others. You seem to be getting all of your information from
sources that are tainted by corporate sponsorship designed to allow Big
Energy to continue business as usual to maximize their profits, at the
expense of clean air and water, and destructive effects of global warming
PERHAPS caused by extensive burning of fossil fuels. I admit that I lack the
credentials and knowledge to accept or refute the arguments being made, so I
must trust those who do, AND who have the support of the majority of the
scientific community as evidenced in peer-reviewed articles.

It is really quite academic to debate the extent to which our human
activities have affected and will continue to affect the global climate, but
the fact of global warming is quite apparent, as are some of the
consequences. Dr. Will Candler has stated that, even if we stop burning all
fossil fuels today, the deleterious effects will continue for decades or
centuries into the future. So we really can't avoid the problems we MAY have
caused, and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels will have a self-limiting
effect over the next 20-50 years. So what we absolutely need to do is reduce
and eventually eliminate all environmentally destructive methods of
extraction such as fracking and mountaintop removal, and invest seriously in
renewable energy sources AND greatly reduce our demand. At the same time, we
need to invest in our infrastructure and protective measures to reduce the
severity of the effects of increasingly violent weather and other
catastrophes such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Answer-Energy-Dividend/dp/1434345084
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/081013.theCompleteAnswer.pdf
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/BGF.121201.ppt
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/Global_Warming_The_Answer_071031.pdf (8
MB)

Paul

 

[Unum]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message








You are proving my point by continued use of profanity. Your obvious anger
seems to have displaced any civility and ability to accept and analyze
evidence and opinions differing from yours, and unless you have done extensive
original research on the subject, you are relying on what is presented by
others. You seem to be getting all of your information from sources that are
tainted by corporate sponsorship designed to allow Big Energy to continue
business as usual to maximize their profits, at the expense of clean air and
water, and destructive effects of global warming PERHAPS caused by extensive
burning of fossil fuels. I admit that I lack the credentials and knowledge to
accept or refute the arguments being made, so I must trust those who do, AND
who have the support of the majority of the scientific community as evidenced
in peer-reviewed articles.

It is really quite academic to debate the extent to which our human activities
have affected and will continue to affect the global climate, but the fact of
global warming is quite apparent, as are some of the consequences. Dr. Will
Candler has stated that, even if we stop burning all fossil fuels today, the
deleterious effects will continue for decades or centuries into the future. So
we really can't avoid the problems we MAY have caused, and the diminishing
supply of fossil fuels will have a self-limiting effect over the next 20-50
years. So what we absolutely need to do is reduce and eventually eliminate all
environmentally destructive methods of extraction such as fracking and
mountaintop removal, and invest seriously in renewable energy sources AND
greatly reduce our demand. At the same time, we need to invest in our
infrastructure and protective measures to reduce the severity of the effects
of increasingly violent weather and other catastrophes such as earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Answer-Energy-Dividend/dp/1434345084
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/081013.theCompleteAnswer.pdf
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/BGF.121201.ppt
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/Global_Warming_The_Answer_071031.pdf (8 MB)

Paul

Hey its marvin the troll, what can you expect. He spams the newsgroups
with this garbage on a regular basis. Reply to his crap and you will
merely be feeding the nonsense.

 

[[email protected]]

Hey its marvin the troll, what can you expect. He spams the newsgroups
with this garbage on a regular basis. Reply to his crap and you will
merely be feeding the nonsense.

That's *exactly* your reason for being here, obviously.

 

[Jasen Betts]

You'd be better off not using your real name, because 1) it doesn't
matter, and 2) you're making a fool of yourself and someone's going to
google you and find all the dumb-ass flippant remarks you made. And you
ARE making them!

Thanks for the warning, from the above I can reason that your purpose
here when posting with this false name is to make a fool of yourself.

 

[Bill Sloman]

First of all, in science, the argument has to stand or fall on it's own.
Does the hypothesis predict or not.

It seems to be consistent with all the evidence we've got

In the case of AGW, half of the argument is that CO2 causes warming.
There appeared to be a strong correlation to CO2 and global temperature
from 1980 to 1996, but as you well know, correlation does not prove
causation. However, from 1996 to now, even the MET office admits that
there has been no statistically rise in temperature, but CO2 levels are
reported to have risen. That's a correlation of 0, zippo, nada, zilch.

The expected rise in temperature over that period was of the order of
0.1K which is rather less than the noise on the temperature record.
Naturally you don't see much correlation. If you extend the study
period for long enough to see a bigger temperature rise you do see
more correlation

Even the correlation proves causation fallacy fails here. You don't have
a correlation to base your fallacy on!

You've got it backwards. The hypothesis based on the well-known
physics of the greenhouse effect, and it would be very odd if more CO2
in the atmosphere was raising global temperature levels.

We've only been measuring CO2 in the atmosphere directly and reliably
since 1958. Geologists, ice-core collectors and sediment analysts have
got indirect data that goes back a few million years, and none of that
falsifies the hypothesis.

So, why would "scientist" claim something that, under the rules of
science, should be rejected?!

They wouldn't and they don't. You don't understand the argument
involved and have come to an entirely false conclusion.

Only then can we discuss motives. And Mr.
Langan nailed the motive perfectly - money.

Sure. the denialist propaganda machine publishes lies for money, for
the benefit of the fossil carbon extraction industry, who want to be
able to extract and sell fossil carbon as fuel on the largest possible
scale, making a lot of money in the process.

You're trying to do it the other way around and ascribe a sinister motive
to those who are following the science and coming to the rational
conclusion.

Not in the least rational, but quite profitable for some, if only in
the short term.

As for the "burning significant amounts of CO2 puts more CO2 into the
atmosphere" claim - PROVE IT. That's the first part of the AGW claim, and
it needs to be proven.

It's been done. The carbon isotope ratios in natural carbon and fossil
carbon are different, and the carbon isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2
has been shifting steadily towards the fossil carbon value.
Suess Effect. It's been well known since the early 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

Really asshole? [snip]
Some assholes said [snip]
That's why you're an asshole! ]snip]
someone you asshole lie and [snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there [snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Paul

 

[Bill Sloman]

So, your official position as a Ph.D. chemist, is that you're going to
equivocate, wave hands, and say that somehow it is humans, and not the
oceans (which exchanges a hundred gigatons of carbon with the atmosphere
every year, according to the AGW frauds) which is the cause of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Fossil carbon has less C-14 than natural carbon - C-14 has a shortish
half life - 5730 years - and what we see all comes from cosmic ray
bombardment of the major isotope - C-12.

Since we've started burning fossil carbon, the C-14 content of
atmospheric CO2 has been progressively declining. This is called the
Suess Effect, after the guy who worked it out, and it's been well-
known since the early 1980's - though obviously not to you.

No equivocation or hand-waving - just well known fact.

<snipped the rest>

 

[Bill Sloman]

   He can only cut & paste the same drivel over & over.

Not strictly true, but Mike Terrell doesn't understand what's being
posted so it may all look the same to him.

He's been doing it for over a decade.  He has no training in the field under discussion,
hence the "Nothing more" comment.

I haven't had any training as an electronic engineer either, which
hasn't stopped me learning rather more about the subject than most of
those who have.,

 He claims to be an engineer, but never presents himself as one by usingreal data or any math.

Nothing that Mike Terrell has been able to recognise. Technicians are
traditionally scornful of the aspects of engineering in which they
aren't trained.

   He also belongs to the IEEE.  Who cares?  I knew U.S. Army grunts
that did, too because they ran diesel power plants for remote bases.
One took great joy in ripping up the month's IEEE mailing and tossing it
into the trash when it hit the post office.

It's easier now that most of the bumf arrives by e-mail.

   His Ph.D. is Chemistry, but he's a self proclaimed expert in every
field.  He even reads minds and tells you that you aren't thinking what
you are.  He's been designing an oscillator for over a year, with no
results.

Plenty of results, but no hardware yet. The bits are now stuck in
Australian Customs - pre-Christmas inertia,nothing sinister.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Belonging to the IEEE is easy. All you  have to do is pay the money. It
once was you had to have two member sponsors, and have either a BSEE for
a regular member or at least be in the major for a student member. But
not any longer; your credit card is all the credential you need to join.

It wasn;t qui