The surge



I wrote:
> However, that isn't what Lindzen
> did. Notice that in his graph the raw temps were flat from 2003
> onward.


Oops. I meant, "the raw temperature anomalies."
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd like
> to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design".


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8ac9debb30a5de16

> It really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
> whatever belief they want doesn't it?


I really couldn't care less what people choose to believe (unless of
course they use their belief as a basis to blow me up), but it does 'burn
my ass' that morons are prepared to want to teach hogwash as science in
schools. But since I'm not from the US I suppose I don't really care if
you want mullahs like Pat Robertson to mess up your educational
system. I guess the high point of American civilization was in 1969.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done.


The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality.


Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many others) we
have testable models that do make the effects estimable.


> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.


Right, but that's a straw man. No one has ever said they couldn't -- but
none of the data are consistent with this amount of warming over a period of
time such as this without GHGs. You're saying that because some kids have
been known to teach themselves math, no one can estimate the effect of
education.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> However, that really doesn't exist. If you look at the graphs that
> have been presented you see that from about 1940 to 1965 the global
> temperature actually went down during a period when the CO2 levels
> continued to rise. If CO2 has such a strong effect then this should
> not have happened.


You're being disingenuous. No one who's serious about this stuff thinks that
CO2 has an immediate effect. That's why even if CO2 emissions were cut today
we wouldn't see a drop in temperature. There's a delay, and if you truly
don't know that then you're not competent to be discussing this.

> The data shows that CO2 begins to
> rise well after the warming period begins. This lag also indicates
> that CO2 is not necessary for the climate to get warmer.


Oh wait, so you *are* aware of lags. That means you're not ill-informed,
just disingenuous.
 
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
> trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
> the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.


At least they do have a few cols in Greenland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_in_Greenland

Can you imagine Liggett's pronunciation of Qingassat Qaqqaat.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> particularly intelligent.


Well my BMI is 21.3 which probably makes me fairly little by rbr fatty
master standards, but I expect I could improve if I had intelligent
banana meals:
http://yummybanana.webgoonies.com/reviews/
 
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:24:57 -0500, Jack Hollis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>That was the consensus of the people who were on the panel and even
>they say they're only 90% sure, which is up from 66% from the last
>time. If I was on the panel, I would have pushed for 95% certainty.
>One has to wonder how they reached that 90% figure. Perhaps the took
>a poll and averaged it. Again, how can there be consensus on
>something that cannot be accurately measured?



Do you use the same standards of proof for things you agree with?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Feb 9, 2:34 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> You're contesting this?

>
> >> Heck no. That proves that Lindzen doctored the data.

>
> > Strange because it also demonstrates that you did as well.

>
> Take your best shot, big guy:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat


How about a space shot?

http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_lights_small.gif

I can't help but wonder how much of this is front porch lights
uselessly left on all night, as seems to be some kind of a religious
belief with my other half <g>. --D-y
 
On 8 Feb 2007 16:37:00 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>D) only available to multi-disciplinary super geniuses like Wiley
>Coyote


Wile E. Coyote. I don't know much, but I have to stand up for what I
know.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On 8 Feb 2007 17:27:01 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
>look as attractive.
>
>We can't sit back and let the hurricanes attack us in our
>homeland. We have to take the fight to the hurricanes.
>Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
>Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
>Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba, those ratfink
>weather subversives. We must invade those countries
>and root out the hurricanes from their spider holes.
>
>We shall fight the hurricanes on the beaches, we shall
>fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the
>fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we
>shall never surrender. Because if we even think about
>it, the hurricanes win. So don't think.


Is this where we kill the butterflies?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
> Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
> Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba,


I always knew it. Hurricanes are all Castro's fault.
 
On 9 Feb 2007 03:52:29 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The result of the
>>>deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
>>>measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
>>>the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.

>>
>> The IPCC Working Group 1 that produced the report consisted of 51
>> individuals.
>>

>
>Working groups are often smaller than the body writing the report and
>synthesizing the data. There were approximately 200 authors involved in
>writing the report for WG1. Probably 5 times that many contributed
>material but didn't help writing the report. Even if the 200 number is
>more accurate than the 1500, which I read somewhere, it's still a high
>number of very smart people.
>
>--
>Bill Asher


Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.

In any case, I could get 51 scientists to come to the exact opposite
conclusions as the IPCC group and say they were 90% sure. Of course,
they would be as full of **** as the IPCC Working Group that issued
this report.
 
On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:18 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is a perfect example of what I am talking about where you get sucked
>in by the contrarians, who sound convincing to you because they are telling
>you what you want to hear and it goes with your desire to be
>individualistic.
>
>Here's just a very small sampling of the peer-reviewed skinny on paleo CO2
>and climate:
>
> Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):523-7.
>
> Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core
>after deuterium-excess correction.
>
> Cuffey KM, Vimeux F.
>
> Department of Geography, and Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
>507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-4740,
>USA. [email protected]
>
> Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide and the deuterium
>palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and
>atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past
>ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an
>important forcing factor for climate. But this interpretation is challenged
>by some substantial mismatches of the CO2 and deuterium records, especially
>during the onset of the last glaciation, about 120 kyr ago. Here we
>incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature
>reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by
>variations of climate in the water vapour source regions. Using a model
>that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation
>of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r2 = 0.84 for
>the period 350-150 kyr ago. Given the complexity of the biogeochemical
>systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance
>of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate. Our results also suggest
>that the mechanisms responsible for the drawdown of CO2 may be more
>responsive to temperature than previously thought.
>
>
>And this one put a big nail in the coffin of the idea that CO2 and paleo
>climate weren't tightly coupled ....
>
>
>CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate
>
>Geological Society of America, Volume 14, Issue 3 (March 2004), pp 4-10
>
>Dana L. Royer1, Robert A. Berner2, Isabel P. Montañez3, Neil J. Tabor4,
>David J. Beerling5
>
>1. Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment,
>Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, E-
>mail: [email protected], 2. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale
>University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA, 3. Department of Geology,
>University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA, 4. Department of
>Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275,
>USA, 5. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield,
>Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
>
>Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between
>reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than
>between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in
>controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we
>review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was
>low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental
>glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2
>record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly
>correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic
>sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate
>delta18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of
>potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative
>to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic
>and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore
>the possible influence of seawater pH on the delta18O record and find that
>a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic
>fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance,
>but are likely of second-order importance on a multimillion-year timescale.



First, all of this is correlation data and thus can not be used as
proof of causality. It also does not explain the fact that
temperature rises before CO2.
 
On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:29 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Put kindly, you have a layman's understanding of the system and it is full
>of these sorts of misconceptions or half-truths that you have been fed by
>people like Ball and Seitz and Lindzen who feed them to you precisely
>because they are easy to use to confuse people.


I'm afraid it's you who have been confused into thinking that science
can do what it can't.
 
On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:29 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>You are right they have no way of knowing for certain, but they know enough
>to be 90% certain that the warming over the last 30 years is mostly due to
>CO2.


Impossible.
 
On 9 Feb 2007 04:07:23 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Last post on this topic from me, here is the breakdown of the TAR Group 1
>composition:


Yes this is getting tedious. I doubt that either one of use will
change our opinions. In any case, we do agree that nothing much will
be done about reducing CO2 emissions. So hopefully the CO2 factor is
a small one.
 
On Feb 9, 4:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:44 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 9:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> > [Tom's stuff snipped]

>
> > > I'm confident that everyone reading this can tell that
> > > you're talking through your hat.

>
> > "Hat?"

>
> It's an ass-hat. That's where the word "asshat" comes from.
>
> Ben
> RBR Office of Special Etymology


Some come with special tinfoil coating too!
Bill C
 
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:23:51 -0800, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that the
>Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and organizations
>who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that Abramoff
>wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against his
>interests to do that.


Then why does he have lobbyists who are Democrats who work with
Democratic politicians. If you're going to ignore documented contacts
between Reid and Abramoff's associates, then you are living in a
fabntasy world and you obviously don't understand how lobbyists work.
Most lobbyists give money to both parties.

In any case, just in case you missed it, this shows that Abramoff
directly sent a list of what contributions to make to the tribes that
included Reid and other Democrats.

It also doccuments frequent meeting between Reid and Ronald Platt,
Abraoff's deputy. There are billing and telephone records to varify
the contacts.

"Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests"
recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he
claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff
wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's
Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key
events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff
deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum
wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that
Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action
committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three
weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5,
with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact
didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's
office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists
who work Capitol Hill."


"Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings
with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid
chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum
wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with
Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan."


Enough said. Abramoff directed millions to the Democrats and there's
no doubt about it.
 
"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd
>> like
>> to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design".

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8ac9debb30a5de16
>
>> It really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
>> whatever belief they want doesn't it?

>
> I really couldn't care less what people choose to believe (unless of
> course they use their belief as a basis to blow me up), but it does 'burn
> my ass' that morons are prepared to want to teach hogwash as science in
> schools. But since I'm not from the US I suppose I don't really care if
> you want mullahs like Pat Robertson to mess up your educational
> system. I guess the high point of American civilization was in 1969.


Thanks for demonstrating that you're a liar and that I have been consistent
throughout these arguments over the years.

But on second thought - maybe you're just a fool who is incapable of
understanding what is written.