The Writing is on the Wall



"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snip>
>> Sounds like a need to establish a basis for the disagreement. I'm
>> suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
>> change.

>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37otds
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35whlq
>
> Don't noboday say "Duesberg."
>


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

Phil H
 
On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
> statement.


Out of how many thousand?

In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
universe). Some of them are very eminent smart people.
It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
It means rather that even people whose job it is to
remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
into an intellectual corner.

Ben
 
On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
> heating.


This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
(Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
column at room temperature and pressure; but much
of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
lower temperature. In the 1950s, experiments and
theoretical calculations found that the CO2 absorption
in the atmosphere is not saturated; in the 1960s
the mechanism for possible CO2 effects became acceptable;
and in the 1970s people started to believe that there
was evidence for the effect in the historical record.
Please see:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

So any reference that tells you that atmospheric CO2
is saturated and increasing concentration has no
forcing effect is either decades out of date or
deliberately misleading.

Ben
 
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> either it has a role or it doesn't. do you mean there are reputable
>> scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?

(Gee is that your scientific judgement at work?)

> No, I mean that some believe CO2 is not a big player in the overall scheme
> and change over the last few decades is too short a period to predict long
> term trends. Here's a start......
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


This is precisely WHY you're seeing so many "scientists" jumping on the
bandwagon for global warming. The hysteria is being orchestrated
specifically to hand increasing power to governments. And of course that
seems like a good idea to all good little socialists.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker -
>> there
>> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
>> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
>> heating.

>
> This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
> (Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
> absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
> the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
> interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
> column at room temperature and pressure; but much
> of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
> lower temperature.


Ahem, maybe you'd better explain that to all of the plants in this world.
 
On Feb 26, 9:12 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR200...
>
> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>
> By Timothy Gardner
> Reuters
> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
> Oregon's governor.
>
> Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
> develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
> months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
>
> During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
> program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
> target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
> state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
> region.
>
> The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
> an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
> Initiative.
>
> "With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
> that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
> Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
> Group.
>
> California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
> toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
> economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.
>
> Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
> program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
> national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
> Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
> addressing climate change."
>
> The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
> reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
> states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
> the gases, said Baumann.
>
> The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
> as acid rain components in the early 1990s.
>
> In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
> emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
> earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
> factories.
>
> In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
> countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
>
> Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
> not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
> George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
> term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
> developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.
>
> Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
> transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
> greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
> said.
>
> Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
> imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
> surrounding states outside of the agreement.
>
> The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
> and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
> by 10 percent by 2019.


The weather is a perfect tool for scientists who use the media to get
attention. I pointed out
a good example with the hurricane hysteria of 2005:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/hurricane2.html

I just heard on the news today that there was the strongest Atlantic
hurricane in history, and that this year had a record number of
powerful hurricanes. In my constant quest to understand media
distortion, I immediately set out to understand what the hidden trick
was behind this alarming turn of events in the world climate.

Here is my conclusion: These hurricanes are classed according to their
wind speed which reaches its highest numbers when the hurricanes are
out in the ocean. But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
satellite. Since the first weather satellites were launched 45 years
ago, this significantly reduces the period of observation of ocean
hurricanes. A further minute's research reveals that a complete system
of weather satellites was first established in 1975 with the GOES
project. In other words, recorded data on Atlantic hurricanes only
goes back 30 years. Since other climatic effects can have a period
extending decades, I conclude that there is insufficient historical
data do indicate a permanent change in global climate.

As a final remark, note that 30 years of data should be enough to
correlate hurricane speed on land with their maximum force over the
ocean which could therefore give realistic extrapolations as to the
maximum wind speed of hurricanes over the ocean for the recorded
period before satellite data. This would give a clearer understanding
of whether this year's hurricanes are truly exceptional.

-ilan

Back to ilanpi

Such hysteria caused much human suffering including the irrational
exodus from Houston, TX.
 
On 27 Feb 2007 08:16:46 -0800, "ilan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
>open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
>airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
>satellite.


They drop disposable tracking devices and pick up the telemetry by the
planes that do the drop, which is relayed back to the base. They'll
have a bunch of them (devices, not planes) picking up data during the
drop and in the sea, all getting a complete, more or less, picture of
what's happening.

OTOH, it is primarily supplementing the big picture picked up by the
satellites.

You need to watch the weather channel more. Lots of great pictures of
stuff I never plan to do without some gun pointed at the back of my
head. But its great someone else will and take pictures at the same
time...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
>> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
>> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
>> heating.

>
> This is factually incorrect.


Of course it is. I'm so proud of him.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Feb 27, 11:16 am, "ilan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:12 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR200...

>
> > Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

>
> > By Timothy Gardner
> > Reuters
> > Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

>
> > NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
> > regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
> > linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
> > Oregon's governor.

>
> > Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
> > develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
> > months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

>
> > During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
> > program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
> > target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
> > state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
> > region.

>
> > The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
> > an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
> > Initiative.

>
> > "With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
> > that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
> > Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
> > Group.

>
> > California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
> > toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
> > economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.

>
> > Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
> > program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
> > national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
> > Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
> > addressing climate change."

>
> > The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
> > reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
> > states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
> > the gases, said Baumann.

>
> > The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
> > as acid rain components in the early 1990s.

>
> > In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
> > emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
> > earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
> > factories.

>
> > In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
> > countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

>
> > Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
> > not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
> > George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
> > term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
> > developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.

>
> > Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
> > transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
> > greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
> > said.

>
> > Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
> > imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
> > surrounding states outside of the agreement.

>
> > The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
> > and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
> > by 10 percent by 2019.

>
> The weather is a perfect tool for scientists who use the media to get
> attention. I pointed out
> a good example with the hurricane hysteria of 2005:http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/hurricane2.html
>
> I just heard on the news today that there was the strongest Atlantic
> hurricane in history, and that this year had a record number of
> powerful hurricanes. In my constant quest to understand media
> distortion, I immediately set out to understand what the hidden trick
> was behind this alarming turn of events in the world climate.
>
> Here is my conclusion: These hurricanes are classed according to their
> wind speed which reaches its highest numbers when the hurricanes are
> out in the ocean. But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
> open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
> airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
> satellite.


dumbass,

since the atmosphere is in a state near balance it is possible to
infer wind speeds from pressure and temperature data, two things which
are relatively easy to measure.

> A further minute's research reveals that a complete system
> of weather satellites was first established in 1975 with the GOES
> project. In other words, recorded data on Atlantic hurricanes only
> goes back 30 years. Since other climatic effects can have a period
> extending decades, I conclude that there is insufficient historical
> data do indicate a permanent change in global climate.


Are you talking about storms or climate change in general ? There is
proxy data for land and ocean temperatures and CO2 going back
thousands of years. I have seen proxy data for paleoclimate storms as
well, but that might not be as robust.

But we can use the proxy data to simulate past climates and compare
that resulting simulation to the present climate.

Lindzen for example accepts global temperature change and I don't
think he would dispute the relative strength of CO2 forcing and solar
variation, two things which are known. His iris effect paper takes on
a less well understood part of the system. He doesn't dispute well
established results like Kunich is doing.

Lindzen and some of these others also have a problem with "alarmists",
but that's a strawman. No mainstream scientist is attributing a single
event to global warming eg: hurricane Katrina, though that angle IS
played up in the media.
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> You need to watch the weather channel more. Lots of great pictures of
> stuff I never plan to do without some gun pointed at the back of my
> head. But its great someone else will and take pictures at the same
> time...


They used to have some hot chicks too, if I recall correctly. The type you
probably wouldn't mind to have warming your globe.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Ahh, good then perhaps you can explain what this data was, how it
> pertained to the present conversation and how it was "doctored". And
> of course you do realize that you can be held liable for your
> statements?


I already explained in "The Surge" thread. I showed Lindzen's plot, where he
said he'd gotten the data, and the URLs both for the data and the document
from which the plot came. I gave the URLs so anyone could download the
document and the data and see for themselves. You took the bait and said
you'd examined the data so you should have been able to verify that the data
don't match his plot. So either he doctored the data, or he mislead his
audience about the data he was using. Neither of those two alternatives is
good.
 
Tom: Time marches on. Get with the program. Saddam's WMD program *was*
destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us look
pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished our
primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than anything
Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think otherwise).

The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't care
for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact, pretty darned
smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
 
On Feb 27, 4:24 pm, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Ahh, good then perhaps you can explain what this data was, how it
> > pertained to the present conversation and how it was "doctored". And
> > of course you do realize that you can be held liable for your
> > statements?

>
> I already explained in "The Surge" thread. I showed Lindzen's plot, where he
> said he'd gotten the data, and the URLs both for the data and the document
> from which the plot came. I gave the URLs so anyone could download the
> document and the data and see for themselves. You took the bait and said
> you'd examined the data so you should have been able to verify that the data
> don't match his plot. So either he doctored the data, or he mislead his
> audience about the data he was using. Neither of those two alternatives is
> good.


Let's see, your a working professional in the subject, you cited solid
sources to back your argument, the general argument matches the
overwhelming scientific concensus; So YOU are wrong.
Love the logic.
Bill C
 
On Feb 27, 11:04 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warmi...

>
> Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.


Please cite sources (Names, dates, convictions,etc...)for any
scientist involved in cliamatology that has been lynched by leftists
in a democracy. The world wants to know.
Bill C
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
>> statement.

>
> Out of how many thousand?


So how many do you need? Are we going to do the "reality is subject to a
majority vote" sketch again.

>
> In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
> that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
> up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
> position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
> universe).
>Some of them are very eminent smart people.
> It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
> It means rather that even people whose job it is to
> remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
> into an intellectual corner.
>


You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority position
has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
just siding with the majority?

Phil H
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 27, 11:04 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warmi...

>>
>> Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.

>
> Please cite sources (Names, dates, convictions,etc...)for any
> scientist involved in cliamatology that has been lynched by leftists
> in a democracy. The world wants to know.


Metaphorically speaking of course but there have been a few scientists
who have fallen from grace because of their beliefs on climate
change/global warming. David Bellamy is one I can think of without
having to look it up although he did make a major faux pas on polar ice
melt (which he acknowledged).

Phil H
 
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Feb 27, 11:04 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warmi...
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.

>>
>> Please cite sources (Names, dates, convictions,etc...)for any
>> scientist involved in cliamatology that has been lynched by leftists
>> in a democracy. The world wants to know.

>
> Metaphorically speaking of course but there have been a few scientists who
> have fallen from grace because of their beliefs on climate change/global
> warming. David Bellamy is one I can think of without having to look it up
> although he did make a major faux pas on polar ice melt (which he
> acknowledged).
>
> Phil H


I'm no longer surprised by how easy it is to dig a little bit and find how
little credibility the opposing scientists actually have. It's not hard to
learn whose payroll the scientists are on, or which spokespersons are on
what think tanks (American Enterprise Institute anyone?), think tanks funded
by the likes of Exxon/Mobil, or what Senate subcommittee feeding the Bush
dogma team, etc. I would love to believe climate change is a fantasy. I
wish it were. The number of credible scientists opposing human causes to
climate change are shrinking faster than... uh, the polar ice caps.

JF