Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
due to droughts are some of the effects.
As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?


1) Insulation: Do you know that you can save 50% of heating energy
(and money) by insulation ? Especially in
the times the financial crisis, you can make the insulation cheaper
and save the money when oil, natural gas and
coal prices are higher due to higher demand. What needs to be
insulated ? Firstly the Roof, since warmer air
goes up, then the windows (tripple glass or at least dual glass and
shutters for additional insulation at night,
and in summer time), then the outer walls. Also small cracks, leaks in
weatherstrips etc should be eliminated.
An infrared inspection of your house for heat losses would be the best
way to find out what else can be done.
A wintergarden will help heating your house additionally in winter
time.

2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
charge them during less demand ours like at night
will also save a lot of energy and money.

3) Lightning; the use of Compact fluorescent lamps instead of
traditioanl light bulbs will save 80% of energy, the
use of very new LED lamps will save even more.

4) Buying local. Most of the energy is spent for transportation of
imported goods, especially food. By buying local
made food you not only save a lot of energy, but also create more jobs
at home.

5) Heating; there are several way to save energy and money by changing
the heating method; you can use the free heat
of the nature by adding a solar thermal equipment to heat the water
for taking showers and also to heat your home.
Additionally you can use a heating pump, which funtions like a reverse
fridge; it takes the heat of the outside and
transfers it to your home. You use much much less energy to do this
(electricity to pump a liquid).

6) Your car; by buying a hybrid car you save 30% of fuel, by
converting your car to CNG (compressed natural gas) you
can save a lot of CO2, since CNG has much less carbon but more
hydrogen, which will result in water (CH4 instead of
C8H18). CNG will also result in much more energy output per mass. The
conversion is not very expensive. It is totally
save, since the storage has to resist a certain pressure.
Of course there are also other smaller things you have to consider:
- Each 60 pounds increases fuel consumption by 10%.
- Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration, and hard braking)
wastes gas. It can lower your highway gas mileage
33% and city mileage 5%.
- Drive at lowest and constant rpms; 2000 rpm are enough; you can save
up to 30%. Even a Porsche can be driven at the
4th gear at 20 mph and at the 6th gear at 50 mph with 2.5 times less
fuel consumption.
- Avoid high speeds. Driving 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, could cut
your fuel economy by 15%.
- Use air conditioning only when necessary
- Keep tires properly inflated and aligned to improve your gasoline
mileage by around 3.3%.
- Replace clogged air filters to improve gas mileage by as much as 10%
and protect your engine
- Combine errands into one trip. Several short trips, each one taken
from a cold start, can use twice as much fuel as
one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm. Do not
forget that in the first mile your car uses 8
times more fuel, in the second mile 4 times and only after the
fourth mile it becomes normal

7) Buying A++ or A+++ equipments. The extra money you pay for this
will be back in 1-2 years. It will save a lot of CO2.

8) Try to save also energy at your job; you can do it by insulation,
more efficient processes, heat recovery, more
efficient pumps/engines, low temperature processses, material
saving, water savings, optimization, automatic turning
off of unnecessary energy using processes, control if some
processes are really necessary (the change of some
processes makes other processes sometimes unnecesarry on which
nobody has thought about).

9) Solar cells for your own home; at the moment solar cells are very
cheap since there is an overproduction. These cells
can operate a fridge for example.

Regards.

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

Jerry

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:25:25 -0000, "N_Cook" put
finger to keyboard and composed:

I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.

I think people are numbed to the reality of the impending disaster.
Constant reports about projected sea level rises of x cm per decade
are relatively meaningless unless placed in a more serious context.

In 1957 a new unit of measure, the potrzebie, was introduced.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie

One potrzebie was defined as being equal to the "thickness of Mad
issue 26, or 2.263348517438173216473 mm".

Perhaps it is time for yet another new unit of measure. I propose that
we define the "catasztrophie" as being equal to the thickness of an Al
Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD case. Then perhaps when the news
reader warns us of a rise in sea levels of 6 catasztrophies within the
next 10 years, one would only need to look up from the couch and
glance at one's entertainment cabinet to immediately place the crisis
in perspective.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa



the MAJOR effect of "AGW" or "climate change" is the onerous regulation
pressed upon us.
"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:08:05 -0600, Jim Yanik put
finger to keyboard and composed:

"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.

I see global warming as a tremendous investment opportunity.

I'm betting that you can now buy several kilometres of beachfront
property in the Maldive Islands for a handful of dollars. If you're a
skeptic, then this real estate will be a bargain. What's more, if
you're a real contrarian, and you expect the oceans to recede, then
you could speculate on some property that is presently under water.

If you're in the other camp, and you zealously believe that
temperatures will rise, then now is the time to acquire great tracts
of permafrost in Greenland. You could probably snap it up for less
than America paid for Alaska.

AISI, it's a win-win opportunity. In fact I'm putting my money down
before Donald Trump gets wind of it.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.

Note: We leave it to the student to find the values of P, R and Q.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:51:17 -0500, "Charlie"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.

I wouldn't go that far, but I wonder just how much of our human
respiration is absolutely necessary.

On the one hand we have obese people contributing to global warming
via their wasteful metabolisms, while on the other hand we have
fitness zealots expending needless CO2 while running on the spot. Both
are wantonly contributing to global warming via their gluttony and
vanity.

I propose to lead by example by lying on the couch and restricting my
metabolism by means of a reduction in dietary intake, and by espousing
the philosophy of Non-Running.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On 13 dic, 22:12, "." wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the

I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.

"b" wrote in message
...
On 13 dic, 22:12, "." wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the

I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.

Nobody, or at least very few bodies, actually deny that climate change is
taking place. What is now being questioned a little more, and indeed
*should* be questioned a *lot* more, is how much of this change is actually
being caused by the activities of man. Many ill-informed people seem to
believe that the planet's climate is a fixed thing, and that any changes,
particularly those which seem to happen quickly enough to be noticeable in a
person's lifetime, can't be due to any natural causes. It is these
misconceptions that the global warming voodoomeisters play on, to whip up
the pseudo religious hysteria that we are now seeing on the subject.

In a poll carried out here in the UK this last week, more than half of the
people polled, now believe that the jury is still out on the "man-made" bit
of the global warming debate. For me, this is at least a step in the right
direction, as I seriously believe that the evangelical takeup of the subject
by the 'scientific' community is, in many instances, fuelled by business,
financial gain, and personal glory. I am pleased that the head honcho from
the University of East Anglia (probably a closed-down branch of Sainsbury's
in a former existence) and his American chum have been suspended. In my
humble opinion, both of them should have their arses righteously fired right
out of academia, along with any others involved, and never be allowed to
call themselves "scientists" again. The massaging of data, and the exclusion
of data that doesn't fit the model, is utterly despicable, and totally
inexcusable for anyone purporting to be a reputable scientist, responsible
for advising countries world-wide ...

Arfa

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Dec 14, 9:43*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."

wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. *When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. *When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. *When there's a drought, it's global warming. *When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. *When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. *Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. *The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. *Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. *We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. *Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. *Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.

Cute. I hadn't heard that one.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.

Bingo. While research papers and reports all itemize the alleged
causes and potential effects with copious numbers and statistics, the
information delivered to the general public is devoid of any real
numbers suitable for making an intelligent comparison or decision.
This is more an indictment of the publics inability to digest numbers
than an unwillingness of the proponents of global warming to supply
numbers. The result is that really important numbers get lost in the
trivia. As you note, prespective is lost.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.

Not quite that bad. About 67% of the water used in California is used
for agriculture. Until we find a way to grow crops without consuming
as much water, that's unlikely to change. Farmers in Sacramento have
been water rationed to the limit of productivity to protect the fish
in the delta where 80% of the water use is for agriculture. To
achieve minimal water use, they've gone to installing soil moisture
meters and irrigation controllers that monitor water use almost
continuously. Personal water consumption is ummmm.... a drop in the
bucket.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.

Charlie wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW.

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a break!

I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

Jerry

Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When
sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an
unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem
to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**********. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal GLOBAL
WARMING.


Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not alter the
truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy have been in use
for decades.


I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if you
have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:25:08 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science...

The problem is that it doesn't take much to generate almost any
desired result. Three years ago, I jumped in with both feet with a
simple illustration. Based upon the historical data from the local
water district rainfall data, I can conjur a hocky stick in either up
or down direction by simply changing the order of the polynomial
expansion for polynomial trend line. See stuff at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

The graph at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
shows both an upward and downward hocky stick. I waved this at the
local water district and offered to endorse either a drought or a
deluge depending on what was expedient. The water board was not happy
with me.

The original Excel spreadsheet is at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast-06.xls
Check the graph settings for other interesting effects. One gotcha. I
just noticed that the graphs only work in Microsloth Excel and don't
convert into Open Office Calc. I'll see if I can fix that and save a
version that works in OO Calc.

If you look at the 11 year moving average graph carefully,
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg
you'll see the drop in rainfall during the 1920-1935 drought.

I'm kinda amused at the new credibility that the IPCC has obtain from
organizations and individuals that have never trusted the government
to get any numbers even close to accurate in the past. Yet, when it
comes to climate predictions, the government sponsored and funded
conglomeration of like thinking scientists is beyond question.

To insure accuracy, the current statistical high fashion is to
"combine" all the various historical proxy data sets. The assumption
is that the errors will average out or cancel. Two or more wrongs
don't make a right. It's more like garbage in, and more garbage out.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
More current, predicting continued global cooling using satellite
data:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

As for C02 being the ultimate culprit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

Ok, back to bookkeeping. I needed the rant and distraction.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if
you have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

And some interesting stuff about 'those emails' and how the hockey stick
graph was produced.
Jeff L. You'll be interested in this one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...send-them.html

Arfa

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When
sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an
unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem
to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**********. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal GLOBAL
WARMING.


Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not alter the
truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy have been in use
for decades.


I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if you
have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.

What a ****head you are, responding with ad-hominum attacks when
someone disagrees with your AGW religion. As for my science education,
I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.
I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.
I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW. By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann et
al.

Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:56:50 -0500, "Charlie"
wrote:

With all due respect, you've blown it badly. See below.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.

I would receive a Nobel Prize if I could explain that. As we're
discovering, the planets climate is anything but simple. It could be
solar output
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
atmospheric insulation, changes in oceanic currents, or something we
haven't even discovered. Whatever is causing the melting, my guess is
that it's not a single cause, and humans are probably only one part of
the complex puzzle. We've had fairly recent periods that were
considerably warmer, where the rise in CO2 levels followed the
increase in temperature, not preceded it. Perhaps you're mixing cause
and effect?

It must be caused by something other than your hot air.

Much as I value your opinion, substantiation is always more
interesting reading.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

Sometimes it's worth it. Do a search on "sea level rise 5000 years" (without
the quotes) and read the short descriptions of the first page of hits.

You get everything from rates of rise, reasons why it has not risen,
explanations of how it has risen, every possible combination of result
and explanation.

It's really funny.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.



AGW is merely the latest mechanism for Marxists to seize control.
and all the fools are buying into it.

remember how the Green Party in Germany was infested with communist
agents,and was anti-nuke.
Now,Western Marxists have leapt upon AGW as the means to gain power.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim Yanik wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.



AGW is merely the latest mechanism for Marxists to seize control.
and all the fools are buying into it.

remember how the Green Party in Germany was infested with communist
agents,and was anti-nuke.
Now,Western Marxists have leapt upon AGW as the means to gain power.

Followed by the politicians and now the financial houses which see
huge profits in being the middlemen in cap and trade.

So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors, create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard. That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I think the Obama administration was too busy with the health care solution
to pay attention to my proposal. I hear they finally figured out how to
save significant money. They have figured out that they will completely
eliminate colon cancer and the costs of related treatment and testing by
reaming us all new assholes on an annual basis.

Leonard

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard.

Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

There is that.


All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases
cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our
homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve
the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or
opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather suspect
it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference
itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard.

Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to
Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating
some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

There is that.


All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have
a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases
cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our homes
to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve
the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase
will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should
be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems
with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or
opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather suspect
it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.


For an interesting analysis of the Copenhagen debacle, see

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...de-carbon.html

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're
clearly a waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the
protestors, create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference
itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third
world country from what I heard.

Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to
Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent
creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

There is that.


All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution
but the Obama administration has not been interested. We can
simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the
cases cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our
homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help
solve the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the
production and storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of
CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the
improvements in insulation will reduce home heating and cooling
requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned
problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a
trivial amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke
or Pepsi, or opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather
suspect it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.


For an interesting analysis of the Copenhagen debacle, see

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...S-Saved--trill
ion-pound-trade-carbon.html

Arfa




AGW/"climate change" is a SCAM,and the latest means of the socialists
grabbing power and getting around the US Constitution.
It's all about "wealth redistribution" and "global justice".
I note in Copenhagen,they are already arguing over who gets how much of the
money.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com