| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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/ |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Jerry Peters wrote:
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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: N_Cook wrote: Arfa Daily wrote in message ... "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message om... 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? I wasn't aware there was a difference? The old saying goes. "Birds of a feather flock together" |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: Jerry Peters wrote: 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? I wasn't aware there was a difference? The old saying goes. "Birds of a feather flock together" **So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that your contention? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jamie wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: Jerry Peters wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: N_Cook wrote: Arfa Daily wrote in message ... "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax .com... 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? I wasn't aware there was a difference? The old saying goes. "Birds of a feather flock together" **So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that your contention? It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma. Where do you base your information from? As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the writing is on the wall. As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than I didn't vote for him. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: Jamie wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: Jerry Peters wrote: 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? I wasn't aware there was a difference? The old saying goes. "Birds of a feather flock together" **So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that your contention? It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma. **What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US, however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest that the US voting public has much common-sense. Where do you base your information from? **On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won. As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the writing is on the wall. **You are clearly not neutral. You just accused all climatologists with the same brush. As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than I didn't vote for him. **Of course. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
On Dec 14, 5:43*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: **What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US, however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest that the US voting public has much common-sense. *Where do you base your information from? **On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won. Well, we have had deceased candidates, and animation heroes win. I live in Santa Clara County, California. On our ballots, years ago a 'temporary' tax increase of 1% sales tax was presented and approved to pay for something. I oppose tax increases of any kind because it has been shown that taxation stops what is being taxed, and worse, the money gets wasted. That tax increased passed with the overwhelming majority of 68-32, yet I NEVER met anyone who supported it. I always got the response, "Are you crazy? Why would I vote to increase taxes?" Nor, have ever seen anything pass with that kind of margin! Almost always anything on our ballots squeaks by at 55-45. So, what's going on? I don't know, but ever since that experience and having documented items removed (without record) from our safety deposit box, I don't trust anything. You may also remember when our ?? Dept. literally told the UK news media that "no one is interested in anti-Clinton information" so don't send it! Uh, I'm intereseted. Because... It is ONLY with FULL and TRUTHFUL information can a democratic society function. Whenever that is corrupted, so is the system. *As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the writing is on the wall. Yes, and the writing said, "You have been weighed, and have been found wanting." Later B was killed. Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au Just noticed, Australian address! I met your Olympic gold medalist swimmer by the name of Peter Evans from Perth? Good lad. Robert |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against 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 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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Arfa Daily wrote:
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. Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more than a grade school education in business to understand that if you support global warming, people will give you money. Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for his new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and nothing else. Geoff. * All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors, hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions. -- 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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
: Arfa Daily wrote: 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. Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more than a grade school education in business to understand that if you support global warming, people will give you money. Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for his new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and nothing else. Geoff. the Marxists are using it to garner power. "redistribution of wealth",as Obama put it. USSA,here we come. (United Socialist States of America) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote: 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 Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic. 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 Thanks. I've been following the story of the Harry Read Me file and cooked data for a while. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt It gets weirder by the day. I kinda like this article: http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/ for the quotes, and photo of the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. He's definitely been working too hard. Anyway, I've been in situations where I had to "adjust" data to conform to a pre-ordained conclusion. It's amazingly easy (see my example with the rainfall data). However, it's not a pleasant place to be in. I've also watched committees of "concerned scientists" and "industry leaders" investigate some hot topic or pound out some obscure standard. It is impossible to get them to agree on anything. Many will take and vigorously defend a minority or obscure point of view simply to get attention. It seems that research and academia are all about getting funded, getting attention, accumulating power, and the traditional publish or perish. One doesn't get those by agreeing with the majority, accepting the obvious, or conforming to convention. One gets acclaim by promoting the obscure, the weird, the odd, and the strange, which is what gets all the attention. The 2007 IPCC report had over 450 lead authors, with input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts to review the draft documents, which makes me wonder why there is suddenly a consensus. Either the danger is so obvious, no universal, and so desperate, that anyone can see the obvious (in which case we wouldn't need the IPCC) or something in the makeup and function of scientific committees has change drastically overnight. My guess(tm) is simple. If you do research that demonstrates global warming is real, you get funded. If you demonstrate that it's not real, no funding. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message ... Arfa Daily wrote: 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. Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more than a grade school education in business to understand that if you support global warming, people will give you money. Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for his new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and nothing else. Geoff. * All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors, hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions. -- 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. I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the 'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ... Arfa |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the 'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ... Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Forgot the smiley. 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. |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Arfa Daily wrote:
**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. **Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry (he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist) for decades. Plimer ignores the science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by examining the proxy data. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily" wrote: 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 Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic. **********. Plimer is making a fortune from his fictional account. The fossil fuel industry is very wealthy and pays people to lie. Here is the example of just how wealthy it is: http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news...xxon_earnings/ -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:45:50 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: **Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry (he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist) The head of the IPCC is an industrial and electrical engineer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri Out of 2500 members of the IPCC, about 100 are computer scientists, and another 100 are mathematicians. There are a substantial number of chemists, geologists, and other diciplines. Many have changed their titles to something like "environmental physical chemist" or "physical climatologist". As for Ian Plimer being a liar, you might want to reflect on the recent data massage and original data distruction from UEA. for decades. Plimer ignores the science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by examining the proxy data. Which proxy data? Dome C ice core? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ On a scale of almost a million years, 800 years looks very tiny. I couldn't say it was one way or the other. Also see sample proxy temp data graphs at: http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/ I've looked at some of the proxy data and found that I can generate almost any conclusion I want if I simply cherry pick the data that fits my conclusion. By conglomerating, rescaling, and "adjusting" combinations of the data, I can do it even easier. Here's a sample rebuttle: "The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ Despite the title and ending line in most paragraphs claiming that C02 rise precedes temperature rise, the evidence he presents doesn't seem to match the conclusions and seems (in my opinion) a rather poor job of squirming around the evidence. Several paragraphs start with something like "well the data says that CO2 leads temperature rise, but that's not true because of....". Of course, all anyone is going to remember is the title and conclusion, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote: 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. Wow 9% to 26%, and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD. Did you ever study thermodynamics? There's only a certain amount of energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed, there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from the popular press articles. Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you think they've focussed on CO2. Even the most idiotic enviro-nut realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate water vapor. As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back to a much more primitive lifestyle. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. No, I prefer climastrologists, it's a much better description of their scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed. The point is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these things have turned into advocates for one single point of view. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. Did you read the editorial? It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories. SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about being politically correct more than about science. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap? Jerry |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jamie wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: Jamie wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: Jerry Peters wrote: 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. **Points: * Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG. * I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis. * Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere. * CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. * CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing. * There is not much we can do about water vapour. * There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor. **It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect. As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist. **Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of. 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. **So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not? I wasn't aware there was a difference? The old saying goes. "Birds of a feather flock together" **So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that your contention? It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma. **What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US, however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest that the US voting public has much common-sense. Actually GWB's grades in college were about the same as Kerry's. And I wouldn't call Bush a "religious nutter", that's betraying *your* biases. The US tends to be more religious than Europe. Speaking of religious nutters, BTW, how's that large Muslim population working out for you? Where do you base your information from? **On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won. Did you actually *read* some of the CRU emails. The ones where they were discussing how to subvert peer review perhaps? Real scientists would release their data and their methods for review by others. They don't, other emails discussed how to circumvent FOI requests. It appears that their "science* cannot stand up to review, by anyone except the "in crowd". As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the writing is on the wall. **You are clearly not neutral. You just accused all climatologists with the same brush. As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than I didn't vote for him. **Of course. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter