"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

My choices are fluid and I change my position on a subject when I find
overwhelming evidence to do so.

Well, that's good.



As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the
numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions
from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

Ed, I'm a little surprised that you haven't. For nearly 4 decades,
people have been dying around the world from the bad decisions leaders
(starting in this country and going global) have made concerning the
environment. From DDT bans, to choosing coal over nuke, to the use of
ethanol. I stand with the side which would stop that, wasting
trillions on a loose "maybe". I'm for _sane_ actions. Why aren't you?

Yeah, things are rough all over. Now, how are you determining which
actions
are sane?

Logic. Got a better idea?

Your logic escapes me, Larry. In fact, I think it escapes logic. If you were
to boil your position down to a series of five statements, I'll bet you the
next right-wing book you want to buy that I can find four logical fallacies
in them. I'll spell them out in Latin or English, as you prefer.

Are we on?


We know you have a general distrust of government.

Si!


But do you have the same distrust of science?

Primarily, I trust scientists, but, yes, too many are apparently
seeking funding so they can do what they want to do. It's -they- who
have abandoned science for politics and funding.

How do you know this? Did some unhappy scientist tell you? Maybe it was the
Cato Institute? A fiction writer, perhaps?



If so, why do you believe some scientists over others?

Because of the things they have overlooked or settled for. I don't
feel that the models they're using are worthy of anything more than
predicting general trends, and I'm hesitant to go even that far from
what I've read and heard from people in the niche.

I won't ask which people, because you've already told us which "niche" it is
that you're reading. Actually, you're reading half a niche, and I think you
could save yourself a lot of money if you used your duck call and just lured
the quacks in.

I feel they're just
tools, not God's word...

So do scientists. Who told you otherwise? Your favorite book authors?

..., as some scientists feel.

How do you know this?

It's times like these
when I wish I'd kept a log of who said what, and when, so I could
present it to you. Luckily, Lomborg, Horner, and Tucker all have
pretty good reviews of all that in their books.

Are they all you read, the antis?



What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

What is it you think is wrong? The science, or the politics?

The politics presenting "bad science", e.g. Algore's movie. Also, the
use of the worst case scenarios (unfounded, usually) in combination to
create an even worse outlook which is then taken up by the media to
scare us even more.

Wasting everyone's money in the pursuit of non-issues, while people
die as a result, is wrong. Peter Huber puts that facet in context in
_Hard Green_. Highly recommended reading.

A "Manichaean sump of bad faith and Potemkin science," says Tom Gogola. I
guess that blurb didn't make it onto the book jacket, eh? d8-)

Did you like the passage in which Huber extolls the wonders of free markets
with his example of starving African children picking the undigested morsels
of corn out of human excrement? Now, THERE's a no-holds-barred
free-marketeer for you. Did he include traditional recipes?



I'm curious about something you said above, which I let pass the first
time,
but maybe it's become relevant. You seem to feel it's important that CO2
makes up only 385 ppm or so of the atmosphere. Crichton said as much in
his
book, which I recognized as evidence that he either didn't understand the
gas greenhouse effect, or he was being intentionally misleading. Do you
understand it? It's nothing like the principle on which a conventional
greenhouse operates; the physics are entirely different. The gas
greenhouse
effect was discovered around 170 years ago so it's not new science. They
have it nailed down to the level of quantum mechanics today.

I'm sure that I do not have a full understanding of the physics. I'm
relying on scientists who do and have made their similified data
available.

Could you try a partial understanding of the physics? Because if you can,
you'll see what's driven the research and how the antis are doing an end-run
around the basic science. Again, it's clear that Crichton either didn't
understand it, or he was pulling a fast one on his audience.



It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

Well, that's disputable. On one hand, the alarmists say it's a linear
thing, where x amount of increase in CO2 gives you x effect.

I have no idea where you heard that, but no climatologist worthy of the name
is going to say any such thing.

On the
other hand, the skeptics say it would take an order of magnitude more
gas to make the same incremental effect. Then we have the possibility
that CO2 is merely the indicator, not the cause. Hmmm, what to do?

What to do is to study the basics of it. You'll see what the argument is
about, and where the skeptics are simply denying the science. Again, this is
nothing new. It's been understood in principle since at least the 1920s. The
antis are just playing a shell game on you.

I'm not suggesting that you try to understand the scope and depth of
climatology. Just look at this basic, deterministic bit of physics and look
at what a mess the antis have made of the facts. You don't have to solve the
complexities, which are enormous. You don't have to engage chaos theory or
fluid dynamics. It won't solve the net-radiation equations for you. It won't
hand you a conclusion about whether we're getting hot or cold. But it will
give you a better idea about whom to trust.


Additionally, I believe the skeptics when they say that not all of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been researched fully, i.e. we weren't
measuring global water vapor way back when, and it makes up the vast
majority of the GHGs.

How can you "believe" that when you don't even know how the gas greenhouse
effect works? It isn't chaos theory. Jesus. Is this your idea of "logic"??


The discussion and "crisis" would be moot if the PTBs would simply let
everyone generate power via nuclear fusion, recycle the fuel rods,
etc. Electric cars will become the main transpo for local driving,
coal will be abandoned (removing the worst pollutant used by man
today) and everyone would live happily ever after.

What does that have to do with the science of global warming? Are you just
going to punt?


Finis.

Sheesh. d8-)

I'm good for the book, BTW, if you care to take on my challenge.

--
Ed Huntress

"Grumpy" wrote in message
. au...

snip

Ed, you have eloquently summed up the position of most right thinking (
right as in correct, not as in right wing) people. We have neither the
time or the background to evaluate the data, nor even the access to it. We
have to base our decisions on our respect for those who put the arguments.
Respect for politicians is at an all time low so their positions can be
largely discounted as being self serving or the result of instruction from
the party whip.

Thanks, Grumpy. Most of the people I really know, face-to-face, seem to feel
similarly.

Unfortunately, the evidence as I see it, tends to indicate that climate
change is a fact, and it is probably caused by an increased concentration
of carbon dioxide( and other gases such as methane) in the atmosphere.

It does look like a strong argument, considering what *is* known about the
greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, the basic idea exists in a sea of
complicated interrelationships and chaos, so the full case is over my head.

This is a result of fossil fuels being burned and retuning their carbon to
the atmosphere faster than it can be sequestered in coral rock, and the
shells of minute sea creatures which eventually become limestone.
Basically it comes as a result of too many people using too many
resources. The most useful thing we can do for future generations is
restrict their numbers by limiting ourselves to two children per family

You may have noticed that the global-population activists are on the march
again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7865332.stm

I won't try to tackle that one, especially because trends are going both
ways at once. But the declines in the developed world (Italy is the extreme
example; their birthrate is below sustainability) appear to be overwhelmed
by growth in the undeveloped world. When they get enough food, they
multiply.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity. wind is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.


You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two". its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or what?

Did you run the numbers? You are taking a position.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

Did you run the numbers? You are taking a position.

My position is that neither Larry, you, or me are up to taking a position on
the sources of global warming. When he quotes percentages of gases in the
atmosphere and the relative timing of temperature rises versus increases in
the percentage of CO2, suggesting that they mean something that leads him to
his conclusion, one might want to know how he's arrived at that conclusion.
Then, when he says he's arrived at his position by "logic" but doesn't
understand the physical principles behind the gas greenhouse effect, which
is the only relevance for bringing up the CO2 percentage, I might question
what kind of logic he's using.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:48:34 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Yeah, things are rough all over. Now, how are you determining which
actions
are sane?

Logic. Got a better idea?

Your logic escapes me, Larry. In fact, I think it escapes logic. If you were
to boil your position down to a series of five statements, I'll bet you the
next right-wing book you want to buy that I can find four logical fallacies
in them. I'll spell them out in Latin or English, as you prefer.

Are we on?

Pass. I'm just a simple masturbator while you're the master debater.



Primarily, I trust scientists, but, yes, too many are apparently
seeking funding so they can do what they want to do. It's -they- who
have abandoned science for politics and funding.

How do you know this? Did some unhappy scientist tell you? Maybe it was the
Cato Institute? A fiction writer, perhaps?

Why, I read it on the Internet, Ed. It _must_ be true!


If so, why do you believe some scientists over others?

Because of the things they have overlooked or settled for. I don't
feel that the models they're using are worthy of anything more than
predicting general trends, and I'm hesitant to go even that far from
what I've read and heard from people in the niche.

I won't ask which people, because you've already told us which "niche" it is
that you're reading. Actually, you're reading half a niche, and I think you
could save yourself a lot of money if you used your duck call and just lured
the quacks in.

I feel they're just
tools, not God's word...

So do scientists. Who told you otherwise? Your favorite book authors?

No, yours.


..., as some scientists feel.

How do you know this?

Inferences from their statements and actions.


It's times like these
when I wish I'd kept a log of who said what, and when, so I could
present it to you. Luckily, Lomborg, Horner, and Tucker all have
pretty good reviews of all that in their books.

Are they all you read, the antis?

Any more, yes. I got so fsking sick of the alarmists that I couldn't
stand it any more.


What have the Wars on X (drugs, poverty, terror, GWk, etc.) cost the
world? Entire -countries- are now opting out of the pursuit of
controlling their waste because it's too costly to get every last
ten-billionth of it according to the Gospel of the EPA and other such
idiocracies. Something about that seems wrong to me. You?

What is it you think is wrong? The science, or the politics?

The politics presenting "bad science", e.g. Algore's movie. Also, the
use of the worst case scenarios (unfounded, usually) in combination to
create an even worse outlook which is then taken up by the media to
scare us even more.

Wasting everyone's money in the pursuit of non-issues, while people
die as a result, is wrong. Peter Huber puts that facet in context in
_Hard Green_. Highly recommended reading.

A "Manichaean sump of bad faith and Potemkin science," says Tom Gogola. I
guess that blurb didn't make it onto the book jacket, eh? d8-)

Who the hell is Tom Gogola?!? Oh, I found it:
http://archive.salon.com/books/featu...een/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

By jove, I believe I dislike this Gogola character.


Did you like the passage in which Huber extolls the wonders of free markets
with his example of starving African children picking the undigested morsels
of corn out of human excrement? Now, THERE's a no-holds-barred
free-marketeer for you. Did he include traditional recipes?

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Interesting excerpt, Mr. Little.


I'm sure that I do not have a full understanding of the physics. I'm
relying on scientists who do and have made their similified data
available.

Could you try a partial understanding of the physics? Because if you can,
you'll see what's driven the research and how the antis are doing an end-run
around the basic science. Again, it's clear that Crichton either didn't
understand it, or he was pulling a fast one on his audience.

Are you confusing Crichton's fiction with his stance?


It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

Well, that's disputable. On one hand, the alarmists say it's a linear
thing, where x amount of increase in CO2 gives you x effect.

I have no idea where you heard that, but no climatologist worthy of the name
is going to say any such thing.

sigh No, of course not...


On the
other hand, the skeptics say it would take an order of magnitude more
gas to make the same incremental effect. Then we have the possibility
that CO2 is merely the indicator, not the cause. Hmmm, what to do?

What to do is to study the basics of it. You'll see what the argument is
about, and where the skeptics are simply denying the science. Again, this is
nothing new. It's been understood in principle since at least the 1920s. The
antis are just playing a shell game on you.

I got crosseyed (and got a headache after several hours) the last time
I tried to delve into it. It requires a new language before you can go
very far.

Why have they been adding so many new calculations to the models and
tweaking the existing calcs for so many years if they've know all
about it since the 20s, Ed?


I'm not suggesting that you try to understand the scope and depth of
climatology. Just look at this basic, deterministic bit of physics and look
at what a mess the antis have made of the facts. You don't have to solve the
complexities, which are enormous. You don't have to engage chaos theory or
fluid dynamics. It won't solve the net-radiation equations for you. It won't
hand you a conclusion about whether we're getting hot or cold. But it will
give you a better idea about whom to trust.

Ed, do you feel that the computer models they're working with are
running true, producing factual output which can be tracked backwards
in time for proof, and are -complete- in their scope? If so, you're
as lost as you think I am, so go ask a climatologist to run his model
for you. Let me know what you find.


Additionally, I believe the skeptics when they say that not all of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been researched fully, i.e. we weren't
measuring global water vapor way back when, and it makes up the vast
majority of the GHGs.

How can you "believe" that when you don't even know how the gas greenhouse
effect works? It isn't chaos theory. Jesus. Is this your idea of "logic"??


The discussion and "crisis" would be moot if the PTBs would simply let
everyone generate power via nuclear fusion, recycle the fuel rods,
etc. Electric cars will become the main transpo for local driving,
coal will be abandoned (removing the worst pollutant used by man
today) and everyone would live happily ever after.

What does that have to do with the science of global warming? Are you just
going to punt?

What portion of "moot" do you not understand? The alarmists say that
the massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing warming,
and the massive reduction of said injection by turning off the coal
burning will effectively reduce that by 66% (WAG)


Finis.

Sheesh. d8-)

I'm good for the book, BTW, if you care to take on my challenge.

Never mind. I'll take my punting tee home now.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:03:21 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of stuff
It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress
---------------
I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

And on and on and on.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

As long as we have had humans we have had the "yes buts," back to
the people against fire, animal husbandry and agriculture. [It's
not natural and it's dangerous...]

It is one thing to identify a problem, it is another to "yes but"
*EVERY* attempt or suggestion to solve the problem. Try asking
how much money/prestige they are making {Nobel Prize anyone} and
how "yes but" keeps their grift going. Also what these people
would do if the problem were magically solved. [I.e. on to the
next cause]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Screw the fanatics. How about the climate scientists? Are they part of
"these people"?

They're going along with it, aren't they? And you call anyone
speaking out against them fanatics, too. Lose/Lose, wot?

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with
nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity. wind
is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas
is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.


You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power
industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two".
its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

Amen.


Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

WAIT! First somebody has to explain the gas greenhouse effect itself. It's
like learning the alphabet before learning to write words.

You go first. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:17:41 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity.

....or in the ocean, liquified, as some fool now want to try. Here's
what happens: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/smother.asp


wind is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two". its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

I'm right with you on everything so far, Mark.


Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

Mum's the word.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:03:21 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of stuff
It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking
you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

--
Ed Huntress
---------------
I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

And on and on and on.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

As long as we have had humans we have had the "yes buts," back to
the people against fire, animal husbandry and agriculture. [It's
not natural and it's dangerous...]

It is one thing to identify a problem, it is another to "yes but"
*EVERY* attempt or suggestion to solve the problem. Try asking
how much money/prestige they are making {Nobel Prize anyone} and
how "yes but" keeps their grift going. Also what these people
would do if the problem were magically solved. [I.e. on to the
next cause]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Screw the fanatics. How about the climate scientists? Are they part of
"these people"?

They're going along with it, aren't they?

No, they're not. George is building a strawman. And you aren't aware of that
because all you read is the antis, as you said.

And you call anyone
speaking out against them fanatics, too. Lose/Lose, wot?

I don't call them fanatics. The people who write the popularized books
arguing against global warming are on the fringes of mainstream science or
beyond, but that doesn't make them fanatics. Surely there are a few fanatics
among them.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Mark Rand" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with
nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity. wind
is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas
is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.


You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power
industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two".
its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

Amen.


Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

WAIT! First somebody has to explain the gas greenhouse effect itself. It's
like learning the alphabet before learning to write words.

You go first. g

It ain't all that complicated in principle, the devil is in the
details which are important for precise modelling and predictions but
not for basic understanding. The gas greenhouse effect has to do with
how some gasses (CO2, water vapor, methane, etc) are transparent to
visible radiation but absorb energy from infrared radiation. The
planet is irradiated with visible light from the sun that passes right
thru these gasses. Earth is warmed by this radiation, so it
re-radiates IR as a black body. The gasses absorb this IR rather than
let it escape to space, so the warmth is retained in the atmosphere.
The complex details have to do with pressure spreading effect on
quantum absorption and the chaotic nature of convection -- which
simply means that we can't yet model the thermodynamics of our planet
and atmosphere in a deterministic fashion because things change faster
than the computer models can assimilate and simulate. FEA models
based on Napier-Stokes equations can deal with the fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics but there does not yet exist a computer that could run
such a model in anything close to real time, nevermind constructing
such a model. This will happen eventually, though not in my lifetime
nor yours and perhaps not in those of our children.

It is clear that CO2 concentraton has increased in recent times. It is
also clear that the planet is warming. What isn't clear is whether or
not there is a causitive link, since climatic changes do occur and
have occurred for other reasons. A strong correllation between
greenhouse gas concentrations and global avg temp would suggest a
connection, but the suggestion is far from a proof and the
correllation is not that strong. Therein lies the fertile ground for
argument, debate, political noise and pseudoscientific babblebull****.
You're sure right that neither you nor Larry are gonna "run the
numbers" using calculators or personal computers.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip


Wasting everyone's money in the pursuit of non-issues, while people
die as a result, is wrong. Peter Huber puts that facet in context in
_Hard Green_. Highly recommended reading.

A "Manichaean sump of bad faith and Potemkin science," says Tom Gogola. I
guess that blurb didn't make it onto the book jacket, eh? d8-)

Who the hell is Tom Gogola?!? Oh, I found it:
http://archive.salon.com/books/featu...een/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

By jove, I believe I dislike this Gogola character.

"Further on, Huber points to God's instructions to Noah to 'subdue' nature,
declaring the Judeo-Christian imperative that humanity shall ride herd over
all species. When he invokes Darwin in the next breath, Huber's relativistic
moral universe allows him to have his creator and eat him too!" -- Tom
Gogola



Did you like the passage in which Huber extolls the wonders of free
markets
with his example of starving African children picking the undigested
morsels
of corn out of human excrement? Now, THERE's a no-holds-barred
free-marketeer for you. Did he include traditional recipes?

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Interesting excerpt, Mr. Little.

Page 121, about two-thirds of the way down. No illustrations, however.



I'm sure that I do not have a full understanding of the physics. I'm
relying on scientists who do and have made their similified data
available.

Could you try a partial understanding of the physics? Because if you can,
you'll see what's driven the research and how the antis are doing an
end-run
around the basic science. Again, it's clear that Crichton either didn't
understand it, or he was pulling a fast one on his audience.

Are you confusing Crichton's fiction with his stance?

Who knows? How does one sort them out? When he writes a polemical novel with
umpty-ump references to support the technical points he presents in the
story, a list that would make the bibliographies of some professional
scientific books look like they came from high school term papers, and then
gives lectures about how global warming is a hoax -- happily signing his
books all the while -- how does one keep them seperate?


It's important because it's essential in sorting out a lot of the
propaganda. Again, do you feel that you understand it? I'm not asking
you
to
demonstrate it, only if you feel you understand the implications, for
example, of raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from, say, 270 ppm
(what
it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution) to 400 ppm, which it
will
be very shortly.

Well, that's disputable. On one hand, the alarmists say it's a linear
thing, where x amount of increase in CO2 gives you x effect.

I have no idea where you heard that, but no climatologist worthy of the
name
is going to say any such thing.

sigh No, of course not...

Even the most basic description will explain that there are positive and
negative feedbacks, and there's the little matter of the math, which is
anything but linear...unless you mean linear algebra and you're comfy with
transforms (I'm not).



On the
other hand, the skeptics say it would take an order of magnitude more
gas to make the same incremental effect. Then we have the possibility
that CO2 is merely the indicator, not the cause. Hmmm, what to do?

What to do is to study the basics of it. You'll see what the argument is
about, and where the skeptics are simply denying the science. Again, this
is
nothing new. It's been understood in principle since at least the 1920s.
The
antis are just playing a shell game on you.

I got crosseyed (and got a headache after several hours) the last time
I tried to delve into it. It requires a new language before you can go
very far.

You don't have to go very far to recognize the nature of the argument, which
is all we mortals are going to get out of it, anyway. You can skip the math
entirely. If I have some time one day I'll see if I can find something
appropriate. Maybe Mark has something.


Why have they been adding so many new calculations to the models and
tweaking the existing calcs for so many years if they've know all
about it since the 20s, Ed?

Because it's a complicated subject, and because models involving complexity
and chaos are very hard to make.



I'm not suggesting that you try to understand the scope and depth of
climatology. Just look at this basic, deterministic bit of physics and
look
at what a mess the antis have made of the facts. You don't have to solve
the
complexities, which are enormous. You don't have to engage chaos theory or
fluid dynamics. It won't solve the net-radiation equations for you. It
won't
hand you a conclusion about whether we're getting hot or cold. But it will
give you a better idea about whom to trust.

Ed, do you feel that the computer models they're working with are
running true, producing factual output which can be tracked backwards
in time for proof, and are -complete- in their scope?

It's not something about which I'd trust a "feeling," but it's unlikely the
models will be complete for a long time to come, if ever, in the sense
you're suggesting. The question, if you think models are something worth
contemplating, is how reliable the current predictive models are. And for
you and me, that's a matter of faith, or lack of it, in the sources we're
reading.

If so, you're
as lost as you think I am, so go ask a climatologist to run his model
for you. Let me know what you find.

I think you're letting too much rest on models.



Additionally, I believe the skeptics when they say that not all of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been researched fully, i.e. we weren't
measuring global water vapor way back when, and it makes up the vast
majority of the GHGs.

How can you "believe" that when you don't even know how the gas greenhouse
effect works? It isn't chaos theory. Jesus. Is this your idea of "logic"??


The discussion and "crisis" would be moot if the PTBs would simply let
everyone generate power via nuclear fusion, recycle the fuel rods,
etc. Electric cars will become the main transpo for local driving,
coal will be abandoned (removing the worst pollutant used by man
today) and everyone would live happily ever after.

What does that have to do with the science of global warming? Are you just
going to punt?

What portion of "moot" do you not understand?

Regardless of what short-term fixes we may accomplish, the subject will
never be moot.

The alarmists say that
the massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing warming,
and the massive reduction of said injection by turning off the coal
burning will effectively reduce that by 66% (WAG)

Notice that we started going around in circles when you reached for the
technical evidence. I warned you. d8-)

So, we're right back where we started, with the conclusion that the only
basis we non-specialists have for judging this whole thing is which
scientists we believe. In terms of making decisions, I'm more than 50% with
the mainstream; over the tipping point, if I have to vote or do anything at
all about it. You're not. End of story, I think.

--
Ed Huntress

"I'd rather die hugging a tree than humping a stump." -- Tom Gogola

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:23:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Mark Rand" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and
develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with
nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity. wind
is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas
is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.


You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power
industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two".
its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

Amen.


Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

WAIT! First somebody has to explain the gas greenhouse effect itself. It's
like learning the alphabet before learning to write words.

You go first. g

It ain't all that complicated in principle, the devil is in the
details which are important for precise modelling and predictions but
not for basic understanding. The gas greenhouse effect has to do with
how some gasses (CO2, water vapor, methane, etc) are transparent to
visible radiation but absorb energy from infrared radiation. The
planet is irradiated with visible light from the sun that passes right
thru these gasses. Earth is warmed by this radiation, so it
re-radiates IR as a black body. The gasses absorb this IR rather than
let it escape to space, so the warmth is retained in the atmosphere.
The complex details have to do with pressure spreading effect on
quantum absorption and the chaotic nature of convection -- which
simply means that we can't yet model the thermodynamics of our planet
and atmosphere in a deterministic fashion because things change faster
than the computer models can assimilate and simulate. FEA models
based on Napier-Stokes equations can deal with the fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics but there does not yet exist a computer that could run
such a model in anything close to real time, nevermind constructing
such a model. This will happen eventually, though not in my lifetime
nor yours and perhaps not in those of our children.

It is clear that CO2 concentraton has increased in recent times. It is
also clear that the planet is warming. What isn't clear is whether or
not there is a causitive link, since climatic changes do occur and
have occurred for other reasons. A strong correllation between
greenhouse gas concentrations and global avg temp would suggest a
connection, but the suggestion is far from a proof and the
correllation is not that strong. Therein lies the fertile ground for
argument, debate, political noise and pseudoscientific babblebull****.
You're sure right that neither you nor Larry are gonna "run the
numbers" using calculators or personal computers.





One side claims warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases
Another side claims greenhouse gases are caused by increased warming.

Since CO2 tends to show up AFTER warming events, not before.....

Anyone notice that if you let a soft drink, cold from the fridge, sit
for a while..as it warms..the CO2 starts bubbling out more and more?

according to the GWKs....its the CO2 bubbling out that makes the drink
warm up. Despite the laws of thermodynamics and expanding gases....

Gunner

"Not so old as to need virgins to excite him,
nor old enough to have the patience to teach one."

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:39:23 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or
what?

Did you run the numbers? You are taking a position.

My position is that neither Larry, you, or me are up to taking a position on
the sources of global warming. When he quotes percentages of gases in the
atmosphere and the relative timing of temperature rises versus increases in
the percentage of CO2, suggesting that they mean something that leads him to
his conclusion, one might want to know how he's arrived at that conclusion.
Then, when he says he's arrived at his position by "logic" but doesn't
understand the physical principles behind the gas greenhouse effect, which
is the only relevance for bringing up the CO2 percentage, I might question
what kind of logic he's using.

Thank you, Ed.


d8-)

Doesn't make it better. End of discussion.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:13:33 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:23:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:




It is clear that CO2 concentraton has increased in recent times. It is
also clear that the planet is warming. What isn't clear is whether or
not there is a causitive link, since climatic changes do occur and
have occurred for other reasons. A strong correllation between
greenhouse gas concentrations and global avg temp would suggest a
connection, but the suggestion is far from a proof and the
correllation is not that strong. Therein lies the fertile ground for
argument, debate, political noise and pseudoscientific babblebull****.
You're sure right that neither you nor Larry are gonna "run the
numbers" using calculators or personal computers.





One side claims warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases
Another side claims greenhouse gases are caused by increased warming.

Since CO2 tends to show up AFTER warming events, not before.....

That's the "positive feedback" that Mark Rand alludes to. It's even
more true of water vapor: as things get warmer more water is
vaporized, etc etc.