"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On 30 Jun 2005 15:04:28 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus
wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.

VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2

Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?

FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6

I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.

So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.

That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have
no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they
used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world
conditions.

71 km = 44 miles

Sorta makes you wonder?

Prometheus wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:04:45 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Prometheus" wrote in message
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6

I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.


That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
30 on all highway

I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much
larger fraction in comparison...

HP is not extremely high (I want to say it's 180 off the top of my
head, but that could be wrong), but it is pretty zippy- 0-60 in 7.2
seconds, which is enough for me. Engine is a 2.0L Mazda.

If it's that high, I agree the drop ascribed is excessive due to
compressor load...

In article , says...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb wrote:

Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
overfishing.

In places.

Perhaps you could list the places in which they are abundant?


Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting,

Just as they've been doing for millions of years,

From pollution?


and the very atmosphere
is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.

Cite, please?

You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on
this. However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up.
By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the
percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.


The
reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,

And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?

What's destroying the ozone layer, Dave?


and
nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.

Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.

Oh good - ignorance is bliss.

I don't know why asthma has greatly increased over the last few decades
either, but I sure would like to.

I'm never sure with you Dave, whether your really believe your positions
or you're just yanking my chain. But in either case, some may take your
views as stated, so I felt I shoud respond. But this is the end of it
for me. You can have the last words, mistaken though they be.

BTW, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Duane Bozarth wrote:
wrote:


Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.

I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
whole plant, rather than just the kernals?

No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
largely used up.

I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
part of the combine.

....


As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
nuclear which should be the predominant form of central station
generation.

How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?


When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed
by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted
at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.

--

FF

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:45 -0500, Prometheus
wrote:

In article ,
says...
As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
*one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
industrialized nation.

Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan.

More a Steve Malloy fan www.junkscience.com

Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but
I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live.
I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but
it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go
watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a
bit already.

Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global
climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has
never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is
due to human causes.

There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
us doing it sure can.


Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.

The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile,
it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live.
That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may
not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make
a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're
still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
happening and working towards a reasonable solution.

I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other
reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident
extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will
settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and
desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for
everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain
their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving
appropriately).




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.

Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I filled
up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math led
to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there!

In article 7mBxe.4128$kM5.1510@trndny05, "Tim and Steph" wrote:
Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I filled
up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math led
to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there!

Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone could do
that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
wrote:


Ethanol is better deal to date...

Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.

Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.

I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
whole plant, rather than just the kernals?

No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
largely used up.

I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
part of the combine.

...

It isn't "squeezed", it's fermented (in essence). It also is required
simply for logistics--to have a continuous process, one must have
feedstock continuously--harvest comes only in a short period.


As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
nuclear which should be the predominant form of central station
generation.

How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?

When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed
by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted
at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.

OTTOMH I'm not sure of the total fraction but it is now a measurable
fraction--the Clinton/Gore-era paranoia against coal caused a shift to
natural gas. Plus, siting issues made any other construction extremely
difficult and so there was a plethora of gas-fired turbines installed
for fast reserve generation and a lot of these then ended up as being
needed.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone
could do
that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.


How do the new speedometer/odometers work? Same computer as the engine
perhaps? I know I can push a button and instantly change all the gauges
from English to metric and the speedometer needle pops right up to the new
number. .

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article 7mBxe.4128$kM5.1510@trndny05, "Tim and Steph"
wrote:
Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I
filled
up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math
led
to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there!

Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone
could do
that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Nope - I'm guessin' either the speedo cable got smashed in the swap, or it's
just a freak coinky-dink and the speed sensor's going south. Kinda fun
watching the needle waving between 60 and 100 when you're going 40, though.
"Woohoo! We're flyin' now!"

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:45 -0500, Prometheus
wrote:

...

More a Steve Malloy fan www.junkscience.com

Splorf! I 'discoverd' Malloy back when I was working support for
one of the TOMS missions. At the time he was 'debunking' ozone
studies published in peer-reviewed journals citing letters to
the editors from newspapers.

'Just scientist' he is, no doubt of that.

....

Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global
climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has
never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is
due to human causes.

This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

....


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.

--

FF

On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


.... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept. Deconvolve any other potential causes for the
evidence so cited such as cyclical rain cycles and other climate phenomena.
Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were. In the
past, peer reviewed journals meant that the peer reviewers questioned
assumptions, required substantiating experiments and repeatability in
measurements. This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.
Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb wrote:

Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
overfishing.

In places.

Yes, the places where those fish live. The stocks of tuna, for
example,
remeain undiminished in parts of the ocieans where tuna do not live.



and the very atmosphere
is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.

Cite, please?

Google is your friend.


The
reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,

And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?


Google clorinated hydrocarbon.

and
nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.

Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.

Not likely any of the above will shorten your life. I assume
you don't care about anything beyond your demise.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.

...
Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were.

Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty
much what they always were, eh?

... This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.

You can show this some way?

Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.


Non sequitor.

Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if
you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect
on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude
and direction of the cumulative global effects.

--

FF

Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
us doing it sure can.


Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.

In article ,
says...
Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.

I think that the scientific community is pretty heavily (95% vs 5% ??)
on the side of human causation of at least a great deal of the global
warming.

But you're right, there is no absolute proof. But can we afford to wait
till there is?

And it is pretty well established that human produced CFCs are
responsible for the loss of some of the protective ozone layer. That's
pretty global :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend. Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.

...
Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were.

Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty
much what they always were, eh?

... This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.

You can show this some way?


Yes, but it wouldn't be worth it, would it?


Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.


Non sequitor.

Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if
you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect
on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude
and direction of the cumulative global effects.

Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob wrote:

Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.


I believe that in some of my other postings I indicated that there is no
doubt that one can screw up one's local environment and that conclusive
evidence for this exists.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
us doing it sure can.


Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob wrote:

Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.


If, on the other hand, we allowed the forests to burn once in a while, like
they did of old, we'd sweeten those granite-bottomed lakes. Instead we have
acid pine needles and black water.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't
think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic
would not seem to be your strong point.

....


Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".

Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from
statistics
and what sorts are not?

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't
think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic
would not seem to be your strong point.

....


Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".

Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from
statistics
and what sorts are not?

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob wrote:

Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.


I believe that in some of my other postings I indicated that there is no
doubt that one can screw up one's local environment and that conclusive
evidence for this exists.

I believe you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that
acid rain produced by polution local to the rainfall in question.

If I am mistaken about this, please elaborate a bit on what
you think is causing acidic rain in the Northeastern US.

-- FF

George wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob wrote:

Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.


If, on the other hand, we allowed the forests to burn once in a while, like
they did of old, we'd sweeten those granite-bottomed lakes. Instead we have
acid pine needles and black water.

1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.

2) Much of the forst surrounding the lakes to which OP referred is
Deciduous.

But I do agree that more of the forest should be left for Mother
Nature to manage. But she does have a lot of management tools
besides fire.

--

FF

"lgb" wrote in message
...
and the very atmosphere
is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.

Cite, please?

You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on
this. However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up.
By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the
percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.

Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up. But don't
worry...I've done your work for you and found a report of falling oxygen
levels. Apparently, an Australian study
(http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm) from 1999 measured
the atmospheric oxygen change over a 20-year period to be (are you sitting
down) 0.03%. One wonders the amount of error contained in that calculation
and if it has any application outside of the Cape Grim Baseline Air
Pollution Station in Tasmania. I know this will be difficult for the
Chicken Little society to comprehend, but CO2 input is not the only variable
in the atmospheric gas equation. It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing something
called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.

But hey, don't the let the absence of your ability to locate a fact keep you
(and "almost everyone" else) from believing it.

todd

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

My first response was snide and I've deleted it.

What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."

A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.

So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.


Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.

A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
chart itself.

One example is found he

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...4/wca_24c.html

The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
that.

It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
..5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
..3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
to what they are in the more recent data.

So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?

What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?

"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").

The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
origin, that is arbitrary.

IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."

If it is your intent to make another point, that point is lost
on me.


Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".

Maybe.

But people who use statistics know that statistics cannot answer
yes/no questions nor tell you how large an effect there is.

Statistics can only estomate the probability that the true
value of some measurable lies within some arbitrary amount from
a specific value.

That seems to frustrate a lot of people but Nature doesn't really
care.

--

FF

Todd Fatheree wrote:
,,,
(http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm) from 1999 measured
the atmospheric oxygen change over a 20-year period to be (are you sitting
down) 0.03%. One wonders the amount of error contained in that calculation
and if it has any application outside of the Cape Grim Baseline Air
Pollution Station in Tasmania. ...

One supposes that if the online article was based on published papers
the error you wonder about will be estimated therein.

I think the longest running record of direct measurement of atmospheric

CO2 is from teh Mauna Loa observatory. Here is one paper addressing
it:

Thoning, K.W., P.P. Tans and W.D. Komhyr. 1989. Atmospheric carbon
dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, 2, Analysis of the NOAA/GMCC data,
1974 - 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 8549-8565.

--

FF

On 3 Jul 2005 20:51:22 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


.... snip


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

My first response was snide and I've deleted it.

What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."

A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.

So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.


Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.

A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
chart itself.

One example is found he

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...4/wca_24c.html

The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
that.


You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
only the past several years. The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart. The numbers below
zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.


It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
to what they are in the more recent data.


Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
hysterics and border on fraud. The blue and red lines are those focused
upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.
Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
measurements is a fool's errand.


So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?


That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.



What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?

"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").


Oh please, let's not play games with semantics, you know darned well what
I meant, i.e. that the error bars shown are at best 0.5C, the attempt to
show increments of less than 0.1C are simply ludicrous. Substitute
"represented", or "reported" for "pegged" if that makes you feel any
better.


The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
origin, that is arbitrary.

IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."


Take a closer look a the graph, the numbers for the era before the
thermometer was invented are being estimated based upon tree ring
measurements, ice core samples and historical records (i.e, some current
era literati writing, "dang, it's cold this winter!" or "We had to order 5
more pairs of longjohns this winter"). Now, look at the blue lines, look
at the zero reference line, this graph is trying to tell you that global
average temperature was moving around 0.2 to 0.5C below the global average
reference line.


If it is your intent to make another point, that point is lost
on me.



The point is that this is the kind of evidence that is "widely accepted"
and "peer reviewed" and critically acclaimed as showing the coming
environmental disaster that is global warming. It is also the kind of
evidence to which people are referring when they say, "it has been proven
that global warming is occuring."



.... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article ,
says...
It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing something
called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.

That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
lights go out and off when the lights go on.

It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.

Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
be pretty much a wash.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article ,
says...
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if
you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for
yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:


--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.


In article ,
says...
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk,
but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However,
look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...s/carbon3.html
http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/24.../story.10.html
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectur...r96/page3.html

And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
that prove I'm wrong.

Here's some more unsupported assertions:

1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat.
2. The earth circles the sun, not the other way around.
3. We really did land on the moon, it wasn't a Hollywood set.
4. There really are people deluded enough to argue against the above.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing
something
called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.

That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
lights go out and off when the lights go on.

What this proves is that your aquarium is a poor model of the earth. On the
earth, there are more plants available during the summer months and at
latitudes closer to the equator. Therefore, there is a small net effect of
positive O2 creation.

It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.

Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
be pretty much a wash.

So, according to your analysis, we can take the evergreens out of the
equation, which leaves a net positive effect on O2 from deciduous trees.

todd

"lgb" wrote in message
...
Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.


In article ,
says...
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk,
but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However,
look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...s/carbon3.html
http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/24.../story.10.html
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectur...r96/page3.html

And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
that prove I'm wrong.

In your own words, you "couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read
on this".

Actually, I was more interested in the assertion that atmospheric O2 was
falling. As it turns out, although you won't find this cited in any of the
links above, O2 is falling at a rate of about 2ppm/year.
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm). [see how easy it
is to provide cites?]. I don't think that it's a "widely known fact" that
O2 levels are decreasing. I'd say that many people probably know that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but that doesn't automatically mean to the
average person that O2 goes down. And by the way, according to the author
of the artlicle I referenced, decreasing O2 is never going to be a problem.

And just so we're clear, I don't dispute that CO2 is rising. I've just
never heard that there was the same level of concern with atmospheric O2.

Here's some more unsupported assertions:

1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat.

Technically, the earth is shaped like an oblate spheroid.

todd

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing
something
called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.

That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
lights go out and off when the lights go on.

It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.

Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
be pretty much a wash.


You a _woodworker_? What the hell do you think wood is made of?

Make something out of a rainforest tree and pull it out of the carbon cycle.
Boycott it and let it burn....

wrote in message
ups.com...
1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.

Well, you might want to check on those Amerinds. They saw the value of a
meadow in feeding large ungulates which fed them.

You must have gone to other places in the uplands than I. There the
combination of latitude and altitude gave a boreal forest. Or peat bogs,
which is pretty acid.

On 7/4/2005 4:28 AM Todd Fatheree mumbled something about the following:
"lgb" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing

something

called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.


That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
lights go out and off when the lights go on.


What this proves is that your aquarium is a poor model of the earth. On the
earth, there are more plants available during the summer months and at
latitudes closer to the equator. Therefore, there is a small net effect of
positive O2 creation.


It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.

Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
be pretty much a wash.


So, according to your analysis, we can take the evergreens out of the
equation, which leaves a net positive effect on O2 from deciduous trees.

todd


Not only that, he's dead wrong about the process.

There are two parts to photosynthesis:

The Light Reaction happens in the thylakoid membrane and converts light
energy to chemical energy. This chemical reaction must, therefore, take
place in the light. Chlorophyll and several other pigments such as
beta-carotene are organized in clusters in the thylakoid membrane and
are involved in the light reaction. Each of these differently-colored
pigments can absorb a slightly different color of light and pass its
energy to the central chlorphyll molecule to do photosynthesis. The
central part of the chemical structure of a chlorophyll molecule is a
porphyrin ring, which consists of several fused rings of carbon and
nitrogen with a magnesium ion in the center.

The energy harvested via the light reaction is stored by forming a
chemical called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a compound used by cells
for energy storage. This chemical is made of the nucleotide adenine
bonded to a ribose sugar, and that is bonded to three phosphate groups.
This molecule is very similar to the building blocks for our DNA.

The Dark Reaction takes place in the stroma within the chloroplast, and
converts CO2 to sugar. This reaction doesn't directly need light in
order to occur, but it does need the products of the light reaction (ATP
and another chemical called NADPH). The dark reaction involves a cycle
called the Calvin cycle in which CO2 and energy from ATP are used to
form sugar. Actually, notice that the first product of photosynthesis is
a three-carbon compound called glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. Almost
immediately, two of these join to form a glucose molecule.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:12:43 -0600, lgb wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
says...
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if
you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for
yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:




Dang, just think if the world switched completely over to Hydrogen powered
autos. The emissions from their tailpipes is a far more potent "green house"
gas than CO2 is....


-Bruce

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:57:35 -0700, the opaque Mark & Juanita
clearly wrote:

FF said:
One example is found he

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...4/wca_24c.html

The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
that.

You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
only the past several years. The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart. The numbers below
zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.


It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
to what they are in the more recent data.

Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
hysterics and border on fraud. The blue and red lines are those focused
upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.

Fraud, misreading, hysteria = the Greens.


Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
measurements is a fool's errand.

That's what the Chicken Littles ARE, Mark. g


So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?


That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.

"How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
we have ANY data for.)



The point is that this is the kind of evidence that is "widely accepted"
and "peer reviewed" and critically acclaimed as showing the coming
environmental disaster that is global warming. It is also the kind of
evidence to which people are referring when they say, "it has been proven
that global warming is occuring."

The peers should be reviewed accordingly, wot?

Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
"State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!



---
Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
---
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

George wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.

Well, you might want to check on those Amerinds. They saw the value of a
meadow in feeding large ungulates which fed them.

Indeed. But those were small localized fires. Drought is rare
in the East. Shade from the canopy kept temperatures on the
forest floor humidity high and suppressed understory growth
so that dead wood on the ground went from green timber to a
sopping wet sponge usually without passing through a stage of
ydryness that would promote fire.

An area recently denuded by an ice storm would allow the sun in
to dry the fallen wood and allow the understory to grow


You must have gone to other places in the uplands than I. There the
combination of latitude and altitude gave a boreal forest. Or peat bogs,
which is pretty acid.

Yes, it would take a lot of potash to neutralize a peat bog.

Don't know where the uplands are, but have spent a fair bit of time
in New England. The conifers there are mostly at the highest
elevations, while down near the lakes decidious trees are more common.
Deciduous trees also seem to be faster to colonize open space.
Almost of the wooded land East of the Mississippi is second growth
dating back to the early 20th century.

Were it not for silviculture, there would be a LOT fewer conifers in
the Eastern US.

I'm not clear on where the uplands are.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 20:51:22 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.

My first response was snide and I've deleted it.

What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."

A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.

So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.


Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.

A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
chart itself.

One example is found he

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...4/wca_24c.html

The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
that.


You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
only the past several years.

Have you found anything written about the chart by the persons who
(allegedly) created it?

The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart.

The choice of origin is still as arbitrary
as it was when DesCartes introduced (or popularized) x-yplots.
E.g. they could have used 0 degrees C as their origin, the inter-
pretation would be the same, though John McCain would need stilts
or a very long pointer when using the chart.

The numbers below
zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.

"Intended to cause alarm?" That implies MOTIVE. Can you show that
the shart was drawn that way "to cause alarm" rather than to
conform to the data?



It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
to what they are in the more recent data.


Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
hysterics and border on fraud.

How so?

Planning for the future should be based on predictions for the future
from Climate models that are validated by close fits to historical
data. You can't extrapolate by 'looking at' a plot, for any but the
simplest of linear models. I don't think climate models fall into
that category so I don't see how the chart in question fits into
the scientific debate.

The blue and red lines are those focused
upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.
Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
measurements is a fool's errand.

That does't make any sense. How well the data fit the model over
the period of observation how one tests validity of a model. Not
how noisy it 'looks'. Very seldom can one look at a plot of real
world data and see somethign meaningful. The question one
needs to ask as a first step to deterimining the predictive value
of the model in question is how well it fits the data.

As you know, mathematically valid results may be extracted from data
that to the human eye, appear to be randomly distributed, even as
the human eye may 'see' trends in data where mathematics tells us
there are none.



So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?


That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
degree of skepticism should focus upon.

As you know, whether or not the estimated uncertainties in the data
are correct can be objectively tested. So, have they been?

The second is the deltas that are
being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.

I do not see that the chart extrapolates any deltas anywhere.
The charts shows mean temperatures (still undefined) vs time.
As you know the standard deviation of a mean is inversely
proportionate to the square root of the number of observations
The size of the statistically correct error bars on any 'average'
can be made arbitrarily small simply by gathering enough
data.



What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?

"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").


Oh please, let's not play games with semantics, you know darned well what
I meant,

Please do not lie about me. I am not playing games with semantics.
In Mathematics and Science words are carefully defined so as to
facilitate communication. When someone starts thowing them around
without regard to those defintions communincation is obstructed.

i.e. that the error bars shown are at best 0.5C, the attempt to
show increments of less than 0.1C are simply ludicrous.

If you claim the errors are underestimated, what is your basis?
Are his chi squares too small? Also consider that we are only
GUESSING that those are error bars and even if we are, we do not
know for what confidence interval. Still if you show your
arithmetic, I'll check it out.

Are you SERIOUSLY objecting to the _tic spacing_ on the vertical
axis? If so, you'd better be tough that is just as arbitrary as the
choice of origin.

BTW, by 'arbitrary' I mean 'has no effect on interpretation',
hence my comment regarding toughness.

Substitute
"represented", or "reported" for "pegged" if that makes you feel any
better.

None of them do. Please explain what you mean, rather than play
games with semantics. Do you accuse the author of understimating
the uncertainty in his data? If so, show your evidence.


The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
origin, that is arbitrary.

IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."


Take a closer look a the graph, the numbers for the era before the
thermometer was invented are being estimated based upon tree ring
measurements, ice core samples and historical records (i.e, some current
era literati writing, "dang, it's cold this winter!" or "We had to order 5
more pairs of longjohns this winter"). Now, look at the blue lines, look
at the zero reference line, this graph is trying to tell you that global
average temperature was moving around 0.2 to 0.5C below the global average
reference line.

The chart is not a claim by anyone "that by measuring tree ring size,
one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths
of a degree." THAT is obvious, just by looking at it. We don't
even know what each 'point' being plotted actually represents. It
is possible that each point on the chart is actually extracted from
its own database each with a large number of observations. As you
know the variance decreases in inverse proportion to the number of
data points. E.g. the chart may represent a so-called 'meta'
study, a examination of an ensemble of other persons' resuults,
treating their conclusions as data.

Why don't we know these things? Well for starters, we haven't
yet found anything written about this chart by the author, have
we?

I also don't believe any scientist basing predictions on future
climate on THAT chart. That's not the way scientist make pre-
dictions, especially about the future. That the chart gets
presented a lot, does not mean that anyone who knows a burro
from a burrow actually uses it for anything other than illustrative
purposes.

Do you claim that the chart is a fake, not supported by data?

If so, what is your evidence?

--

FF

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:57:35 -0700, the opaque Mark & Juanita
clearly wrote:

.....

That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.

"How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
we have ANY data for.)

SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the

same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.

....


Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
"State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!

Fiction or non-Fiction?

---
Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
---

Daring advice! Let us know how that works out for you, unless they
take your internet access away ...

--

FF