"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message

While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited above
ARE facts.

Here are more for you to give some thought to:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

Take a test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:52:12 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
other sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

37%

And that is based on isotope ratios? That's not what you link said.

and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

Not that I said that ...




5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

Swingman wrote:
Take a test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

100%, first time.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Take a test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

I got 10/10 right. Thanks for the link.

-- Mark

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:

If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
get out more.

If you think it is all about a few coastal floods you need to get your head
out of the sand.

tim w

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:20:57 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:

If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
get out more.

If you think it is all about a few coastal floods you need to get your head
out of the sand.

Well, whether you like it or not that is what it's about. What do
_you_ think it's about?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

What do _you_ think it's about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

Tim w

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

What do _you_ think it's about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
stuff people find to be worried about.

In article ,
says...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...

What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
city, New Orleans LA USA.


Or half the country of Holland....

Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?

Is that one of the cataclysmic results of global warming?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:31:43 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...

What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
city, New Orleans LA USA.


Or half the country of Holland....

Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?

Is that one of the cataclysmic results of global warming?

No, that will be one of the cataclysmic events resulting from putting the
people screaming " we must do something about global warming now!" in
charge and/or acquiescing to their wishes.



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

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

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

Mark & Juanita writes:


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming".

Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
these based on a single event.

More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.

I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
hurricanes), but:

IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.

...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.

Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
with the scientific predictions.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,

That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
strawman.

the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.

Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:

- measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)

- measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)

- an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)

- measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)

- an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)

You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
. ..

What do _you_ think it's about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
stuff people find to be worried about.

So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
like Christmas for liberals.

todd

Mark & Juanita writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

OK

Actually CO2 _absorbs_ IR radiation, which can then be re-emitted
(again as IR radiation). Not quite the same as reflection.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

Well, yes. It is the ONLY way that the earth can lose energy to space
in any significant quantity. After all, we absorb an average of about 240
W/m^2 globally (from the sun), and we need to get rid of the same amount
if we want to stay in a balance. Increasing atmopsheric CO2 upsets that
balance, and requires some sort of adjustment in the earth-atmosphere
system.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
How so?

Someone pointed out the realclimate.org page. Another place to look is:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/

There is a FAQ on the atmospheric CO2 source equstion, as well as some
more general information on climate change.


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop.

Please define what you mean by "open loop".

Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.

There are limits to increased plant productivity due to increased
atmospheric CO2. There are two simple facts that are observed:

1) burning fossil fuels releases CO2 to the atmosphere. The carbon is
from a source that was originally removed millions of years ago, and we
know how much this relase is (i.e., we know the rate of fuel use, and
simple chemistry tells us how much CO2 will be produced).

2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.


The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

The many oceanographers and carbon cycle scientists that study oceanic
carbon uptake would probably diagree with you.

Or are you just refering to YOUR knowledge?

So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.


And there you have it. You've made up your mind, and it's all a plot
against you.

Gotta go: the black helicopter is here to pick me up. Don't forget to
put your tin foil hat back on!

On 26 Feb 2007 21:28:52 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming".

Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
these based on a single event.

More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.

I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
hurricanes), but:

IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.

...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.

Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
with the scientific predictions.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,

That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
strawman.

the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.

Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:

- measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)

- measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)

- an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)

- measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)

- an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)

You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?

I'm sorry, but none of those address the "anthropogenic" issue. All
of those points you make are equally consistent with a completely
natural cause.

Mark & Juanita writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87



From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
atmosphere."

How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced by
natural causes?

I don't think it is... but the CO2 released from burning forests was
originally removed (by photosynthesis) from the atmosphere fairly recently
- in the lifetime of the tree. (Carbon in the trees from uptake of soil
carbon through roots is small, and also of fairly recent origin -
probbaly a few generations of trees.)

It's the carbon from fossil fuels that hasn't take part in the cycle
for millions of years that is the problem. The natural system is used to
taking out the CO2 added from forest fires and plant, animal, and soil
respiration, and has been in rough balance for centuries. It's not
succeeding in adjusting to the extra CO2 from fossil fuels, though.

And by the way: humans also fight forest fires. I don't know offhand
whether Smokey the Bear or the careless smoker is winning, but globally
forest fires are not a large flux - general plant respiration, soil
respiration, and plant decay dominate, I think.

Other questions to ask:
"Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the
CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper making
the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
increase?

CO2 is well-mixed. Measurements from pole-to-pole and at many locations
show the same trends. Geography does play a minor role is some local
phenomena, but the trends discussed there are global. There is VERY little
wiggle room to argue that the current rise in atmopspheric CO2 is due to
something other than burning fossil fuels.

J. Clarke writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2. So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:

1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.

2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.

3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).

4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?

and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2"

Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"

and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2

A clear strawman.

while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?

Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:52:12 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global
warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating
the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
other sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

37%

And that is based on isotope ratios? That's not what you link said.

Then go with the link. Or Whatever.

"Swingman" wrote:


"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message

While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited
above ARE facts.

Here are more for you to give some thought to:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good link. I worked on a project with Schneider many, many years ago.

On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2.

So?

So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:

1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.

Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
source?

2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.

What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?

3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).

Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
identifcation of a source? This is like examining the functioning of
the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
tap or the dog.

4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)

First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
does not demonstrate this.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?

Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.

and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2"

Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"

Figured that out, did you?

and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2

A clear strawman.

To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
warming.

while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?

Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?

Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.

No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

plonk

J. Clarke writes:

[A one-liner at the bottom. Sorry for leaving so much in, but I'm
going to have to do much the same. DS]

On 26 Feb 2007 21:28:52 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming".

Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
these based on a single event.

More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.

I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
hurricanes), but:

IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.

...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.

Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
with the scientific predictions.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,

That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
strawman.

the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.

Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:

- measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)

- measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)

- an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)

- measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)

- an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)

You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?

I'm sorry, but none of those address the "anthropogenic" issue. All
of those points you make are equally consistent with a completely
natural cause.

All of those address our understanding of climate, in particlar the
role of greenhouse (IR-absorbing) gases.

There is no legitimate scientific debate that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Therefore, the only issues that remain are related to the effects of the
CO2 on climate.

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

I'll also ask the same question Bob asked when he raised the points:

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

[No, I won't have to go back to Bob for answers - I'll respond directly if
you post a followup]

in 1347747 20070227 044834 J. Clarke wrote:

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

Congratulations Mr Clarke - you just lost the argument.

In article , D Smith wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.

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

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

In article , D Smith wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.

Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation. In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.

And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic causes.

I'll also ask the same question Bob asked when he raised the points:

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

See above.

[No, I won't have to go back to Bob for answers - I'll respond directly if
you post a followup]



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

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

In article , D Smith wrote:

2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.

It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
date. Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years: it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know. I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

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

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

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
cause.

Bob

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:10:08 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 1347747 20070227 044834 J. Clarke wrote:

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

Congratulations Mr Clarke - you just lost the argument.

I see that you are not familiar with the expression plonk.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:07:18 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist for not signing Kyoto.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
newsBOEh.2656$KE2.1036@trnddc06...
"Swingman" wrote:


"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message

While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited
above ARE facts.

Here are more for you to give some thought to:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good link. I worked on a project with Schneider many, many years ago.

My sympathies ... :

Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider

"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National Center
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades. Schneider is
one of the most ardent advocates of the Global Warming Theory, the
proposition that a build-up of CO2, methane and refrigerant gases in the
atmosphere could lead to a cataclysmic rise in earth's temperature. He
joined the faculty of Stanford University in 1991.

Schneider is regularly sought-out by journalists to comment on climate
matters despite the fact that his analyses are unreliable. In the early
1970s, for example, Schneider rejected the Global Warming Theory, writing,
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in
CO2." He even went as far as to predict that a "Little Ice Age" would
occur -- It didn't. The Global Warming Theory, which Schneider currently
endorses, now also appears to be incorrect. The most recent data suggests
that the planet is in fact cooling, not warming.

Schneider's blunders are not surprising. He once commented, "Looking at
every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time... So, I don't set
very much store by looking at the direct evidence."

Selected Schneider Quotes

"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." -
Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992

"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in
CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than
two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several
thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in
Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)

"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a
scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming
there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January
23, 1989

""It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global
warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the
Boston Globe, May 31, 1992

"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very
much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington
Times, June 12, 1992

"[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Quoted
by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)"

Too damn bad you just can't be "honest".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke wrote:

And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.

//there, fixed it for you.

On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke wrote:

And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.

//there, fixed it for you.

Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
Allllbert!!!!

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....EWS01/70226055

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
cause.

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

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

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

In article , "Swingman" wrote:

Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider

"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National Center
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades.

Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies someone to be
a climate researcher...

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

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

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke wrote:

And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.

//there, fixed it for you.

Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
Allllbert!!!!

Sure! Makes perfect sense to me... that's why all the *rest* of us have to
scale back our energy usage -- so there will be more left for AlGore.

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

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

On Feb 27, 10:25 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies someone to be
a climate researcher...

--
If a IT worker or a woodworker can be one... why not?

"todd" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

What do _you_ think it's about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
stuff people find to be worried about.

So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
like Christmas for liberals.

Okay it's boring to post a web link to someon els's article instead of
replying yourself I know, so you can both be forgiven for not bothering to
read the article. the gist of it was: global warming will be a catastrophe
for the already poor regions of the earth, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa.

enough now.

Tim w

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:29:56 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Take a test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

Pretty obvious agenda on the front page:

This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore
contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good
grade in political correctness.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message

Pretty obvious agenda on the front page:

"This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore
contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good
grade in political correctness."

Only a problem if political correctness is a necessary part of your debate.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07