"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..

Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to 2001
of -- get this -- NOTHING! Actually, the chart indicates ground
measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations more
than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is the
margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to measure
with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global temperatures
had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased during those
two-plus decades?

Depends whether you're using the Inductive or Deductive flavor of the
Scientific Method.

http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

;-)

-- Mark

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

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.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?



Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.



Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.

First of all, read over the text above, and note that the question is
about the source of the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
it says NOTHING about global warming or temperature changes. That is a
seperate and distinct component of the overall issue, and is not
addressed in that statement.

The entire sequence of statements does carry the implication that
humans are burning fossil fuels which will have a warming effect, but that
single statement, taken only with the previous statement about atmospheric
CO2 concentration, says nothing at all about ANY sort of climate response.

So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.

In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
we disagree.

Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?

When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
for that disagreement.

One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
speak.

The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
the same data, different data, etc.

This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.


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.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?

I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
agree on.

I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.
You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and
this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
disucssion.


For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.

For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?

To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
joint in plywood, do you?




The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

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"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?

OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
on this planet?

Sheesh.

Why did you cut out the part where I answered your question?

If you seriously wanted to discuss any of this, you would have
responded to my answer, instead of cutting it and asking the same question
again, as if I hadn't answered.

What is your purpose in doing such a thing?


Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?

Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
and clarify them, and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
original miscontrued version.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.


Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.

I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.

Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
isn't much more to say.

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:


[snip]


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:

Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?

Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
planet-sized test chambers.


What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.

I guess the concept of scale doesn't have any meaning to you.


Sure it does. Do you want to tell us all what it means to you, and why
you think it makes a difference in this case?





it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know.

...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.

Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
for emphasizing it.

No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth?

I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
takes for the former to become the latter.

Wait a minute:

Are you saying that there is no lag between exposure and growth? (You
might just be saying that you didn't say there was, without asserting the
contrary.) And just what is the difference (to you) between "growth" and
"sequestering carbon". To me, it's pretty much the same - as trees get
bigger, they contain more carbon.

Your original statement (cut and paste from above) was:

the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Growth = carbon sequstration. so I STILL don't see how you come to the
conclusion that there is a time lag.

Large trees also lose branches, which is why mature trees (which
continue to photosynthesize and fix carbon) become carbon-stable (little
net change). Sure, they have lots of leaves and can do lots of
photosynthesizing, but much of that is used to replace carbon that is
being lost, so growth is negligible and carbon sequestration is
negligible.

And one more point: when looking at a landscape (i.e., carbon
sequestration over an area), it not only depends on how a single tree
behaves with age, but how many trees there are - we look at the forest,
not just the trees. In a newly forested area, often there are many small
trees, whereas at maturity a lot have died out and there are much fewer
large trees. Over an area, an intermiediate-age forest is the one with the
greatest rate of increase of mass (the most carbon sequestration).

[and this is leaving soil carbon out of the equation, which should be
included for completeness.]


What is it
about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
until later?

See above.



I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.

That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
foliated, than it is now...

Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
vegetation has adapted to the current environment.

And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.

So will we.


I hope so.

In article , D Smith wrote:
So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.

Excuse me? Look at what you wrote: "The source of that increase is human
activity."

In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
we disagree.

What part I think is due to human activity is not relevant. What's relevant is
your claim that it's *all* due to human activity. You made the assertion; now
defend it.

Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I think that.

Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?

My answer to that question is irrelevant. You asserted that the increase is
due to human activity. It's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that
assertion.

When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
for that disagreement.

One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
speak.

The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
the same data, different data, etc.

This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.

Scientists normally are prepared to defend their assertions. I'm still waiting
for you to produce evidence in support of your claim that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is due entirely to human activity.


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.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?

Why do you need to know *my* position in order to explain your own?

It's real simple: you asserted that increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases necessarily cause the climate to warm. Now defend that assertion.
Explain why it's true, despite the existence of any other factors.

I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
agree on.

You don't seem interested in spending any time giving any explanations,
lengthy or otherwise.

I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.

In my original response to you, I explicitly disagreed with one of your
assertions, and explicitly stated only partial agreement with another. And
you're still wondering where we disagree??

You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and

I've certainly concluded that global warming is principally a political
agenda. The science behind it is pretty thin, and by no means settled.

this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
disucssion.

Your unwillingness, or inability, to defend your assertions which I have
challenged is what's impeding any sort of a scientific discussion.


For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.

For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?

Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion clearly implies
the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant factors -- and that
assumption is what I'm questioning. Defend it.

To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
joint in plywood, do you?

Not relevant at all....
[major snippage]
Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
and clarify them,

What you conspicuously *haven't* done is to defend any of those assertions.

and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
original miscontrued version.

I'm asking you to defend your assertions and a priori assumptions.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.


Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.

That's pretty funny, really. If *you* were interested in discussing it, you'd
provide some foundation for your assertions. You made them. It's not up to me
to show that they're wrong, it's up to you to show that they're right.

I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.

I have explicitly stated what I disagree with, and asked you to defend it.

Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
isn't much more to say.

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.

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

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

Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

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 that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
until later.

So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
world?


That's what the next stages of negotiation are for. I don't know if
they will. I can hope that they will. There is no guarantee that they
will, but I think that it is less likely that they will if we ignore the
promises we make.


WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
not explicitly spelled out in the contract.

Agreed.


Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.

Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
countries represent?

I haven't bothered checking populations, but Europe is on board. I
think the appropriate measures are the percentage of current
high-per-capita CO2 producers and total CO2 users, rather than just
population, though.

(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
decided to not meet our targets.)

Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
first place?

Probably less noble.

Just Wondering writes:

D Smith wrote:
D Smith writes:

(Doug Miller) writes:


Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.

Found it.

http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86

Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
details.


Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING!

If you cherry-pick dates that represent an upward extreme at the start,
and a downward extreme at the end, then I can see how you would come to
that interpretation.

I wouldn't buy a used table saw from you, but I can see how you would
come to that interpretation.


Actually, the chart indicates ground
measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
5,000 years?

In the satellite record, the short period is indeed a problem, which is
decreasing with time.

Of course, statistic methods such as linear regression let you estimate
uncertainties, too, and when done properly they don't suffer the same bias
as cherry-picking individual years, as you have done.

...and when you have multiple sources of data (land-based surface
records, ocean surface records, satellite data, snow free periods,
last-snow or first-snow dates, frost free periods, leaf-out, etc.) and
they all show a consistent trend, your confidence grows.

The instrumental record only goes back a little over 100 years.
Earlier than that, you have a wide variety of proxy indicators which help
establish what sort of variation there has been. Not as good as direct
readings, but still usefull.

You may wish to look at the following for more information:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
takes for the former to become the latter.

Wait a minute:

Are you saying that there is no lag between exposure and growth? (You
might just be saying that you didn't say there was, without asserting the
contrary.) And just what is the difference (to you) between "growth" and
"sequestering carbon". To me, it's pretty much the same - as trees get
bigger, they contain more carbon.

Missed the phrase "significant ability" the first time through, didja?

Your original statement (cut and paste from above) was:

the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Growth = carbon sequstration. so I STILL don't see how you come to the
conclusion that there is a time lag.

OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.

Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.

Large trees also lose branches, which is why mature trees (which
continue to photosynthesize and fix carbon) become carbon-stable (little
net change). Sure, they have lots of leaves and can do lots of
photosynthesizing, but much of that is used to replace carbon that is
being lost, so growth is negligible and carbon sequestration is
negligible.

How is that carbon being "lost"? When a branch falls off of a tree, the carbon
it contains is *still* sequestered from the atmosphere. Likewise the leaves:
when they fall off, the carbon is no longer part of the tree, but it isn't
released into the atmosphere, either.

Looks like you have *another* unsupported [and, IMO, unsupportable] assertion
to defend now, namely the one that mature trees are carbon-stable, with
"negligible" sesquestration of atmospheric carbon. The mature oaks and maples
in my yard drop at least several hundred pounds of carbon onto the lawn every
October. That carbon's coming from somewhere -- gee, do you suppose it's the
atmosphere? -- and it's *not* being released.

And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.

So will we.

I hope so.

If we can't, then we're obviously an evolutionary failure.

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

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

Mark & Juanita writes:

On 28 Feb 2007 15:46:47 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:

On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith wrote:

... snip

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.


You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?



Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
people that got elected.

...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.

Howzatt?

Thank-you. That's perfect and provides the data point I was looking for.
You have established the position from which you are arguing. With that
worldview there is no reason for further discussion. Thanks for playing,
please stop by the lobby for your lovely parting gifts.


If you want a serious answer, ask a serious question.

On Mar 1, 11:57 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

[snip]

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.


I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.

Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?

Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?

Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?

Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
victory?

How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
****ed-up) games of words?

What is wrong with you?

r

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:57 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

[snip]

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.


I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.

Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.

Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.

Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?

You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember? You
challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.

You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
missed it.

Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
victory?

Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.

How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
****ed-up) games of words?

What is wrong with you?

Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.

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

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

On Mar 1, 12:23 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:

On Mar 1, 11:57 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

[snip]

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.

I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.

Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.



Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.



Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?

You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember? You
challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.

You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
missed it.



Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
victory?

Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.



How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
****ed-up) games of words?

What is wrong with you?

Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.

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

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

Thank you for making my point ... again.

In the art of Jujutsu, the true art is in using the power and weight
of the opponent against himself. Thank you for your help.

D Smith wrote:
Just Wondering writes:


D Smith wrote:

D Smith writes:


(Doug Miller) writes:


Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.

Found it.

http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86

Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
details.



Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING!


If you cherry-pick dates that represent an upward extreme at the start,
and a downward extreme at the end, then I can see how you would come to
that interpretation.

Well, how do wo know the maker of the chart dudn't cherry pick the start
of the chart? What if the chart started fifty years earlier, what would
it show? The fact is, the chart DOES show no change in global
temperature during the period from 1979 to 2001.

I wouldn't buy a used table saw from you,

My Delta table saw is not for sale, thank you.

but I can see how you would come to that interpretation.


It's not an interpretation, it's an observation of the reported data.


Actually, the chart indicates ground
measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
5,000 years?


In the satellite record, the short period is indeed a problem, which is
decreasing with time.

Of course, statistic methods such as linear regression let you estimate
uncertainties, too, and when done properly they don't suffer the same bias
as cherry-picking individual years, as you have done.


I wasn't the one who prepared the chart, I just made an observation of
what the chart shows.


...and when you have multiple sources of data (land-based surface
records, ocean surface records, satellite data, snow free periods,
last-snow or first-snow dates, frost free periods, leaf-out, etc.) and
they all show a consistent trend, your confidence grows.


But the chart shows ground data and satellite data having somewhat
different trends. The chart does show the overall trend for that 22
year period is flat. And I saw nothing to explain the brief upward
spike in 2002-2004. Perhaps that spike is an anomoly.


The instrumental record only goes back a little over 100 years.
Earlier than that, you have a wide variety of proxy indicators which help
establish what sort of variation there has been. Not as good as direct
readings, but still usefull.

Useful for what? Current leading edge technology only allows
interpolated guestimates about global temperatures over the last 50
years. Can anyone say with reasonable certainty that the margin of
error in these "proxy indicators" is significantly smaller than any
temperature changes interpolated from those indicators?

I'd be interested in someone imputting the available data from, say,
1850 to 1950 into the best available computer models, and comparing the
extrapolated date from those models to actual observations for
1950-2000. If the extrapolations closely matched the observed data, I'd
still like to see some scientifically proven causal relationship between
human technological activity and any changes in the observed temperature
data.


You may wish to look at the following for more information:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:23 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, "Robatoy"
wrote:

On Mar 1, 11:57 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

[snip]

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just
a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.

I have a few very simple questions for Doug Miller.

Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.



Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?

Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.



Why is it that you are never, ever wrong?

You raised that claim once before, and I shot it down in flames, remember?
You
challenged me to cite just one instance in which I'd ever admitted being
wrong. I provided you with somewhere around a dozen.

You, on the other hand, are frequently wrong. If you've ever admitted it, I
missed it.



Why is it that you have tackled just about every highly respected
intelleigent human being in this group and you have yet to score a
victory?

Well, I "scored a victory" over you -- oh, wait, wrong category.



How do you manage to suck people into your silly (albeit totally
****ed-up) games of words?

What is wrong with you?

Odd... I've been wondering the same things about you.

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

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

Thank you for making my point ... again.

In the art of Jujutsu, the true art is in using the power and weight
of the opponent against himself. Thank you for your help.

You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.

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

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

On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:

...

A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.

...

What would be the motivation? Isn't he free to buy stock in
petroleum companies, just like everyone else?

--

FF

On Feb 25, 4:38 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:



On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)

I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
comment on it.
I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
Powerpoint, but much nicer.)

I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
So...

What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
different topic. (http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm)



A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.

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

Indeed. So ignore that at look at the rise is atmospheric CO2 over
the
last fifty years. The prediction of global warming follows from the
law
of conservation of energy.

--

FF

On Feb 25, 5:33 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:

...

The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
the Oscars?
Will he wait till he gets drafted?

No.

He were going to run for office again he would avoid deep involvement
in any one issue. Single-issue candidacies are never more than
publicity stunts.

He won;t even run as a Green Party candidate as he won't want to
pull votes away from the Democrat.

--

FF

On Feb 25, 7:34 pm, "Mark Jerde" wrote:
"Tim W" wrote in message

...

In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
always changing!

Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
googling it appears the only constant is *change*!

Google for 'rate of change'.

Also Methane clathrate.

--

FF

On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:

...

A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.

...

What would be the motivation? Isn't he free to buy stock in
petroleum companies, just like everyone else?

--

FF

On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita 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.

OK

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

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?



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. 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.

Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.

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

Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
oceans.


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.

The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.

--

FF

On Feb 26, 12:16 am, Mark & Juanita 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

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?


Do you suppose that an accuurate estimation of the ratio of CO2
produced by naturally burning forests to that produced by human
burning might moot that concern?

--

FF

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:45:47 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"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.

Any time you use a statement like "political correctness" in
describing your poll you have clearly stated that you have a
particular bias. The entire paragraph I quoted is unnecessary and only
serves as a caution that if you want an unbiased survey you should
look elsewhere.

Try this version:

"This section contains sound science, not conservative political
denial, and may therefore contain material not suitable for people
trying to maintain the economic status-quo."

See, they are both equally biased, just in opposite directions. If the
poll is reasonable it doesn't need any disclaimer of that sort.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:04 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

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?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Of course, if you ship that power to the earth you will introduce as
much heat as if you just let the sun shine on the earth directly.
Energy (power) will always end up as heat. (loosely speaking)

--
"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

On Feb 26, 6:04 am, 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", ..

Indeed. It helps to have data:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en

That only covers the last 50 years.

--

FF

On Feb 26, 8:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
"Stoutman" .@. wrote in message

...

Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod

Rod,

Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.

Establish that less than a 1 degree increase in a 100 year period results in
any "unprecedented" weather phenomenon......with 365 days in the year and
thousands of locations and many variables (rain, drought, wind, storms,
hurricanes, tornadoes, high and low temps, ice, snow etc.) there are always
records being broken......and always will be. Rod

Should the rate at which they are being broken decrease as time
goes by?

--

FF

On Feb 26, 10:28 pm, D Smith wrote:

...

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

Having you heard? There is a vast cadre of mainstream scientists
who can disprove global climate change is occurring but their work
is being suppressed. No doubt the same people who suppressed
the 100 mpg carburator, proof of aliens visiting the Earth, the
automobile
engine that runs on water, and the truth behind the Kennedy
assassinations.
are responsible.

--

FF

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:05:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

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

From the article:
************
What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
ice sheets remaining stable. The West Antarctic ice sheet is thought
to be potentially unstable, and if it collapsed sea levels around the
world would rise almost 20 feet. The melting of the larger and more
stable East Antarctic ice sheet would raise Earth's sea levels another
200 feet.
***********

That 200 feet number seemed high to me, so I sat down and did a bit of
calculation. After a lot of hunting to find any sort of figures for
the amount of ice in Antarctica and various other things I settled on
just using the total area of Antarctica and the total area of all the
oceans then working backwards to find out how much ice it would take
to raise sea levels 200 feet (not quite the 220+ mentioned, but close
enough).

The world's oceans comprise roughly 139,480,000 square miles.
Antarctica is 5,405,430 square miles.

In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
it would be a *bit* more.

That works out to a layer of ice over Antarctica averaging 5,160 feet
thick, which is pretty close to the generally reported one mile (5,280
feet) average ice thickness.

So, if the edges of all the world's oceans were vertical cliffs you
could gain pretty close to 200 feet if all the ice in Antarctica were
to melt. If you factor in coastline slope, so that the surface covered
keeps expanding I doubt you will come close to that. There is a *lot*
of land that is less than 200 feet above sea level.

--
"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

In article , Tim Douglass wrote:

In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
it would be a *bit* more.

Approximately ten percent, I believe.

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

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

On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.


You are now trying to flatter yourself... anyway, back to my
questions: This time answer them, instead of the usual responses,
which are, as usual, useless.

Why is it, that perfectly normal discussions with you get sucked into
a vortex of gobbledegook, twisteroonie bafflegab?


Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.

That is not an answer, That is an evasive piece of Miller crap. I ask
the question. You answer it with a question. That's your style. All
you do is cloud the issues with bull****. You never step up to the
plate and own up to anything. This must be your entire life, to look
at everybody's point of view, find a comma somwhere and start firing
away your ****.

Why is it that perfectly intelligent attemps at having any form of
discussion with you always end the same way?


Dunno -- you might ask yourself why you have such a hard time following
discussions.

Again, same sort of low-brand, cheap sandbox-evasive bull****. I
completely understand the topics being discussed here, what I do NOT
understand is your inability to stop yourself from tossing out red
herrings and erecting strawmen, when you have no real answers. You
just shoot messengers. You have no substance.
When I see people here, one after another, all get the same treatment
from you, eventually tossing their hands in the air in total
disbelief, that makes me think that this place is full of idiots, and
you are the only sane one here?

And you think *I* need a therapist?

Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
Again?

*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
anything positive.*

r

On Mar 1, 1:36 pm, wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:33 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:



...

The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
the Oscars?
Will he wait till he gets drafted?

No.

He were going to run for office again he would avoid deep involvement
in any one issue. Single-issue candidacies are never more than
publicity stunts.

He won;t even run as a Green Party candidate as he won't want to
pull votes away from the Democrat.


That is a good point. That was one of Gore's problems in 2000, Nader,
IIRC.

"Robatoy" wrote in message

And you think *I* need a therapist?

Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
Again?

*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
anything positive.*

LOL ... took you long enough!

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

On Mar 1, 2:42 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
And you think *I* need a therapist?

Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
Again?

*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
anything positive.*

LOL ... took you long enough!


It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. EG

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


You really should see a therapist. Your obsession with me is unhealthy.


You are now trying to flatter yourself... anyway, back to my
questions: This time answer them, instead of the usual responses,
which are, as usual, useless.

I did answer them. It's not my fault you didn't like the answers.

And you think *I* need a therapist?

Yes.

Good luck, Doug, I think you're running out of people to senselessly
argue with real soon. Then what? Another nom de plume? A new alias?
Again?

*there, I feel much better now, I always do after exposing yet another
guy who likes to argue for argument's sake without ever contributing
anything positive.*

Ummm.... that would be *you*, not me...

PLONK

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , Tim Douglass
wrote:

In order to raise sea levels 200 feet you need 777,695,846,400,000,000
cubic feet of *water*. Not sure just how much ice that would be, but
it would be a *bit* more.

Approximately ten percent, I believe.

If a floating iceberg is 90% under water...

"Robatoy" wrote in message

It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. EG

Must be that dratted global warming, eh?

FWIW, it's bright sunshine and 74 degrees here in Big H.

I'll send a toast your way tonight when I'm sitting on the front porch with
a glass of pinot, swatting mosquitoes.

.... eat your heart out.

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

On Mar 1, 2:46 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

[SNIPPERECTOMY]

Ummm.... that would be *you*, not me...
no it's not
yes it is
no it's not
no it's not
yes it is
no it's not
yes it is
no it's not
yes it is
no it's not
yes it is
no it's not
yes it is




PLONK

--
Regards,
Doug Miller

Move along everybody, nothing to see here....now move along...

On Mar 1, 3:16 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
It's a slow day here. Freezing rain, snow, just totally yucky.
I had a little extra time on my hands, Sorry 'bout that. EG

Must be that dratted global warming, eh?

FWIW, it's bright sunshine and 74 degrees here in Big H.

I'll send a toast your way tonight when I'm sitting on the front porch with
a glass of pinot, swatting mosquitoes.

... eat your heart out.

I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
skeeters I'm not big on.
I absolutely hate the damned things. I think I'm allergic or
something, I can swell up like Elizabeth Taylor's legs. Welts the size
of quarters. They had to cut off my wedding ring one time, was a sign
of things to come, little did I know that THAT welt would grow into
the size of some property.

The old style DEET, like 99% keeps the little sumbitches away... and
scotch helps me deal with the buzzing.

The odd time, I will hike into the bush to a lake to catch me some
bass. My favourite spot requires I walk through a 5 mile path through
swamp.. well.. I tell ya, we know a thing or two 'bout skeeters around
these parts. One time, I saw one take a sip out of a horse's ass, and
by the time that skeeter was done, the rider's legs were dragging on
the ground.

But by the time I get to that lake, the water is cool, and the bass
never wormy, and run 2 to 3 pounds, with the odd bigger one.

I have seen columns of moquitos that made a droning sound like a small
air-plane off in the distance.

Up North...yup we know North, LOL..there are skeeters with navigation
lights and registration numbers. BIG ones.

....but I have said too much...

r

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.

Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.


Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
vigorous ones. It's a wash.

On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita 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.

OK

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

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?

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. 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.

Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.

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

Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
oceans.

Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
in the atmosphere?

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.

The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.

How, exactly, does that apply?

"Robatoy" wrote in message

I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
skeeters I'm not big on.

They're not bad, yet ... but we've had a wet winter and with the warming it
is indeed looking like a banner year for 'skeeters.

Being a coonass, they don't bother me too much. The one's I was raised
around in S. Louisiana could stand flatfooted and screw a buzzard.

SWMBO, like you, is allergic to them ... must be a "Northerner" thing, as
she's from way up there in Arkansas.

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

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:06:03 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:04 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

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?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Of course, if you ship that power to the earth you will introduce as
much heat as if you just let the sun shine on the earth directly.
Energy (power) will always end up as heat. (loosely speaking)

However if the conversion to electric power takes place in space then
any waste heat due to inefficiency in that process will stay there.
This may be anything from a little to a lot depending on how the
conversion is performed.