Enuf said.

On Mar 5, 9:15 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
Enuf said.

The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are up about 100 ppm since the
onset of the Industrial Revolution is not a matter of faith. I'm not
sure why you would confuse it as such....

Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are proportional
to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This strongly suggests a
cause OTHER than humankind.

Increased CO2 levels are the RESULT of the rising seawater temps, not the
cause.

Finally, much of the atmospheric warming measured during the Industrial
Revolution was caused by the end of the mini-ice age that existed in the
Northern Hemisphere from the time of the Dark Ages to around 1900AD.


"Jeff" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 5, 9:15 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
Enuf said.

The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are up about 100 ppm since the
onset of the Industrial Revolution is not a matter of faith. I'm not
sure why you would confuse it as such....

On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman" wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are proportional
to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This strongly suggests a
cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist from
Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support the
general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a strong
(negative) correllation between between global warming and flintlock
musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the climate with more
muskets.


Increased CO2 levels are the RESULT of the rising seawater temps, not the
cause.

A warmer ocean absorbs less CO2 but the mere capitalization of the
word "result" hardly establishes causation. Perhaps unwittingly you've
stumbled upon the perplexity of modeling climate change. While most
climatologists agree that human activitiy has contributed to global
warming, they are unable to find consensus as to the degree of the
problem. The difficult lies in resut loops like the one you've
mentioned above - which is, unfortunately, a negative one - a warmer
ocean absorbs less carbon dioxide. A good model will account for all
result loops: warmer soil emits more CO2 than colder soil. Runoff from
one glacier may feed another. Ice cap runoff will suppress the Gulf
Stream. As white ice diminishes, so does the earth's ability to
deflect sunlight.

Again, this isn't a matter best solved by faith - as implied by the
OP. Time is necessary to hone the models needed for policy decisions.
(The answer maybe, why spend 2007 dollars when much wealthier
generation can solve the problem for less.)

"Chuck Hoffman" wrote in message
. net...
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.


No No No... Man has landed and crashed space craft on Mars. Man is
responsible for Global warming on Mars. ..... ;~)

Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman" wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist from
Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support the
general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a strong
(negative) correllation between between global warming and flintlock
musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the climate with more
muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is causing
the increase is external to the planet.

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you are
more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

It may be that there is some other explanation, and 3 years data is
hardly enough to draw conclusions about long term trends, but it is
certainly of enough interest to be worth further investigation.

Increased CO2 levels are the RESULT of the rising seawater temps,
not the cause.

A warmer ocean absorbs less CO2 but the mere capitalization of the
word "result" hardly establishes causation. Perhaps unwittingly you've
stumbled upon the perplexity of modeling climate change. While most
climatologists agree that human activitiy has contributed to global
warming, they are unable to find consensus as to the degree of the
problem. The difficult lies in resut loops like the one you've
mentioned above - which is, unfortunately, a negative one - a warmer
ocean absorbs less carbon dioxide. A good model will account for all
result loops: warmer soil emits more CO2 than colder soil. Runoff from
one glacier may feed another. Ice cap runoff will suppress the Gulf
Stream. As white ice diminishes, so does the earth's ability to
deflect sunlight.

Again, this isn't a matter best solved by faith - as implied by the
OP. Time is necessary to hone the models needed for policy decisions.
(The answer maybe, why spend 2007 dollars when much wealthier
generation can solve the problem for less.)

In 2007 we don't understand the "problem" well enough to "solve" it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Leon" wrote in message
news |
| "Chuck Hoffman" wrote in
message
|
. net...
| Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed
on Mars are
| proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures
on Earth. This
| strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.
|
|
| No No No... Man has landed and crashed space craft
on Mars. Man is
| responsible for Global warming on Mars. ..... ;~)


No, No, No! Not just man. Not just any man was
responsible for global warming on Mars. It was Ray
Bradbury and his stories. You can blame his Martians
Chronicles for global warming.

But wait, it could also have been My Favorite Martian;
Ray Walston.

Global warming might even be my fault.....I once ate a
Mars candy bar.

John Flatley
--
Do not let facts get in the way of a good discussion.
If someone's logical point is winning, revert to name
calling, obfuscation or my favorite, "show me your
data...."

John Flatley wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message
news

"Chuck Hoffman" wrote in message

. net...
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.


No No No... Man has landed and crashed space craft on Mars. Man is
responsible for Global warming on Mars. ..... ;~)


No, No, No! Not just man. Not just any man was
responsible for global warming on Mars. It was Ray
Bradbury and his stories. You can blame his Martians
Chronicles for global warming.

But wait, it could also have been My Favorite Martian;
Ray Walston.

Global warming might even be my fault.....I once ate a
Mars candy bar.

It's the Martians' revenge for invading their planet. Now _their_
global warming of course is part of their areoforming project.

John Flatley

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mar 6, 6:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman" wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist from
Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support the
general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a strong
(negative) correllation between between global warming and flintlock
musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the climate with more
muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

Of course it is.


The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is causing
the increase is external to the planet.

I find it ironic that people are convinced that a regional change on
the southern pole of the fourth rock from the sun invalidates the work
of thousands of climatologists who've pored over thousands of years of
terrestrial data points. Perhaps the OP was right after all. We're
witnessing a leap of faith.

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you are
more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

I think I made it clear that I'm willing to grant climatologists the
time necessary to piece together more comprehensive models. And I
think I've made it clear that these models are necessary to make
proper public policy decisions.

Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman"
wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist
from Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support
the general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a
strong (negative) correllation between between global warming and
flintlock musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the
climate with more muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

Of course it is.


The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is
causing the increase is external to the planet.

I find it ironic that people are convinced that a regional change on
the southern pole of the fourth rock from the sun invalidates the work
of thousands of climatologists who've pored over thousands of years of
terrestrial data points. Perhaps the OP was right after all. We're
witnessing a leap of faith.

Who is "convinced"?

Why is it so important to you to dismiss any evidence that doesn't
support your viewpoint?

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you are
more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

I think I made it clear that I'm willing to grant climatologists the
time necessary to piece together more comprehensive models. And I
think I've made it clear that these models are necessary to make
proper public policy decisions.

And yet whenever anybody points out evidence that the current models may
be flawed you resort to Alinsky's 5th rule for radicals.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mar 7, 10:11 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman"
wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist
from Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support
the general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a
strong (negative) correllation between between global warming and
flintlock musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the
climate with more muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

Of course it is.

The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is
causing the increase is external to the planet.

I find it ironic that people are convinced that a regional change on
the southern pole of the fourth rock from the sun invalidates the work
of thousands of climatologists who've pored over thousands of years of
terrestrial data points. Perhaps the OP was right after all. We're
witnessing a leap of faith.

Who is "convinced"?

Why is it so important to you to dismiss any evidence that doesn't
support your viewpoint?

My view is that climatologists have more work to do and a three year
fluctuation in the size of a frozen CO2 glacier in the southern
hemisphere of another planet isn't a datapoint I'd expect them to
include.

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you are
more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

I think I made it clear that I'm willing to grant climatologists the
time necessary to piece together more comprehensive models. And I
think I've made it clear that these models are necessary to make
proper public policy decisions.

And yet whenever anybody points out evidence that the current models may
be flawed you resort to Alinsky's 5th rule for radicals.

Well, I didn't specifically use the word "flawed" but I don't think I
could have made it clearer that climatologists have more work to do
before I'm willing to accept policy decisions based on their models.

In article .com, "Jeff" wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:11 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

My view is that climatologists have more work to do and a three year
fluctuation in the size of a frozen CO2 glacier in the southern
hemisphere of another planet isn't a datapoint I'd expect them to
include.

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect that datapoint to be included by anyone with
an a priori bias toward finding an anthropogenic cause for global warming.

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

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

Jeff wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:11 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman"
wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth.
This strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar
to earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary
scientist from Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm
inclined to support the general consensus of climatologists. We
could probably find a strong (negative) correllation between
between global warming and flintlock musket ownership but I
wouldn't expect to change the climate with more muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

Of course it is.

The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is
causing the increase is external to the planet.

I find it ironic that people are convinced that a regional change on
the southern pole of the fourth rock from the sun invalidates the
work of thousands of climatologists who've pored over thousands of
years of terrestrial data points. Perhaps the OP was right after
all. We're witnessing a leap of faith.

Who is "convinced"?

Why is it so important to you to dismiss any evidence that doesn't
support your viewpoint?

My view is that climatologists have more work to do and a three year
fluctuation in the size of a frozen CO2 glacier in the southern
hemisphere of another planet isn't a datapoint I'd expect them to
include.

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you
are more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

I think I made it clear that I'm willing to grant climatologists the
time necessary to piece together more comprehensive models. And I
think I've made it clear that these models are necessary to make
proper public policy decisions.

And yet whenever anybody points out evidence that the current models
may be flawed you resort to Alinsky's 5th rule for radicals.

Well, I didn't specifically use the word "flawed" but I don't think I
could have made it clearer that climatologists have more work to do
before I'm willing to accept policy decisions based on their models.

And yet you're ridiculing the inclusion of a data point that doesn't
support the Politically Correct viewpoint. Why is that?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mar 7, 7:16 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:11 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman"
wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth.
This strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar
to earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary
scientist from Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm
inclined to support the general consensus of climatologists. We
could probably find a strong (negative) correllation between
between global warming and flintlock musket ownership but I
wouldn't expect to change the climate with more muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

Of course it is.

The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is
causing the increase is external to the planet.

I find it ironic that people are convinced that a regional change on
the southern pole of the fourth rock from the sun invalidates the
work of thousands of climatologists who've pored over thousands of
years of terrestrial data points. Perhaps the OP was right after
all. We're witnessing a leap of faith.

Who is "convinced"?

Why is it so important to you to dismiss any evidence that doesn't
support your viewpoint?

My view is that climatologists have more work to do and a three year
fluctuation in the size of a frozen CO2 glacier in the southern
hemisphere of another planet isn't a datapoint I'd expect them to
include.

The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you
are more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

I think I made it clear that I'm willing to grant climatologists the
time necessary to piece together more comprehensive models. And I
think I've made it clear that these models are necessary to make
proper public policy decisions.

And yet whenever anybody points out evidence that the current models
may be flawed you resort to Alinsky's 5th rule for radicals.

Well, I didn't specifically use the word "flawed" but I don't think I
could have made it clearer that climatologists have more work to do
before I'm willing to accept policy decisions based on their models.

And yet you're ridiculing the inclusion of a data point that doesn't
support the Politically Correct viewpoint. Why is that?


First, we need to establish what planet you are on...

--

FF

Subject

Oh ****.

Lew

On Mar 7, 5:27 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, "Jeff" wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:11 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
My view is that climatologists have more work to do and a three year
fluctuation in the size of a frozen CO2 glacier in the southern
hemisphere of another planet isn't a datapoint I'd expect them to
include.

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect that datapoint to be included by anyone with
an a priori bias toward finding an anthropogenic cause for global warming.


More to the point I wouldn't expect it to be included in any study
concerning climate change on the Earth.

It is interesting that Mars has been warming over the last five years
despite the drop in solar irradiance over the same five years, but
the two planets are pretty different.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 4:52 pm, "Chuck Hoffman" wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are proportional
to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This strongly suggests a
cause OTHER than humankind.

Increased CO2 levels are the RESULT of the rising seawater temps, not the
cause.

Have you looked for evidence to support that?

Consider the drop in Carbon-14 abundance in the
atmosphere. A slowing of the rate of absorption
by the oceans would raise it, not lower it,
right?

(Seuss effect)

The observed 1.5 ppm/a rise in CO2 concentration
corresponds to about 6 Gtonnes/a of CO2 added
to the atmosphere in excess of that removed.

Anthropogenic CO2 is estimated to be no lower
than 6.5 Gtonnes/a.

Can you do the arithmetic?

The increase in ocean temperature has slowed the
rate at which the oceans remove CO2 from the
atmosphere. They are not the source of the CO2,
however.

Nature emits a lot more CO2 than does humanity.
But we emit enough more that nature cannot sequester
it all. The oceans are approaching saturation (much
to my surprise). At present the rate at which the
oceans are sequestering CO2 seems to be limited by
the rate of sedimentation fo carbonates, that is
solubility is not the bottleneck. If they actually do
saturate things will get very bad very quickly.


Finally, much of the atmospheric warming measured during the Industrial
Revolution was caused by the end of the mini-ice age that existed in the
Northern Hemisphere from the time of the Dark Ages to around 1900AD.


C02 is a Greenhouse gas. Increasing the
concentration of any greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect.

Can we agree on that?

CO2 is not the only thing that effects climate,
but it is ONE thing that does in a clearly understood
way. Another is particulates in the atmosphere,
especially in the stratosphere. Those tend to
cool the Earth.

C02 is rising. Regardless of why it is rising,
the effect of that rise will be to raise the temperature.
There is a limit to the particulate density we can
tolerate we need sunlight to grow food.

Do you have any reason to believe that
the current rise in CO2, is going to stabilize
at anything near the present levels?

Do you have any reason to believe the temperatures
won't rise?

If the ocean temperatures drop, they may absorb
CO2 at a higher rate. But what will make the
ocean temperatures drop?

The question we face is not DID CO2 cause
temperatures to rise, it is WILL Co2 cause
temperatures to rise. There is no question that
CO2 CAN cause temperatures to rise, the
question is how much and how fast.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 11:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jeff wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "Chuck Hoffman" wrote:
Rising atmospheric temperatures currently observed on Mars are
proportional to the rising atmospheric temperatures on Earth. This
strongly suggests a cause OTHER than humankind.

I suppose this would be meaningful if Mars had conditions similar to
earth and its chief proponent wasn't a single planetary scientist from
Moscow. While this isn't my specialty, I'm inclined to support the
general consensus of climatologists. We could probably find a strong
(negative) correllation between between global warming and flintlock
musket ownership but I wouldn't expect to change the climate with more
muskets.

Huh? I'm sorry but your analogy to flintlock musket ownership is
ludicrously off base.

The whole _point_ is that Mars, with different conditions in almost
every regard, nonetheless is experiencing a temperature increase.
That's what makes it interesting--it suggests that whatever is causing
the increase is external to the planet.

How does the observation that a planet different from
the earth is warming suggest that it is warming
due to an external cause?


The fact that you attempt to resort to ridicule tells me that you are
more interested in "winning" than in arriving at truth.

It may be that there is some other explanation, and 3 years data is
hardly enough to draw conclusions about long term trends, but it is
certainly of enough interest to be worth further investigation.

Just keep in mind that whatever the cause may be
of the Martian warming, it is not increased insolation.
The Sun is near a minimum in it's 11-year cycle.
It has been decreasing in irradiance while Mars has
been warming for the past 6 terrestrial years.

--

FF