On May 19, 10:19*am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:


How about
if we look at the data from Mars that show a temperature increase
over the least 6 or 7 years, during which time solar irradiation
dropped. *Does that show that increased irradiation does NOT
cause *temperature to rise?


It shows that Gore's hot air has made it all the way to Mars.

Woodie wrote:

No! I mean, up my what?
WHAT is up there?
Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
Was it sterilized?
Animal, vegetable, mineral?
Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up
his? Will it hurt?

The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!


Should somebody with your screen name really write that post? Rod

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 18, 6:08 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:



On May 18, 10:59 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

On May 18, 12:13 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Han

wrote:

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to
show a
cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the
"effect".

Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.

Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2
levels, I
see.

No. I see you missed the part about correlation not implying
causality.

Fred, you really should cultivate the habit of reading posts before you reply
to them. You'll make so much more sense that way.

*I* did not claim *any* causality of *anything*.

Correct.

Han claimed that increasing
CO2 levels cause increasing temperature.

He didn't cite the ice core data, he cited basic
physics.

I said there is *not* a causal
relationship there,

You're wrong.

as evidenced by the ice cores that show increasing
temperature *preceding* increased CO2 levels. I made no claim
whatever to a cause-and-effect relationship.


Wrong, you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
(literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.

Different ball game.

When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
ship.

Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.


That makes a lot of sense. Now I won; tbe surprised if they
start making square barbell weights.

--

FF

On May 19, 9:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:




... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.

Suppose there are five independent variables. Suppose
two of them are changing in a way that drives temperature
up and three of them are changing in a way that drives temperature
down. If the temperature goes up, or if the temperature goes
down, does that prove or disprove anything about how any one
of those five variable affects temperature?

Now, back to basic physics, do you understand what it means
for a planet to be in thermal equilibrium?

--

FF

On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:17:38 -0400, Renata
wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:35:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

--snip--

On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?


You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order
of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied
upon memory and thus used an approximation.

There are 2 problems with your remembered approximation, though.

Presumably sometime, somewhere you read the actual number - and
rounded 80 down to 00 instead of 100. Although it breaks the rules,
rounding downward 51, 52, even 60 or so might be understandable.
But, 80? Interesting math.

The other problem is with the fact that we haven't been anywhere near
300 in almost 100 years, not exactly something that changed yesterday.

I point this out because you try to present your arguments with a
seemingly scientific 'face'. Not sure many scientifically oriented
folks would be making this kind of error (unless, perhaps taking into
account some other agenda).

Renata


I do so love this Barsky woman

Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And oft' is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:
But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

(willy #18)


and besides that you kick some serious ass.








Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

Now, back to basic physics, do you understand what it means
for a planet to be in thermal equilibrium?

Ah yes, the good old General Energy Equation.

Would never have gotton thru all that thermo required of a heat/power
major or passed the PE exam without it.


Lew

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 19, 9:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:




... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.

No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes. Sorry
you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Woodie wrote:
No! I mean, up my what?
WHAT is up there?
Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
Was it sterilized?
Animal, vegetable, mineral?
Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up
his? Will it hurt?

The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!


Should somebody with your screen name really write that post? Rod

Uhm... Rod!?

On May 20, 6:41 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 19, 9:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.

No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes. Sorry
you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.

At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
in temperature. You cannot use the data to show that
a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
temperature.

We know from basic physics that it can, regardless of
whether or not it did. Do you understand that point?

We observe on Mars that the temperature can continue
to rise with rising carbon dioxide even after solar
irradiation, which is presumed to have initiated the
changes on Mars in the 1990s, drops.

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 20, 6:41 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:



On May 19, 9:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2
levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.

No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes.
Sorry
you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.

At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
in temperature.

Exactly so.

You cannot use the data to show that
a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
temperature.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor, Fred?

On May 19, 10:19*pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
sometime. *The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
from the PRC. *Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
(literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.

Different ball game.

When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
ship.

Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.

That makes a lot of sense. *Now I won; tbe surprised if they
start making square barbell weights.

--

FF

Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.

On May 20, 5:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 20, 6:41 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

On May 19, 9:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.

The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.

You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.

I'm going to put this as simply as I can:

"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".

It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.

Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2
levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?

Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.

No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes.
Sorry
you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.

At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
in temperature.

Exactly so.

You cannot use the data to show that
a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
temperature.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor, Fred?

Yes.

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

--

FF

Robatoy wrote:
On May 19, 10:19 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
(literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
Different ball game.
When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
ship.
Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.
That makes a lot of sense. Now I won; tbe surprised if they
start making square barbell weights.

--

FF

Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.

I wonder if this might not be for the GVW limit on trucks - 80,000
pounds in the US?

Robatoy wrote:

Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.


"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

I wonder if this might not be for the GVW limit on trucks - 80,000
pounds in the US?

Makes sense; however, consider the folowing:

300 lbs/reefer.

67,000/300 = 223 reefers.

Assume a 53 ft trailer, the largest used.

No way to you get 223 reefers in a 53 ft trailer.

Lew

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

On May 21, 6:28 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 21, 6:28 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

On May 21, 6:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:On May 21, 6:28 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
Carbon dioxide concentration?

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 21, 6:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:On May 21, 6:28 am,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
Carbon dioxide concentration?

Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have the
cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.

On May 21, 6:57 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On May 21, 6:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:On May 21, 6:28 am,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
Carbon dioxide concentration?

Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have the
cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 21, 6:57 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

On May 21, 6:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:On May 21, 6:28 am,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?

Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????

No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?

If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than
the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
Carbon dioxide concentration?

Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have
the
cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
temperature increases.

2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:




1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
temperature increases.


Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?



2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

--


FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:




1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
temperature increases.


Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.



2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

Is it your contention that effects precede causes? Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

On May 17, 7:45 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?



No, the rising levels are a consequence of the conversion
of fossil carbon and carbon compounds, mostly fossil fuels,
to carbon dioxide. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide is about half of that produced by burning fossil fuels
If fossil fuel burning stopped today, the concentration in
the atmosphere would begin dropping tomorrow..

Aside from that balance, there is also the Seuss effect.

--

FF

On May 17, 7:52 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Han wrote:


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The idea
that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire planet (of
which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor atmospheric constituent is
pure hubris.


Without minor atmospheric components like ozone, carbon dioxide and
methane, the Earth's oceans would be frozen solid.

--

FF

On May 24, 1:28 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?


2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

Is it your contention that effects precede causes?

Do you always respond to a question with question or only
when you don't want to answer the question?

Now, regarding your question, If tachyons exist, yes.
The last I heard, there was no evidence that they do.
So right now I would say no.

Now, how I'll rephrase so we can see if you evade answering the
question again:

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

There are people who deny the validity of the greenhouse effect.
I don't know if you are one of those, but I would like to know.

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 24, 1:28 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:



On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.


2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

Is it your contention that effects precede causes?

Do you always respond to a question with question or only
when you don't want to answer the question?

Do you?

Now, regarding your question, If tachyons exist, yes.
The last I heard, there was no evidence that they do.
So right now I would say no.

Now, how I'll rephrase so we can see if you evade answering the
question again:

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

There are people who deny the validity of the greenhouse effect.
I don't know if you are one of those, but I would like to know.

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.

You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?




2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?


...

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?


...

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.


Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.



You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.

Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.

Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.




2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?


...

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.


...

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.


Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.

Still missing the point: cause and effect.



You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".

Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.

Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

On May 24, 7:07 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.





2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

...

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.





...

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.

Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.

Still missing the point: cause and effect.



You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".



Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.

Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

On May 24, 7:07 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.


Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
establish which is cause and is effect?





2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?

Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?

...

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.

We disagree. But let's put that aside until we see if we agree
as to the answer to the question above.






...

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.

Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.

Still missing the point: cause and effect.

How so?




You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".


I disagree. However I do need you to explain the relevance of
the concept in the context of the 1940 to 1980 data. After
all, if I assume i understand why you consider it relevant, I
may assume incorrectly.



Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.

Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

I disagree.

But I do agree that it is premature to discuss why.

--

FF

On May 24, 7:07 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...
...

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.


What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to establish
which is cause and which is effect?

As you will recall you wrote: " ...: increasing CO2 level
is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE."
and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause."

You do seem to be pretty convinced on that point.
I would like to know how you established that.


Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.

...

Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.


No. Since greenhouse gases *can* affect temperature,
the question of whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas is relevant to both the question of cause and effect
and to Han's remark to the effect that sound science has
established that rising carbon dioxide concentrations
cause temperatures to rise.

So, with that context in mind, is carbon dioxide a
greenhouse gas?






...

Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.

Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.

Still missing the point: cause and effect.


No, you made a general statement cause and effect
based on a particular data set from the past,and argue
that it disproves what Han said was true, in general,
about carbon dioxide and temperature changes.

It is not clear how you apply those observations from the
past to disprove Han's remarks about the general case.

Please explain.



You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".


No. However, rather than assume I understand the relevance
of your suggestion I do need you to explain the relevance in
the context of the data from ~1940 to ~1980, during which time
carbon dioxide rose while the temperature did not.



Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.

Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

We disagree. But discussion of the Seuss effect
is premature.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
production) in this case?

That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?

One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.

Patrick Karl wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to
negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming
(ala Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the
inability to have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to
increase our own production) in this case?

That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?


Let me type this out more simply:

1. We have no position from which to negotiate with Saudi Arabia to get them
to produce more oil. i.e., if they say "no", we have no position of
strength from which to say, "OK, then we will do x, y, or z" such as
developing our own reserves because the Saudis know that the enviros here
would rather see people freeze to death than have a caribou have to skirt
an oil derrick in ANWR.

2. This forms a good analog for the same kinds of things the left wants to
do to our defense posture. For example, Obama talks a good game
about "tough diplomacy" (whatever the @#%$ that means) and talking to our
enemies with "tough negotiations". But, when the person on the other side
of the table says, "No, we still want to see you infidels killed and Israel
pushed into the sea, and by the way, we have xx nuclear missiles, so don't
you dare do anything to us", if we have nothing from which to respond --
for example, "your xx missiles are meaningless because they can be
destroyed before they leave your territories", we have no position from
which to bargain.

3. Obama has already stated his desire to place us in the same position
defensively as we currently stand regarding energy. He has pledged to stop
developing anti-missile defenses. Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country removing
a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent concessions
from other countries. It may not be the "unilateral disarmament" that you
equate only to the US destroying its own nuclear arsenal without others
doing the same, but the words are being used correctly. He has further
stated the desire to stop development of all new weapon systems. This is
not going to provide a position of strength from which to negotiate in the
future.


One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.

See above. What do *you* think unilateral disarmament means? Would
particularly like to see your definition in light of the idea that we
would, unilaterally, stop development of the ability to defend ourselves
from missile attack. Please explain how this is not unilateral disarmament


The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
concessions from other countries.

While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
technology and weapons.

For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
and on theirs?

Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as far as
monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done in
cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know that they
should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But the operative
mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard for civilian
casualties, just like they don't care about that in attacking us.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On May 24, 3:00 pm, Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote innews:rrudnTwBhbZIwaXVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews. com:

Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
concessions from other countries.


Unilateral disarmament is to give up (disarm) what one
already has. It is not the same thing as eschewing
expansion of one's arms.

Personally, I favor the development of new weapons of
the sort we may need to use.

... If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes.

Or just sent into an American port on board a cargo ship.

That is why Iran must not be allowed to build an atomic
bomb. Missile defense, no matter how effective,
would never be sufficient. Preventing them from
obtaining a bomb is necessary.

That is why fissile material world-wide needs to be
secured and kept secure. Sadly, people in politics,
the press and the media who even know what fissile
material is, are few and far between, much rarer than
those who voice strong opinions on the subject.

For instance, recall that the Bush administration 'warned'
us that if Iraq were to obtain sufficient fissile, they
could build an atomic bomb in as little as n months
(typical values of n ranged from 6 to 12) .

Why didn't anybody ask them the obvious question:
"Why so long?". If *I* had sufficient fissile material I
could build an atom bomb in less than 6 months.
Obtaining the fissile material is the only technologically
difficult part of making an atomic bomb.

Plainly they were choosing their time frame based
on what would seem credible to the ignorant, and
few people pointed that out.

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On May 24, 7:07 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Fred the
Red Shirt wrote:



On May 24, 3:16 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

On May 22, 10:35 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Fred
the
Red Shirt wrote:

1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.

Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
decreases
as
temperature increases.

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels
rise
*after* temperature rises.

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.


Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
establish which is cause and is effect?

Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.

Once again:

"B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the proposition
that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused A.

I see no point in further discussions with someone unable to understand that.

In article , Han wrote:

While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
technology and weapons.

"Useless"? The Soviet Union didn't think so. That's why they objected so
strenuously to our development of a ballistic-missile defense system: because
they knew that it *would* work. They were developing one of their own.

"Useless"? Contemporary Russian leadership doesn't think so either. That's why
they object so strenuously to our placement of missile defense systems in
Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Useless"? Anybody who's been paying any attention to the testing the Navy has
conducted recently *knows* that's not so.

For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
none come through such a missile defense system.

Nonsense. A defense system doesn't have to be 100% effective, or even close to
that, to serve as an effective deterrent. If it's accurate enough to preserve
our ability to retaliate, it's sufficient for that purpose. And obviously any
defense system that stops even *one* missile is better than having none at
all.

I think that history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes.

And that is an improvement over having no defensive system at all, exactly
how?

Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
and on theirs?

Probably not -- which is the most obvious reason of all for building and
deploying a defensive system. DUH!

Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me.

But not a system that might actually, you know, *stop* one of those incoming
missiles.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any
equivalent concessions from other countries.

While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole
truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false.
You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we
forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the
end) technology and weapons.

For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee
that
none come through such a missile defense system. I think that
history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would
come at the same time, or a single missile would come from the
"wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to
resortto retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on
our own soil and on theirs?

Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as
far as monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done
in cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know
that they should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But
the operative mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard
for civilian casualties, just like they don't care about that in
attacking us.

So you're saying that because armor doesn't always work police and
soldiers should not be provided with it?



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