On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:57:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 7/2/2012 7:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew


I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.


Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.


Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.

Fires *were* the forest management. Some species of trees (feeble attempt at
bringing the discussion on topic require fires to propagate.

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/3/2012 9:25 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 2:20 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make
much more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A
couple of more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

Apparently the estimates of sea level rises solely due to expansion
of the oceans as they warm up is between 11 and 43 cm, or ~4" to 1
1/2 ft. That's just the warming.



And as you stated, estimates, not proof. And my comments suggest that
natural wave and tide action overwhelm the "estimate" of the expansion
from heat of even 2'. Yes the 2' would be on top of all of that
however tide and wave action are often much greater than all of that
combined with out much of a notice my most.

Sorry, Leon, in the Bay of Fundy the tides are enormous. They dwarf a
few feet of sea level rise. But when the sea level has risen 2 or 3
feet, anything that is now at water's edge during high tide, will be 2 or
3 feet under.

Look at it this way. Normally door openings are 80" and all but freakily
tall basketball players go through without thinking. People come in all
sizes, from 5'1" to 6'6" or so. That's a difference of 17" in "tides".
So lowering the door 3" would make little difference in view of thaat
17"variation, right? Try making doors 6'5" high.


Door openings are fixed sea levels on a daily basis are not. Still has
there been a measurement where the average level of the sea is now 3"
deeper? I don't think so. Since water is self leveling this should be
happening all around the world. If is is not actually happening every
where, it ain't happening at all.

I don't understand what you mean that it should be happening around the
world. When I put water in the bowl in my kitchen the water always is
higher on one side than the other. The more I breath over it the greater
the difference between the level on the two sides of the bowl becomes. ;-)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Still has
there been a measurement where the average level of the sea is now 3"
deeper? I don't think so. Since water is self leveling this should be
happening all around the world. If is is not actually happening every
where, it ain't happening at all.

As was said elsewhere in these threads, apparent sea level rises are
complicated by subsidence, continental rebound from the ice ages, removal
of groundwater, etc, etc. And yes, that magnitude is easily verified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Amsterdam, sea level has risen an average of 1.5 mm/year since 1850.
160*1.5=240 mm or just about 10 inches.
It is indeed a combination of subsidence and sea level rises.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
of it eventually radiates into space.

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is
just that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing. Since we can't go back in time and stop industrialization
and population increases to make a fair comparison, we have to indeed
work with inferences and extrapolations, as best we can.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

One could only hope that it happens to you, that a gas company puts a
well near your home, and you find out first hand.

That would be the only way you'd believe.

I'm done with this thread. I guess I started it, but some of you have
really way out thinking, that it's all fabrication everywhere. You
believe the companies first where I don't trust the companies.

I guess you didn't watch any of the investigative reporting on some of
these fracking issues. Yea sure there are gas tanks attached to peoples
water. It's called the ground water and fracking.

Colorado was the study location. And the problem was clearly documented,
including how far the problem had spread. Previous water tests were
looked at, and of course the drilling companies said it must be
something else.

Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the people
have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water gets polluted
and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads out much farther.

But you're right, and I'm wrong.

I can't prove anything to any of you. So I'm done with these arguments.
I only hope you learn firsthand. Then you'll be enlightened.


Fracking is harmless? Again, geologists and others have not yet
shown
whether fracking is or is not harmless.

So the fact that people can light their water coming out of the tap on
fire is nothing. No fact. You stick your head in the ground... far in
the ground..

Prove that it was caused by fracking. Pennsylvania had high methane
levels in the water long before fracking. Heck, prove that the various
videos that are being shown are even tap water. For all you know there
could be a gasoline tank on the other side of the wall.

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing. Since we can't go back in time and stop industrialization
and population increases to make a fair comparison, we have to indeed
work with inferences and extrapolations, as best we can.

Exactly ... except that what some are interested in effecting, in a
socioeconomic manner, based solely on those "inferences and
extrapolations" is the bone of contention.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is
^^^^
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


What is indeed a "fact" is that neither beliefs, nor model
predictions, qualify as scientific "fact" ...

The scientific method would involve one or more control experiments where
we add or take away factors that the postulate says are causative. Tad
difficult to go back to pre-industrial times and prevent the use of
fossil fuels, and/or keep the world's population at 1800 levels.

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in news:
:

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing. Since we can't go back in time and stop industrialization
and population increases to make a fair comparison, we have to indeed
work with inferences and extrapolations, as best we can.

Exactly ... except that what some are interested in effecting, in a
socioeconomic manner, based solely on those "inferences and
extrapolations" is the bone of contention.

Indeed. In the end my only contention is that we should try to add to the
mess as much as we can.

But I still drive a Grand Caravan, even if it is only to pick up a
granddaughter from band practice. Dang front A/C doesn't work anymore. I
hope there is an easy fix for a malfunctioning fan.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/3/2012 10:31 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the people
have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water gets polluted
and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads out much farther.

But you're right, and I'm wrong.

Well, you are most definitely suspect in your condemning an entire
industry (an industry which has brought you the building blocks of most
of the modern conveniences of life since the late 1800's) based on your
above blanket belief/sentiment.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:31 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the people
have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water gets
polluted and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads out
much farther.

But you're right, and I'm wrong.

Well, you are most definitely suspect in your condemning an entire
industry (an industry which has brought you the building blocks of
most of the modern conveniences of life since the late 1800's) based
on your above blanket belief/sentiment.

Just limiting my discussion to fracking. By itself, the process should
be just fine. It's the unintended parts that are the problem. It is
without doubt that this type of mining can generate small earthquakes.
Thus it is entirely possible that at some point a path is generated by
which the gas that is the aim of the drilling also gets into groundwater
or aquifers rather far above the intended mining area. On top of that,
there is the pollution generated by the waste water and waste chemicals
that are now most often just dumped in situ or trucked away and dumped
in the nearest legal area. All legal pollution that isn't helping
anyone. Add to that probems with insufficient sealing of the drill
holes, and the disturbances of the neighbors.

I'm all in favor of getting the gas, but there needs to be far more
control over the consequences. It may indeed be proven that the water
coming from the faucet isn't flammable from the gas the drillers went
for, but ther is gas there now, where it wasn't before. Etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind you,
he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten acquainted with.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in
:

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host
of other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather
than dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind
you, he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten
acquainted with.

But yes, touché!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about the
failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to increased
acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...fication-puts-
pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 01:00:34 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

If tobacco was the cause then everybody who smoked would get cancer.
It's not a cause, it's a predisposing factor.

Correct. Although I might say "the" instead of "a". Unless you live in
an Irish hut with a peat fire :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
of it eventually radiates into space.

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is
just that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing.

I think on average that there is an agreement that there certainly has
been global warming since the ice age. In the last 200 years there is
no significant proof that what ever "trend" we have happen to be in at
the moment, warming or cooling, that it will continue, or why it is
happening other than it is mother nature doing what she does.

On 7/3/2012 11:08 AM, Han wrote:
Han wrote in
:

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host
of other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather
than dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind
you, he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten
acquainted with.

But yes, touché!



Regardless of whether the studies are read forward or backwards to
create the result you are looking for if the government politicians are
involved the whole thing is certainly blown up way out of proportion.
The fact that the politicians are making off of the prevention of this
world crisis rather than actually preventing it from happening is proof
enough that is is a non problem.

On 7/3/2012 10:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:57:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 7/2/2012 7:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew


I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.


Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.


Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.

Fires *were* the forest management. Some species of trees (feeble attempt at
bringing the discussion on topic require fires to propagate.


Natural management!

On 03 Jul 2012 15:43:57 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in news:
:

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing. Since we can't go back in time and stop industrialization
and population increases to make a fair comparison, we have to indeed
work with inferences and extrapolations, as best we can.

Exactly ... except that what some are interested in effecting, in a
socioeconomic manner, based solely on those "inferences and
extrapolations" is the bone of contention.

Indeed. In the end my only contention is that we should try to add to the
mess as much as we can.

I wish you'd said "try NOT to add to the mess" there, Han.


But I still drive a Grand Caravan, even if it is only to pick up a
granddaughter from band practice. Dang front A/C doesn't work anymore. I
hope there is an easy fix for a malfunctioning fan.

Half the time it's simply removing the rat's nest or lubing the fan
motor bearings, so it can be an easy fix. Well, if the sigh
"engineers" didn't design and build the entire dashboard around it.

I think it was Dad's old Crown Vic which needed the entire dashboard
and air conditioning evaporator removed to get to the heater core when
it leaked. You'da thunk they were designed by GM engineers.

Something like 8 hours of labor vs the 15 minutes it took me to climb
under the hood, physically standing beside the big V-8, of the old
F-100 and remove 4 screws, pop the motor/squirrel cage out, rake out
the rat's nest, and replace the fan motor when I bought that vehicle.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:31 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the people
have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water gets
polluted and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads out
much farther.

But you're right, and I'm wrong.

Well, you are most definitely suspect in your condemning an entire
industry (an industry which has brought you the building blocks of
most of the modern conveniences of life since the late 1800's) based
on your above blanket belief/sentiment.

Just limiting my discussion to fracking. By itself, the process should
be just fine. It's the unintended parts that are the problem. It is
without doubt that this type of mining can generate small earthquakes.
Thus it is entirely possible that at some point a path is generated by
which the gas that is the aim of the drilling also gets into groundwater
or aquifers rather far above the intended mining area. On top of that,
there is the pollution generated by the waste water and waste chemicals
that are now most often just dumped in situ or trucked away and dumped
in the nearest legal area. All legal pollution that isn't helping
anyone. Add to that probems with insufficient sealing of the drill
holes, and the disturbances of the neighbors.

I'm all in favor of getting the gas, but there needs to be far more
control over the consequences. It may indeed be proven that the water
coming from the faucet isn't flammable from the gas the drillers went
for, but ther is gas there now, where it wasn't before. Etc, etc.

I'm not a geologist, but I was raised by one (who was intent on teaching
me continually about the exploration end of the business from day one),
grew up in the oil and gas "bidness", and have hired a few in a past
life. I agree about the potential for frac'ing, particularly in some
formations, causing problems.

I also think that corporate misbehavior, particularly of the criminal
kind, like yesterday's announced GlaxoSmithKline settlement, should be
punished by prison time for those personnel in the corporate hierarchy
who both authorized it and/or looked the other way.

I spent two tours in the Army as the Commanding Officer of a military
unit, one in a combat zone. In each case it was _I_ who was ultimately
responsible for everything that happened in that command during my tenure.

Had there been criminal activity of which I had even a suspicion, there
is NO doubt that I would have been held accountable and paid the price
in military prison.

I expect our congress, and legal system, to hold corporate involvement
in criminal activity, regardless of the industry, to that same standard
.... unfortunately the lobbyist, lawyers and legal system work to insure
that will never be so.

Another cause for disillusionment, as age and somewhat more wisdom set
in ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 03 Jul 2012 15:40:06 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is
^^^^
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


What is indeed a "fact" is that neither beliefs, nor model
predictions, qualify as scientific "fact" ...

The scientific method would involve one or more control experiments where
we add or take away factors that the postulate says are causative. Tad
difficult to go back to pre-industrial times and prevent the use of
fossil fuels, and/or keep the world's population at 1800 levels.

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

I believe that the "greenhouse effect" is still merely a theory, Han.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-e...ng-history.htm

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about the
failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to increased
acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...fication-puts-
pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).

The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/3/12 11:08 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind you,
he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten acquainted with.


"Everyone who disagrees with Man Caused GW is a fraud" is the trumpet
call of alarmists the world over. Tired.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/3/12 11:24 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.


CO2 is hardly "pollution."

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
trying to raise awareness to those real problem.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/3/2012 12:17 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/3/12 11:24 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.


CO2 is hardly "pollution."

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
trying to raise awareness to those real problem.


+1


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Larry Blanchard wrote in :

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

Actually, the principal culprit in acid rain is sulfur emissions, not carbon dioxide. And that is
indeed a "sufficient reason to curb air pollution" -- as coal-fired power plants have been
doing for a few decades now.

CO2 dissolved in water is only a very weak acid; SO2 and SO3, on the other hand, make
very strong acids.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman wrote:

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
trying to raise awareness to those real problem.

+1

+1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no proof
that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true. It may
be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been able to
handle it.

If or when it is realized that nature is not able to handle it
anymore, better damned well hope that it's not too late for humanity
to do something about it.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:36:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman wrote:

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
trying to raise awareness to those real problem.

+1

+1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no proof
that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true. It may
be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been able to
handle it.

Then it's not an immense problem, by definition. Moreover, you have no proof
that more is bad. In fact, higher temperatures are for the most part, good.
Plants and animals like warm. Ice ages aren't a time for parties.

If or when it is realized that nature is not able to handle it
anymore, better damned well hope that it's not too late for humanity
to do something about it.

....and you say Gaia isn't a religion.

On 7/3/2012 12:36 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman wrote:

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
trying to raise awareness to those real problem.

+1

+1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no proof
that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true. It may
be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been able to
handle it.

Then arguably it is not a problem, is it?

That notwithstanding, and I'll certainly give you the benefit of the
doubt in that very specific regard, the part of MIKE's post that
deserves a +1, which you may have missed, is that the real
danger/consequence is one of misguided, "chicken little" misdirection on
the part of those with a political agenda.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

[...snip...]
Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.

I was referring to the fires in Colorado


Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.


Right. The suppression of natural fires was the mismanagement I was
talking about.

On 7/3/2012 9:34 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At
5 deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50
deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to
10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as
the ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Average depth thus about 4000 meters.

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450

Hold it right there. You're assuming that the entire volume of water
on the planet will increase in temperature, and hence volume, by the
same amount.

That ain't gonna happen.

Only a very small portion of it near the surface is going to warm up
at all. The depths will remain quite cold.


or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Again, assuming that it *all* warms up. Which won't happen.

Not right away, but eventually it will. Someone said in 1600 years, but
that assumes ocean circualtions remain constant. There are already
variations (up and down) in El Niño currents with enormous short duration
effects. The real doomsayers are afraid of what might happen if the
Arctic Ocean really becomes icefree and the Atlantic circulation might
get disrupted.

I suppose that if the dinosaurs were still alive and dying off now instead of
eons ago, we would somehow think that it was our fault and our responsibility
to save them. What is this huge concern with maintaining (or returning to the
"original") status quo? We could spend ourselves broke doing all the "right
things" to completely put the Earth back the way we found it, and I guarantee
you that the planet would simply **** on our boots and continue changing in any
way it damn well pleased. Of course, any change for the better and we would be
patting ourselves on the back for "fixing it", and any change for the worse and
it would have been our fault. Poppycock.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:31 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the
people have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water
gets polluted and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads
out much farther.

But you're right, and I'm wrong.

Well, you are most definitely suspect in your condemning an entire
industry (an industry which has brought you the building blocks of
most of the modern conveniences of life since the late 1800's) based
on your above blanket belief/sentiment.

Just limiting my discussion to fracking. By itself, the process
should be just fine. It's the unintended parts that are the problem.
It is without doubt that this type of mining can generate small
earthquakes. Thus it is entirely possible that at some point a path
is generated by which the gas that is the aim of the drilling also
gets into groundwater or aquifers rather far above the intended
mining area. On top of that, there is the pollution generated by the
waste water and waste chemicals that are now most often just dumped
in situ or trucked away and dumped in the nearest legal area. All
legal pollution that isn't helping anyone. Add to that probems with
insufficient sealing of the drill holes, and the disturbances of the
neighbors.

I'm all in favor of getting the gas, but there needs to be far more
control over the consequences. It may indeed be proven that the
water coming from the faucet isn't flammable from the gas the
drillers went for, but ther is gas there now, where it wasn't before.
Etc, etc.

I'm not a geologist, but I was raised by one (who was intent on
teaching me continually about the exploration end of the business from
day one), grew up in the oil and gas "bidness", and have hired a few
in a past life. I agree about the potential for frac'ing, particularly
in some formations, causing problems.

I also think that corporate misbehavior, particularly of the criminal
kind, like yesterday's announced GlaxoSmithKline settlement, should be
punished by prison time for those personnel in the corporate hierarchy
who both authorized it and/or looked the other way.

I spent two tours in the Army as the Commanding Officer of a military
unit, one in a combat zone. In each case it was _I_ who was ultimately
responsible for everything that happened in that command during my
tenure.

Had there been criminal activity of which I had even a suspicion,
there is NO doubt that I would have been held accountable and paid the
price in military prison.

I expect our congress, and legal system, to hold corporate involvement
in criminal activity, regardless of the industry, to that same
standard ... unfortunately the lobbyist, lawyers and legal system work
to insure that will never be so.

Another cause for disillusionment, as age and somewhat more wisdom set
in ...

I spent some vacation time on the same trip as a member of the unit that
investigated the Massey mine disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster
I asked point blank whether the higher ups in the mining company were
responsible. And he said Oh yes, they were, but it is all about
plausible deniability, they are too insulated by lawyers etc. Now the
company that bought Massey did get saddled with much more liability than
they had counted on ...

And yes, I think that higher ups in companies like SKF, Barclays, JP
Morgan, &tc, &tc should spent some time in the klink.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 15:43:57 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in news:
:

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature
is increasing. Since we can't go back in time and stop
industrialization and population increases to make a fair
comparison, we have to indeed work with inferences and
extrapolations, as best we can.

Exactly ... except that what some are interested in effecting, in a
socioeconomic manner, based solely on those "inferences and
extrapolations" is the bone of contention.

Indeed. In the end my only contention is that we should try to add to
the mess as much as we can.

I wish you'd said "try NOT to add to the mess" there, Han.

Obviously that's what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction!

snip

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F =
0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
of it eventually radiates into space.

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is
just that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.

There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
increasing.

I think on average that there is an agreement that there certainly has
been global warming since the ice age. In the last 200 years there is
no significant proof that what ever "trend" we have happen to be in at
the moment, warming or cooling, that it will continue, or why it is
happening other than it is mother nature doing what she does.

Let me close this by stating that IMNSHO there is sufficient proof of
global warming to think it is indeed happening, and that we are
contributing to it.
That is NOT to say that in the past Earth has not been hotter or colder
through natural processes, only that now it is helped along by human
activities.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 11:08 AM, Han wrote:
Han wrote in
:

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host
of other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather
than dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind
you, he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten
acquainted with.

But yes, touché!



Regardless of whether the studies are read forward or backwards to
create the result you are looking for if the government politicians are
involved the whole thing is certainly blown up way out of proportion.
The fact that the politicians are making off of the prevention of this
world crisis rather than actually preventing it from happening is proof
enough that is is a non problem.

This is not about government or not, Spencer is funded by mostly non-
government funds, I believe. Moreover, even if the government or a US
agency of some kind is involved that does not automagically make it
suspect.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/3/12 11:08 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host
of other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather
than dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. g,d &r

You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind
you, he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten
acquainted with.


"Everyone who disagrees with Man Caused GW is a fraud" is the trumpet
call of alarmists the world over. Tired.

Did you spend time trying to analyze Spencer's work? Or his backers?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 15:40:06 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
om:

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is
^^^^
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


What is indeed a "fact" is that neither beliefs, nor model
predictions, qualify as scientific "fact" ...

The scientific method would involve one or more control experiments
where we add or take away factors that the postulate says are
causative. Tad difficult to go back to pre-industrial times and
prevent the use of fossil fuels, and/or keep the world's population at
1800 levels.

FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

I believe that the "greenhouse effect" is still merely a theory, Han.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-e...ng-history.htm

OK, so it is a theory. How are you going to establish whether it is
truly happening? As I said before, it is impossible to do a control
experiment without industrialization and exploding human populations.

Therefore, let us be a bit on the safe side and limit CO2 and other
greenhouse gases and other potential causes of global warming. Perhaps
yes, perhaps no this is another instance of the disapearance of ozone
because of refrigerant gases. That seems to have been ameliorated, aat
least temporarily .

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has
caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about
the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to
increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...fication-puts-
pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).

The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.

Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different business.
Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally, I'd like less
mercury in my air, not more.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:36 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman wrote:

That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as
pollution and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This
is much like the race card. It takes attention away from the real
problems that do exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest,
trustworthy people trying to raise awareness to those real problem.

+1

+1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no
proof that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true.
It may be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been
able to handle it.

Then arguably it is not a problem, is it?

That notwithstanding, and I'll certainly give you the benefit of the
doubt in that very specific regard, the part of MIKE's post that
deserves a +1, which you may have missed, is that the real
danger/consequence is one of misguided, "chicken little" misdirection
on the part of those with a political agenda.

+1 on that last one, on either side ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has
caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

Actually, the principal culprit in acid rain is sulfur emissions, not
carbon dioxide. And that is indeed a "sufficient reason to curb air
pollution" -- as coal-fired power plants have been doing for a few
decades now.

CO2 dissolved in water is only a very weak acid; SO2 and SO3, on the
other hand, make very strong acids.

True. But, removal of CO2 from the blood through our breathing is what
keeps the pH of our blood at the right level. Just a bit either way, and
you're in trouble. Obviously, atmospheric CO2 won't any time soon cause
problems, but apparently changes in pH and temprature are doing damage to
some coral formations.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid