contrails

[Frank Whiteley]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html

[[email protected]]

On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html

In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has
come out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center,
I can not believe a word of this article.

It may be 100% correct it may be 100% false, I choose to believe it is
false. Any conclusion about climate that is based on the idea of man
made global warming now must be viewed with a very skeptical eye.

A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
public let alone their peers.

The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and
future trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.

Robert J. Mudd

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
>>
>
> In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has
> come out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center,
> I can not believe a word of this article.
>
>
snip
> The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and
> future trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
> manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.
>

Massive? Nonsense. Nothing in the emails shows fraud of anything
remotely like that, and climate science is based on far more than a few
papers and a few scientists. There is nothing in the emails that is
illegal, though there is some _talk_ of things that might prove to be
illegal, and *actions* have to be proved, so let's wait for the
investigations to complete before we hang anybody, OK?

Now, back to soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 22, 11:07*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 9:28 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >>http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
>
> > In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has
> > come out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center,
> > I can not believe a word of this article.
>
> snip
> > The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and
> > future trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
> > manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.
>
> Massive? Nonsense. Nothing in the emails shows fraud of anything
> remotely like that, and climate science is based on far more than a few
> papers and a few scientists. There is nothing in the emails that is
> illegal, though there is some _talk_ *of things that might prove to be
> illegal, and *actions* have to be proved, so let's wait for the
> investigations to complete before we hang anybody, OK?
>
> Now, back to soaring.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.

Frank Whiteley

[Greg Arnold]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
>>>
>>
>> In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has
>> come out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center,
>> I can not believe a word of this article.
>>
>>
> snip
>> The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and
>> future trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
>> manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.


If global warming is a fraud, someone forgot to tell the polar ice caps,
which continue to melt.


>>
>
> Massive? Nonsense. Nothing in the emails shows fraud of anything
> remotely like that, and climate science is based on far more than a few
> papers and a few scientists. There is nothing in the emails that is
> illegal, though there is some _talk_ of things that might prove to be
> illegal, and *actions* have to be proved, so let's wait for the
> investigations to complete before we hang anybody, OK?
>
> Now, back to soaring.
>

[Frank Whiteley]

> If global warming is a fraud, someone forgot to tell the polar ice caps,
> which continue to melt.
>
I have no doubt that there are periodic climatic weather variations
and micro-meteorological effects. Could be some are creating macro
climatic effects also but there is also evidence of long term cycles.
Last two soaring seasons in Colorado have been poor, compared to the
five drought years we had. We had substantial snow cover for months
in 2007-2008, and almost as much 2008-2009. So far we've had 33" of
snow here in Greeley this fall (nominally a desert climate) and it's
snowing again tonight. Fort Collins has reported 44 inches as of the
last snowfall and it's snowing there again tonight. We are assured of
a white Christmas for the third year in a row as we are expecting
periods of snow and blowing snow through Thursday. The only variable
that's changed somewhat since I moved here in 1995 is the deep solar
sunspot minimum which is now approaching three years in duration.

That said, we are typically drier in an El Nino period, but our snows
to date have had good moisture content and the normally high winds
that blow away the moisture haven't happened.

Whistler Mountain, site of the 2010 Winter Olympics skiing opened 12
days early this year. Some Colorado resorts opened very early this
year following a cool summer.

Loss of snow on the top of Kilimanjaro seems as significant as the
shrinking of the polar ice cap. At least some of these effects
indicate human activities, but some of the cause-effect relationships
may be less clear. Similar effects are seen in the high mountains of
Bolivia and Ecuador.

Frank Whiteley

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 23, 5:32*am, " >
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 9:28 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
>
> In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has
> come out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center,
> I can not believe a word of this article.

Don't be silly.

> It may be 100% correct it may be 100% false, I choose to believe it is
> false. Any conclusion about climate that is based on the idea of man
> made global warming now must be viewed with a very skeptical eye.

"There's none so deaf as them's won't hear"


> A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
> They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
> time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
> public let alone their peers.

That's an irrational overreaction.

> The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and
> future trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
> manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.

Now there I agree with you, but you really ought to mention
the other driver: *commercial* interest. There's an awful (pun
intended) lot of mis-information, black and white propaganda
generated by those with a money-flow that is threatened by
climate change.

[RAS]

At one time much of North America was under ice. You know when animals
could walk here from Siberia. That migration surely must have started
the warming. Now what could we title that big climate change when so
few humans were around?
Wait wait I know how about "An Inconvenient Truth"?

[T8]

On Dec 23, 5:09*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:

> > A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
> > They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
> > time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
> > public let alone their peers.
>
> That's an irrational overreaction.

Naw, it's a pretty rational reaction from someone smart enough to
smell a con job (and whether or not you think it's a "con", you will
certainly agree that it's a mighty big job being asked of the average
citizen) and not knowledgeable enough in a technical field to evaluate
several hundred lifetimes worth of "science".

It's been pretty clear for a decade that the AGW guys have been fixing
their science around a pre-ordained result. Sorry state of affairs.

Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up.
Here's one environmentalist's summary: http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:14 -0800, wrote:

> On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
>
> In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has come
> out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center, I can
> not believe a word of this article.
>
If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

> It may be 100% correct it may be 100% false, I choose to believe it is
> false. Any conclusion about climate that is based on the idea of man
> made global warming now must be viewed with a very skeptical eye.
>
Consider that human populations have grown at least four-fold since the
start of the Industrial Revolution (in the UK from an estimated 12-16
million to the current 66 million) and the energy used per person has
increased much more (average then: their own muscle power + cooking fuel
+ a draft animal if they were well off. Average now round 20-30 MW/year
in the West). Bearing in mind that nothing like this has ever happened
before, can you really stand there with a straight face and say this
energy use explosion can have no possible impact?

> A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
> They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
> time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
> public let alone their peers.
>
The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.

> The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and future
> trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
> manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.
>
Quite. How about telling that to the fossil fuel companies, OPEC and the
USGS - all of whom have been just as forthcoming and truthful about the
side effects of burning carbon compounds that were last above ground
during the Carboniferous era as they were about lead or the tobacco
companies were about smoking.

If you don't believe the science behind global warming you'd better
believe the coming energy crisis. Realise, too, that almost everything
being talked about and worked on to reduce carbon emissions, from
renewables to reducing energy use, will also serve us in good stead when
fossil fuels become unavailable to the average person.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

>
> Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>
Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period
was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails
in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast
airports.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Newill]

On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>
> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period
> was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails
> in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast
> airports.
>
> --
>
In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
(PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!

[Tuno]

I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.

Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
skeptics into hardened deniers.

Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
enough!

tuno

[Mark Jardini]

there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full
time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are
less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of
relativity).

unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people
who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no
conspiracy and all of us are know nothings.

Mark Jardini 1AC

[bildan]

On Dec 23, 2:34*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
> about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
> and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
> AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
> in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
> contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
> about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.
>
> Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
> hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
> that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
> background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
> data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
> I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
> skeptics into hardened deniers.
>
> Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
> enough!
>
> tuno

I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

[Greg Arnold]

Mark Jardini wrote:
> there is essential unanimity among the scientists who study this full
> time. Dissenting opinions are always a good thing but in this case are
> less than 1%. (someone somewhere is still not convinced of
> relativity).
>
> unless you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that. the people
> who know what they are talking about should make the call. there is no
> conspiracy and all of us are know nothings.
>
> Mark Jardini 1AC


Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject? That
isn't any fun!

[Dave Nadler]

On Dec 23, 6:16*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Leave it up to the people who know something about the subject?
> That isn't any fun!

And it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of R.A.S. !
See ya, Dave* "YO electric"

* who's published thesis was titled:
"Data Flow Computer Performance for the GISS Weather Model"

[Bruce Hoult]

On Dec 24, 2:59*am, T8 > wrote:
> Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up.
> Here's one environmentalist's summary: *http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html

This guy seems like a very sensible chap. I disagree with him on two
points ("fair" trade vs free trade, and the safety of nuclear power)
but I'm sure we could have a good clean healthy debate on those
subjects. On the rest I'm with him 100%.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Dec 24, 4:31*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
> fraud, you're quite wrong.
>
> Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
> agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

That may or may not be true.

What is without question true is that if the data can't be practically
reproduced by others or made available then you can't base science on
it.


> The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
> skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
> to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
> the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
> precisely what they should be doing.

It's been done.

I haven't been totally keeping track, but it seems that at least the
raw data for NZ, Australia (e.g. Darwin), and Russia looks quite
different to what the CRU has been using, via one or both of using
only the subset of stations that show warming, or the raw and
published data showing a long series of unexplained adjustments with
the effect of lowering old temperatures and raising recent ones.

This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
"hockey stick".

[Dan Thirkill]

Refreshing response-
No paranoia, no political agenda.
Just thoughtful insight.

Thanks Bill-

Dan Thirkill



"bildan" > wrote in message
...

I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

[Tuno]

Ah, the old "Common man can't do his own critical thinking on an
important matter" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No wonder Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the topic.

..02NO

[Brad[_2_]]

What I'd like to know, is what will be the impact felt by us as
sailplane pilots. Since this is RAS, and there are content cops
patrolling the internets.

Will we:

Be lining up to buy electric sailplanes?

Selling our 2-stroke powered sailplanes because the 2-stroke will be
vilified?

Finding it harder and harder to justify aero-towing, due to fuel costs
and the perception that a bunch of "rich" guys wanna play.

Be looking at winching, for real this time?

Be riding our bikes to the airport?

I won't pretend I can participate in the science part of the debate,
but when it comes to what "pain" are we going to feel in order to
implement whatever is deemed necessary to "reduce" glabal
war.........er, I mean Climate Change, I sure have some concerns to
talk about!

Brad

[Richard[_9_]]

On Dec 23, 4:18*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> Ah, the old "Common man can't do his own critical thinking on an
> important matter" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
>
> No wonder Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the topic.
>
> .02NO

Never trust a guy with one name!

Algore

[T8]

On Dec 23, 7:31*pm, Brad > wrote:
> What I'd like to know, is what will be the impact felt by us as
> sailplane pilots. Since this is RAS, and there are content cops
> patrolling the internets.
>
> Will we:
>
> Be lining up to buy electric sailplanes?
>
> Selling our 2-stroke powered sailplanes because the 2-stroke will be
> vilified?
>
> Finding it harder and harder to justify aero-towing, due to fuel costs
> and the perception that a bunch of "rich" guys wanna play.
>
> Be looking at winching, for real this time?
>
> Be riding our bikes to the airport?
>
> I won't pretend I can participate in the science part of the debate,
> but when it comes to what "pain" are we going to feel in order to
> implement whatever is deemed necessary to "reduce" glabal
> war.........er, I mean Climate Change, I sure have some concerns to
> talk about!
>
> Brad

Probably some new ridge soaring opportunities within a few thousands
of years, when the glaciers return.

-T8

[T8]

On Dec 23, 6:11*pm, bildan > wrote:

>
> So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
> it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
> extremely alarming.
>

I regard that point as honestly debatable. And all the hot air out of
Al Gore to the contrary, I do not think we've really had that debate.
I'd like to see this chap (Richard Lindzen, MIT prof.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
get a little more airplay as I think he's done some excellent work and
tough luck that the results don't play well with the current political
agenda. You can hardly call this "sniping at the edges".

Don't doubt for a moment that NCAR is full of earnest, smart, hard
working guys. And I think that if pressed over a couple of beers that
they will probably admit that their models are full of problems.
That's part of what Lindzen's work is all about: getting the
atmospheric data that will validate (or not) these models. Mostly
"not" at the moment, it appears. And until they *are* validated, the
models are not useful for prediction, full stop.

One thing I've wondered about rather idly, that I have not seen come
up in discussions on the topic of AGW, is what the AGW proponents
think about the cycle of the ice ages, and if these cycles are
supposed to have become irrelevant. My home has spent the majority of
the last million years under a *lot* of ice and snow. In fact, that
should probably be regarded as the normal condition here in what we
now call New Hampshire, USA. Do these guys *really* believe that the
cycle of the ice ages has been broken? If so, does their model
predict the end of the Holocene and a return to an ice age in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2? If not... pray tell, *why* not?

I don't work in this area. I have a business, well two of 'em
actually, to run, a family to take care of and a sweetheart of a curvy
beautiful 24 year old glider to fly in such spare time as I have, so
about all *I* have time to do on AGW is "snipe at the edges". In so
doing, I hope to plant seeds of rational thought in others' minds such
that we become as a whole a bit more resistant to being hearded about
like so many sheep.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:

> On Dec 23, 10:38Â*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
>> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>>
>> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
>> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
>> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
>> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
>> West Coast airports.
>>
>> --
>>
> In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
> (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
> contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>
So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:31:41 -0800, Brad wrote:

> Be lining up to buy electric sailplanes?
>
My guess is yes. I want one, I want one NOW.

> Be looking at winching, for real this time?
>
I hope so. I really enjoy winching.
Also , I want to try a launch off one of the German electric winches.

> Be riding our bikes to the airport?
>
The distance to the glider field is a problem almost everywhere. Noise is
probably a good part of that, but again winches are the answer: even an
ugly old diesel winch has a vastly smaller noise footprint than a tow
plane or a 2-stroke self-launcher. Our Supacat has a 240 hp V8 aircooled
Deutz diesel on straight pipes. It has to be a very still, silent day for
us to hear it from the launch point. I've heard it at dawn during the
Longest Day madness but you have to listen. Apart from that I've heard it
once during the day and was quite surprised to have done so.

I reckon an electric winch would be ideal on both noise and pollution
grounds: the black plume from the winch if its launching something heavy
looks pretty ugly.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Brad[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 5:44*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> >> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>
> >> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
> >> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
> >> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
> >> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
> >> West Coast airports.
>
> >> --
>
> > In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
> > (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
> > contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>
> So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

you know, according to noetic scientists, the collective consciousness
of the world was measurable on that day.................or so I read.

Brad

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

Al Gore might sound a little bit more believable if he didn't jetset
around the world in .... not just one.....but TWO private jets that
have EXTREMELY high fuel burns per hour - (compared to other corporate
jets of similar size). Not only did he buy a couple of jets that are
notorious for being fuel hogs, he also built a few mega mansions that
were very energy-in-efficient. Don't you think if Al really believed
this stuff he would practice what he preached? Once he started
getting criticized for this matter, he converted his houses into
extremely energy efficient designs. Guess he didn't want to
jeapordize his empire of wealth obtained from scaring the world about
how half of Florida will be under water. Let's not forget about his
subliminal messages of nuclear bombs going off in his movie An
Incovenient Truth! see this link for a picture.....

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bomb%20%20in%20inconvenient%20truth/IgnoranceIsntbliss/global%20warming/gorenuke.jpg


This whole mess sounds about as believable as when the Greeks claimed
that a giant named "Atlas" was holding up the earth on his shoulders.
Back when the greeks were the cutting edge of science and theory, that
seemed like a reasonable thing. Earthquakes? Atlas was moving around
and it caused the ground to shake. One day, scientists will look back
at this era and laugh. Some scientists believe our earth is soooooo
incredibly huge that the polluntants we put in the atmosphere are like
a grain of sand on a large beach. So small you can't even find it if
you look hard. But a theory like that wont sell tickets, popcorn and
a 25 dollar pack of junior mints at your local movie theatre.


Ever been to L.A.? Doesn't all that smog look terrible? You may not
know this, That smog has been there since well before planes, trains
and automobiles. That's why the native indians (the Chumash tribe)
hundreds of years ago named it "The Valley of Smoke". It was smoggy
back then and it is smoggy today.


Hey by the way - What ever happened to that "hole in the ozone" did
they ever get that thing patched up ok?

[Brad[_2_]]

> Hey by the way - What ever happened to that "hole in the ozone" did
> they ever get that thing patched up ok?

No, that hole is how the spaceship the Maitreya is riding around in is
going to slip into the atmoshpere.

How does all this tie in you ask??

Climate change, Global Warming, Peak Oil, insert_calamity_here, will
all be fixed by this dude.....don't believe it??
Wait for the next ad on cable TV his pals are running, you know, the
"bright star" pulsating light in the sky?

Ok................I'm ready for the content police to take me away!

Brad

[bildan]

On Dec 23, 6:41*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 6:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
> > it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
> > extremely alarming.
>
> I regard that point as honestly debatable. *And all the hot air out of
> Al Gore to the contrary, I do not think we've really had that debate.
> I'd like to see this chap (Richard Lindzen, MIT prof.)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456742391702...
> get a little more airplay as I think he's done some excellent work and
> tough luck that the results don't play well with the current political
> agenda. *You can hardly call this "sniping at the edges".
>
> Don't doubt for a moment that NCAR is full of earnest, smart, hard
> working guys. *And I think that if pressed over a couple of beers that
> they will probably admit that their models are full of problems.
> That's part of what Lindzen's work is all about: getting the
> atmospheric data that will validate (or not) these models. *Mostly
> "not" at the moment, it appears. *And until they *are* validated, the
> models are not useful for prediction, full stop.
>
> One thing I've wondered about rather idly, that I have not seen come
> up in discussions on the topic of AGW, is what the AGW proponents
> think about the cycle of the ice ages, and if these cycles are
> supposed to have become irrelevant. *My home has spent the majority of
> the last million years under a *lot* of ice and snow. *In fact, that
> should probably be regarded as the normal condition here in what we
> now call New Hampshire, USA. *Do these guys *really* believe that the
> cycle of the ice ages has been broken? *If so, does their model
> predict the end of the Holocene and a return to an ice age in the
> absence of anthropogenic CO2? *If not... pray tell, *why* not?
>
> I don't work in this area. *I have a business, well two of 'em
> actually, to run, a family to take care of and a sweetheart of a curvy
> beautiful 24 year old glider to fly in such spare time as I have, so
> about all *I* have time to do on AGW is "snipe at the edges". *In so
> doing, I hope to plant seeds of rational thought in others' minds such
> that we become as a whole a bit more resistant to being hearded about
> like so many sheep.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

New data doesn't 'validate' the models, they just get incorporated
into the next run. Validation would take the next hundred years of
data and by then it will be too late. Climate models are like huge,
incredibly complicated spreadsheets - so big that it takes the fastest
computers in the world months to run them. Climate models will never
be "validated". The newest data trends seem to be pushing the models
toward even more extreme outcomes.

Ice ages do seem to be cyclic. If so, the current epoch should have
us easing into an ice age. That the reverse is happening is even more
worrying.

A warming Earth would probably improve thermal soaring by expanding
the Troposphere - thermals would be taller and stronger. However, if
any of the proposed "geo-engeneering" ideas are ever tried, it would
be the end of thermal soaring as we know it.

Could it get worse? Unfortunately, yes.

If you want to see real terror on the face of a climatologist, mention
"methane clathrates" - methane trapped in ice formations. Methane is
a far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. Truly vast amounts of
it are in extremely unstable submarine ice deposits on continental
shelves. Even without much warming at all, they are known to erupt
with enough power to sink ships.

Even more methane is trapped in melting permafrost. In the last
decade and for the first time in human memory, large lakes of
mel****er circle the shores of the Arctic Ocean in summer - each
boiling violently with escaping methane. Large releases of methane is
the first and most important "trigger point" that could cause runaway
greenhouse warming.

Are there any natural events that might stop global warming? Yes, a
supervolcano eruption would do it - temporarily. Other events might
slow it like vast expansions of northern forests 'fertilized' by extra
CO2. In fact, brush lands are expanding northward. Others suggest
that algae blooms will eat the CO2. From the geologic record, it
appears that CO2 buildups get sucked out of the atmosphere after a
long warm period by some as yet unknown process - leading to a global
freeze-up in less than 50 years.

Bill Daniels

[T8]

On Dec 23, 10:06*pm, bildan > wrote:
> The newest data trends seem to be pushing the models
> toward even more extreme outcomes.

That's interesting take... even the CRU admit that current world wide
surface temps are running below the expectations of their models (last
decade).

Also, atmospheric temps have *never* shown the expected signature of
CO2 based warming (warming at altitude vs surface). Ask your NCAR
guys about that.

Also ask them what in blazes happened to the medieval warm period.
The "hockey stick" guys have completely removed from their charts.
WTF is up with that? This isn't "science". It's rapidly turning into
simple minded fear mongering.

You set the "standard of proof" for the models pretty low, Bill.
We're talking the whole of modern industrial society, the whole of
modern agriculture on the block here. Drastic action would ordinarily
seem to demand a proportionately high standard of proof. But oh, yes,
"there's not time." Ah.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[5Z]

Nice visuals the complexities involved here:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

After lots of research, the author concludes:

"My conclusion is “what a nightmare”. I was generally shocked and
appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments. The data
was often tucked away on extremely ancient or byzantine websites. The
key counter arguments I often found, 16 scrolls down, on comment 342
on a far flung realclimate.org post from three years ago. And even
when I found an answer, the answers were excessively jargonized or
technical.

Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s
an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading
climatologists.

Unfortunately, the majority of the writing on there is so scientific
and so technical, it makes the website nigh on useless to the casual,
curious reader."

-Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 23, 10:38Â am, Martin Gregorie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
>>>> persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>>>>
>>> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
>>> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
>>> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
>>> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
>>> West Coast airports.
>> In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
>> (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
>> contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>>
> So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
>
Three days is weather. Actually, one week is weather, one month is
weather, one year is weather. Get up to five years, ten years, now you
are starting to talk climate. For an explanation of a three day event,
talk to a meteorologist, because three days isn't something climate
scientists even think about predicting.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 23, 10:38Â am, Martin Gregorie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
>>>> persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>>>>
>>> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
>>> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
>>> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
>>> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
>>> West Coast airports.
>> In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
>> (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
>> contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>>
> So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
>
Three days is weather. Actually, one week is weather, one month is
weather, one year is weather. Get up to five years, ten years, now you
are starting to talk climate. For an explanation of a three day event,
talk to a meteorologist, because three days isn't something climate
scientists even think about predicting.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[gander]

>
> So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
> it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
> extremely alarming.
>
> Bill Daniels

Hear, hear! Great note, Bill.

I've worked in disaster preparedness planning for 38 years, starting
as a geographer/climatologist. The data started to talking to us in
the mid-70s when we started noticing tree rings and glacier cores. The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 12:18*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Ah, the old "Common man can't do his own critical thinking on an
> important matter" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Ah, the old "Amateur can understand any complex
difficult topic with a little thought" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Not impressive.

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

I have read some of the ICPP papers. They claim that over the last
1000 to 2000 years the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has
fluctuated between about 3.2 and 3.6 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000
molecules of air. The fluctuation has been up and down but in that
range. We all understand what a "greenhouse" effect is so that plays
pretty well on the surface. But what I need to see is the mechanism
that explains why such a miniscule change in the concentration of CO2
is expected to have such a large effect on the global climate.

-Doug

[RAS]

We mustn’t question everything but follow the oracles that live on
government climate change grants and carbon credits. All religions
require faith and sacrifice.

[T8]

On Dec 24, 2:16*am, gander > wrote:
> The
> only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
> truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
> eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
> genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or
would you simply like to stick to sniping at character?

Btw, wasn't the climate disaster foretold in the 70's just a bit
different? Being intellectually dishonest, mentally impaired AND a
sociopath, I don't even trust what I tell myself I think I recall.
But at least I haven't spent an entire career living at taxpayer
expense.

Btw, Merry Christmas.

Tango-eight, over & out.

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 1:17*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2:16*am, gander > wrote:
>
> > The
> > only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
> > truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
> > eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
> > genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.
>
> Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or


He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the
climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is:
- the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary
- the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof

Proof traditionally requires:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the
prediction" requirement.

The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that
will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably
changed.

[Liam]

Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud!

And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! And Chappaquidick! And
whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about
today.

Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly
a glider.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Dec 24, 8:05*am, Liam > wrote:
> Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud!
>
> And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! *And Chappaquidick! *And
> whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about
> today.
>
> Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly
> a glider.

Ah Liam, we've missed you. Welcome back!

Brad

[jcarlyle]

Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method, which is of course
what needs to be followed if we are to arrive at the true explanation.
All other approaches are simply "belief", which even though
passionately held can be wrong (cf, flat earth, earth centered
universe, no moon landings, etc.)

I think cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction"
requirement is because it means work - which they don't want to do
simply to make a political point.

-John

Tom Gardner wrote:
> On Dec 24, 1:17 pm, T8 > wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2:16 am, gander > wrote:
> >
> > > The
> > > only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
> > > truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
> > > eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
> > > genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.
> >
> > Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or
>
>
> He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the
> climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is:
> - the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary
> - the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof
>
> Proof traditionally requires:
> 1 state the theory
> 2 make prediction based on the theory
> 3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
> 4 repeat 1-3, if necessary
>
> In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the
> prediction" requirement.
>
> The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that
> will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably
> changed.

[bildan]

On Dec 23, 6:44*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> >> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> >> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>
> >> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
> >> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
> >> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
> >> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
> >> West Coast airports.
>
> >> --
>
> > In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
> > (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
> > contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>
> So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

The daily maximum temperature did rise the 3-day hiatus which any
meteorologist would have expected. The size of that rise was much
larger than anyone expected. The reason is that high altitude jets
leave contrails that are sometimes nearly invisible but still reflect
substantial solar energy back into space. At night, the same
contrails reflect heat back to the earth resulting in warmer daily
minimum temperatures. The days got hotter and the nights got colder.
Contrails tend to dissipate during the day so the net effect is
warming. This complexity is typical of the climate debate.

Climate change 'skeptics' are throwing the word "temperature" around
without really knowing what it means. For example, just what
temperature are we talking about? Minimums, maximums or just the
average. For that matter, exactly how is temperature measured? Just
walking outside with a thermometer won't do it. Finally, what are you
actually measuring?

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) publishes an extensive
manual on how to measure surface temperature. It specifies standard
equipment and methods. It's not easy to do.

The effects of global warming are also different from what most
people expect. Currently, the largest effects are on minimum
temperatures in northern latitudes. Even if daily maximums don't
increase noticeably, warmer daily minimums are having substantial
effects - particularly on ice.

[T8]

On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Bravo, Tom Gardner!
>
> You've listed the essence of the scientif method,

No, he hasn't.

The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
information that others can reproduce your results and check your
reasoning, end to end.

This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[5Z]

On Dec 24, 5:17*am, T8 > wrote:
> Btw, wasn't the climate disaster foretold in the 70's just a bit
> different?

Do a little research and you'll find that "disaster" was choreographed
by the confused media, not climatologists.

I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring,
you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto
some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it.

And today, with 25 hour news and everything having to be LIVE! and
BREAKING NEWS! that mundane things like needing to provide several
hours (days, weeks) of background material to make the viewer
understand is just not going to happen.

-Tom

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 4:58*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> > Bravo, Tom Gardner!
>
> > You've listed the essence of the scientif method,
>
> No, he hasn't.
>
> The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
> information that others can reproduce your results and check your
> reasoning, end to end.

It isn't quite as simple as that, of course. The most
interesting/revolutionary predictions are made in advance of
it being possible to prove them. A classic example is
that general relativity was stated in 1915 and only
experimentally proven in 1919.


> This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

Not true: they do publish and they do release information.

Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
*imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

*If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

[jcarlyle]

Wrong, T8 - as Tom G stated, you just need to:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

Of course it makes it easier if you publish and provide your data, but
it's not strictly necessary, as a quick perusal of history shows. If
you have problems with the theory, it's incumbent upon you to do the
work to disprove it.

-John

T8 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:38 am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > Bravo, Tom Gardner!
> >
> > You've listed the essence of the scientif method,
>
> No, he hasn't.
>
> The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough
> information that others can reproduce your results and check your
> reasoning, end to end.
>
> This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do.

[John Smith]

5Z wrote:
> I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring,
> you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto
> some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it.

It's always fascinating that usually the same people who think the
journalists are ignorants rely on those same journalists when their
writing is convenient.

It's also fascinating when people who use such really difficult and
esotheric and counter-intuitive stuff like the relativity theory (used
by GPS) or quantum mechanics (used in computers or more generally in
every transistor) and bet their lives on thermodynamic theories (by
flying airplanes) don't believe those same scientists when their
findings are less convenient.

[T8]

This discussion gets to feel like a throbbing hangover....

John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"
and a sound basis for worldwide policies costing in the $trillions.
My opinion, shared by others. My mind remains quite open, though I
don't think I could possibly convince you of that. I observe that to
skeptics, you appear rather closed minded yourselves. Jack up the
standard of proof, show the (raw) data, show the source codes, let the
skeptics do their best to tear it up. If the case is really as
airtight as you think, you could win me over. But not with the
current "Ceasar's wife", attitude of the CRU and IPCC.

John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories. Thermo,
QM, relativity all have a rich history of making accurate predictions
and as such can be utilized in practical engineering. This highlights
the main problem with AGW -- we're being asked to bet our livelihoods
on theory despite numerous failures in validation.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Smith]

T8 wrote:

> John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories.

But this is exactly what *you* do. When all those models are proven to
be correct, then it will be too late and the cost will be *much* higher.
(Personally I even think it's already too late now.) Of course that
won't concern *you* anymore. *Me* neither, but I happen to have children.

BTW, those models are neither new nor do they originate in the USA. When
I was involved into related measurements during my thesis back in the
80ties, they were already 20 years old. And sadly it must be said that
most of the predictions we then made heve been proven true by now.

Sometimes people forget that physicists are professional sceptics.

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

Remember when the scientists were predicting global cooling? Where are
those guys when we need them?

[kirk.stant]

Just to throw a little aviation content back in this thread, how about
Burt Rutan's POV:

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

Kirk
66

[jcarlyle]

Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute. Why would any sane person indulge you?
Especially when it's clear that you have no respect for researchers
(you wrote "at least I haven't spent an entire career living at
taxpayer expense").

If by some slim chance you're serious, the data you seek isn't limited
to the UK at CRU - almost all developed nations have it. Swallow the
attitude, make friends at some place like NCAR, prove you're sincere
rather than on some preverted crusade, and you might get enlightened.

-John

T8 wrote:
> John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
> science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"
> and a sound basis for worldwide policies costing in the $trillions.
> My opinion, shared by others. My mind remains quite open, though I
> don't think I could possibly convince you of that. I observe that to
> skeptics, you appear rather closed minded yourselves. Jack up the
> standard of proof, show the (raw) data, show the source codes, let the
> skeptics do their best to tear it up.

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 8:57*pm, T8 > wrote:
> John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
> science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"

You have absolutely no idea what standard of proof I might
require. Asserting that you do brings into question your
other assertions.

Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
ease of reference)

Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
*imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

*If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.


> John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories.

I think you are doing exactly that!

[T8]

On Dec 24, 5:42*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
> gold standard of science.
>
> What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
> merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
> don't want to contribute.

No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

-T8

[T8]

On Dec 24, 6:08*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:

> Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
> ease of reference)
>
> * Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
> * that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
> * *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
> * after it is too late to mitigate the effects.
>
> * *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
> * in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

To clarify my earlier response, "yes".

What, in your opinion, is the very best evidence that this is an
imminent problem?

[jcarlyle]

Exactly - your mind's made up at the outset. Well, get your data the
old fashioned way - go to Nature and measure it.

-John

On Dec 24, 6:38 pm, T8 > wrote:
> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> theory.

[T8]

On Dec 24, 7:30*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:

> On Dec 24, 6:38 pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> > theory.

> Exactly - your mind's made up at the outset. Well, get your data the
> old fashioned way - go to Nature and measure it.
>
> -John

[edited to get rid of top posting -- geeze that's annoying!]

Perfect. Thank you *so* much. I mean that. Think everyone else
pretty well gets the picture here?

Best regards,

Evan Ludeman / T8

[5Z]

On Dec 24, 1:51*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
> Remember when the scientists were predicting global cooling? Where are
> those guys when we need them?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

A snippet from that thread:
"I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific
press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular
press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But
we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look
at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/."

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 > wrote:
> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> theory.

Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
Or is that out of the question?

Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 24, 11:53*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 6:08*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
> > ease of reference)
>
> > * Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
> > * that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
> > * *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
> > * after it is too late to mitigate the effects.
>
> > * *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
> > * in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.
>
> To clarify my earlier response, "yes".

I'm pleased to hear it. What evidence/arguments would be sufficient?


> What, in your opinion, is the very best evidence that this is an
> imminent problem?

There's no single "smoking gun", and your expecting to find one
(in advance of irreversible changes) is naive.

So, I'm sorry, the best response I can give is the answer can
be found by reading learning and inwardly digesting the scientific
literature.

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
>> Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
>> gold standard of science.
>>
>> What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
>> merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
>> don't want to contribute.
>>
>
> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> theory.
There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
require?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Tom Gardner > writes:

>Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
>ease of reference)
>
> Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
> that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
> *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
> after it is too late to mitigate the effects.
>
> *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
> in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

And what evidince or argument is needed to convince you of the
opposite? Perhaps closed minds call the kettle black?

Alan

[Greg Arnold]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> T8 wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
>>
>>> Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
>>> gold standard of science.
>>>
>>> What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
>>> merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
>>> don't want to contribute.
>>>
>>
>> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
>> theory.
> There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
> number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
> require?



One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times.
After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would
achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune).

[delboy]

On 25 Dec, 05:22, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > T8 wrote:
> >> On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> >>> Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
> >>> gold standard of science.
>
> >>> What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
> >>> merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
> >>> don't want to contribute.
>
> >> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> >> theory.
> > There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a
> > number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you
> > require?
>
> One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times.
> After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would
> achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The issues:
1) We have burnt rather a lot of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and
oil, in the last hundred years or so.
2) Many rain forests have been cut down to allow the land to used for
other purposes. Trees consume large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere
for photosynthesis.
3) The human population is expanding at a considerable rate. At least
in the developed World all these folk expect to live in heated and air-
conditioned houses, to drive cars and to travel by aircraft.

On the other hand:
1) We seem to be living in a natural interglacial period. Only a few
tens of thousands of years ago much of North America and Northern
Europe was covered in ice.
2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
3) Reasonably accurate temperature measurement has only been possible
for a few hundred years, so to say that there is a trend of increasing
temperatures may only be looking at a very short term and natural
variation in terms of the entire history of the planet. In any case
the average global temperature seems to have stabilised again, which
is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as
'climate change'!
4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each
person's carbon footprint.
5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be
able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them
as much as possible.
6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike,
famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or
wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they
had it made!

Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct),
Derek Copeland

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

To get off of religion for a minute it is amazing how many people
believe contrails are evidence that the government is spraying the
population with something. Maybe it’s just the loons out here in the
west but I caught a call-in radio program a while back discussing
contrails and people were calling in expressing their belief in the
conspiracy. Part of there proof that it wasn't a natural occurrence
was because the planes only sprayed at certain times. Hard to argue
with that logic.

[T8]

On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> > theory.
>
> Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
> Or is that out of the question?
>
> Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!

The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely
required. My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
errors are factual and provable.

I am after truth. Yes, I am naive. This was driven home very nicely
by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the
community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain
faced about this. But it fits. We don't share the same scientific
ethics.

Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the
political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of
AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good
reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and
again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously
check their work. To deny that a great number of researchers in the
AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of
laughter. Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a
whole. I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. They've
earned this. I hold them in contempt.

If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to
consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/
costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary
or economically desirable". But if the current state of the art in
AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less
than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then
no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory
agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:

> /snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
> hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
> Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct), /snip/
> Derek Copeland
>

Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
the reference is wishy-washy...)

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Gary Evans wrote:
> To get off of religion for a minute it is amazing how many people
> believe contrails are evidence that the government is spraying the
> population with something. Maybe it’s just the loons out here in the
> west but I caught a call-in radio program a while back discussing
> contrails and people were calling in expressing their belief in the
> conspiracy. Part of there proof that it wasn't a natural occurrence
> was because the planes only sprayed at certain times. Hard to argue
> with that logic.
>
>
I live in cotton country, which as you probably don't know,
is Oklahoma.
Cotton spraying is the largest single vector for agri chemicals.
We get contrails. They are about 20 feet off the ground.

Unfortunately, they blow into town - specially the small towns like the
one where I live. People start complaining about their allergies,
and asthmatics stay indoors. People get headaches. Others walk round
carrying small oxygen bottles.

The cotton business is heavily subsidized. In this locality, there
is a pretty lake - actually a reservoir 20 miles north, with a big canal
system to carry irrigation water. This is a popular tourist destination.
The lake water is drained for irrigation, carrying sport fish to
their final destinations. The tourists fade away. The fish are uneatable
if caught in the irrigation ditches. You know - the crop sprays.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

T8 wrote:

> I am after truth. Yes, I am naive.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8
>

Not only Evan, but some researchers think they are about seeking truth.

It's the most amusing thing. If you mention that their business is
about making models, improving models, and contradicting models, they
are aghast. But models are all we have. And the process works very,
very nicely. You know: Evolution by Natural Selection: General &
Special Relativity. Thermodynamics. the Germ Theory of Disease.

Brian W

[Mike[_8_]]

On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> > > theory.
>
> > Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
> > Or is that out of the question?
>
> > Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!
>
> The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
> However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
> These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
> required. *My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
> AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
> errors are factual and provable.
>
> I am after truth. *Yes, I am naive. *This was driven home very nicely
> by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the
> community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain
> faced about this. *But it fits. *We don't share the same scientific
> ethics.
>
> Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
> have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
> that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the
> political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of
> AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good
> reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and
> again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously
> check their work. *To deny that a great number of researchers in the
> AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of
> laughter. *Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a
> whole. *I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. *They've
> earned this. * I hold them in contempt.
>
> If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to
> consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/
> costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary
> or economically desirable". *But if the current state of the art in
> AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less
> than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then
> no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory
> agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Really appreciate your point of view Evan.

Mike Carris

[Greg Arnold]

T8 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:09 pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 11:38 pm, T8 > wrote:
>>
>>> No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
>>> theory.
>> Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
>> Or is that out of the question?
>>
>> Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!
>
> The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
> However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
> These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely
> required. My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
> AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
> errors are factual and provable.


Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have
the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
opposition?

[Brad[_2_]]

On Dec 25, 12:11*pm, Mike > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > > No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
> > > > theory.
>
> > > Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
> > > Or is that out of the question?
>
> > > Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!
>
> > The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> > prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
> > However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> > opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> > assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
> > These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> > the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
> > required. *My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
> > AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
> > errors are factual and provable.
>
> > I am after truth. *Yes, I am naive. *This was driven home very nicely
> > by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the
> > community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain
> > faced about this. *But it fits. *We don't share the same scientific
> > ethics.
>
> > Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
> > have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
> > that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the
> > political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of
> > AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good
> > reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and
> > again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously
> > check their work. *To deny that a great number of researchers in the
> > AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of
> > laughter. *Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a
> > whole. *I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. *They've
> > earned this. * I hold them in contempt.
>
> > If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to
> > consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/
> > costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary
> > or economically desirable". *But if the current state of the art in
> > AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less
> > than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then
> > no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory
> > agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc.
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Really appreciate your point of view Evan.
>
> Mike Carris

Ditto............

[T8]

On Dec 25, 3:36*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:

> Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have
> the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
> opposition?

(!!!!!)

Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:

My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
my throat.

If you want to discuss science, email me.

-T8

[Greg Arnold]

T8 wrote:
> On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
>> Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have
>> the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
>> opposition?
>
> (!!!!!)
>
> Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:
>
> My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
> other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
> and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
> that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
> my throat.
>
> If you want to discuss science, email me.
>
> -T8


Ah, so this really is about politics. You don't want one public policy
(dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy
(doing nothing). In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy
down the throat of the others, right?

[T8]

On Dec 25, 5:11*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> T8 wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
> >> Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have
> >> the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
> >> opposition?
>
> > (!!!!!)
>
> > Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:
>
> > My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
> > other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
> > and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
> > that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
> > my throat.
>
> > If you want to discuss science, email me.
>
> > -T8
>
> Ah, so this really is about politics. *You don't want one public policy
> (dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy
> (doing nothing). *In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy
> down the throat of the others, right?

Of course it's political! Not solely, but....

There's a non-trivial asymmetry in those two cases politically. Hope
that's obvious. I don't think we should argue that here....

-T8

[Eric Greenwell]

Alan wrote:
> In article > Tom Gardner > writes:
>
>
>> Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
>> ease of reference)
>>
>> Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
>> that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
>> *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
>> after it is too late to mitigate the effects.
>>
>> *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
>> in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.
>>
>
> And what evidince or argument is needed to convince you of the
> opposite? Perhaps closed minds call the kettle black?
>
There are a number of things that would do it:

* evidence that the cloud models seriously understate the amount of
cloud that will form as the global temperatures rise
* someone finally figuring out a way for cosmic rays to produce the
clouds the proponents think they do
* the discovery that satellite measurements have under-reported
incoming energy
* adding more measurement stations to the sparsely instrumented
polar regions determines the warming there is much less than
previously estimated.
* a new theory, supported by measurements, the CO2 forcing is
significantly lower than current theories require
* a study demonstrating each method used to determine sea level rise
has flaws widening the error bands significantly.
* deep sea measurements showing the ocean circulation currents are
much different than thought, requiring significant changes in heat
transfer and dissolved CO2 parameters.

A climate scientist, or even a knowledgeable lay person, could name a
lot more, of course. There are a lot factors in climate dynamics, so
there are many places a person can look for potential errors in theory
and measurements.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

delboy wrote:
> 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
> hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
>
Even the alarmists with the widest eyes aren't suggesting life on earth
will be wiped out, only that "business as usual" will result in
significant and substantial changes in the climate and sea level that
will affect all of us.
> 3) Reasonably accurate temperature measurement has only been possible
> for a few hundred years, so to say that there is a trend of increasing
> temperatures may only be looking at a very short term and natural
> variation in terms of the entire history of the planet. In any case
> the average global temperature seems to have stabilised again,
"Seems" ignores the science and the data. That claim is usually based on
the HadCRUT3 data, which tends to under report the warming because it
ignores the polar regions; the other datasets "seem" to show more
warming. The current decade still shows rising temperatures despite
natural warming events like el Nino are at minimums, and the heat
content of the oceans continues to rise at about the same rate, and
that's a lot of heat.
> which
> is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as
> 'climate change'!
>
An artifact of uninformed media coverage, and some relabeling effort a
few years ago by people that wanted to direct attention away from global
warming and thought "climate change" didn't sound so scary. The
scientists were never confused about what the words meant.
> 4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each
> person's carbon footprint.
>
Yes, and even China has declared important per capita energy reduction
goals, but that will still not stop the rise in their emissions, nor are
these changes elsewhere happening fast enough, and it is unlikely to
without somehow pricing CO2 (and equivalent) emissions.
> 5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be
> able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them
> as much as possible.
>
"Eventually" is hundreds of years for coal, far beyond the current
danger timelines.
> 6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike,
> famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or
> wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they
> had it made!
>
And all of these will be easier to deal with if we aren't already in big
trouble with climate problems.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[delboy]

On Dec 25, 6:31*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> > /snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
> > hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
>
> Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
> point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
> the reference is wishy-washy...)
>
> Brian W

There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
age!

Derek C

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:31 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> delboy wrote:
>>> /snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
>>> hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
>> Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
>> point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
>> the reference is wishy-washy...)
>>
>> Brian W
>
> There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
> near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
> age!
>
> Derek C
>

On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.

Brian W

[glidergeek]

On Dec 26, 2:36*am, delboy > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:31*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > delboy wrote:
> > > /snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
> > > hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.
>
> > Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
> > point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
> > the reference is wishy-washy...)
>
> > Brian W
>
> There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
> near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
> age!
>
> Derek C

Ya tell that to the Vikings that got forced out of farming Iceland in
the 14 century, who caused that?

[delboy]

On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott > wrote:

>
> On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
> winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.
>
> Brian W- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
wetter and snowier. What went wrong?

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 26, 8:14*pm, delboy > wrote:
> I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
> by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
> wetter and snowier. What went wrong?
>
> Derek Copeland

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation>

Expect the naysayers to say nay, and the doom-mongers to
say "woe woe and thrice woe" or (in a Scots accent) "we're all
doomed, doomed" ;}

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:
> On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
>> On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
>> winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.
>>
>> Brian W- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
> by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
> wetter and snowier. What went wrong?
>
> Derek Copeland


I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
keeps it bearable - but that flow is not immutable, apparently...

Brian W

[delboy]

On 26 Dec, 17:52, glidergeek > wrote:
>

>
> > There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
> > near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
> > age!
>
> > Derek C
>
> Ya tell that to the Vikings that got forced out of farming Iceland in
> the 14 century, who caused that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some good stuff about this in the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/ydkr5pf

Derek Copeland

[Eric Greenwell]

delboy wrote:
> On 26 Dec, 17:52, glidergeek > wrote:
>
>>> There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
>>> near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
>>> age!
>>>
>>> Derek C
>>>
>> Ya tell that to the Vikings that got forced out of farming Iceland in
>> the 14 century, who caused that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
> Some good stuff about this in the following link:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydkr5pf
>
> Derek Copeland
>
I started reading at his home page, which appears to have good material
;-)

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
>
> The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
> However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
>
I'm all for transparency, but there are limits: "Every opportunity" is
very open ended, and can lead to the scientist spending most of his time
dealing with requests for more and more information, and more and more
help understanding it, and more and more help running the models. You
may not know the people requesting all this information and all this
help expect it for *free*.

The standard, instead, are the papers he produces. If they are good
ones, they will provide the evidence needed. If the papers don't do
that, they may not get published, or if they are, then they don't get
much attention, are not cited very often, and the scientist finds
himself in the professional dust bin.

Besides, the raw data is available (and other resources), and nothing
should stop another person from devising his own theories, developing
his own models, and ultimately writing papers that don't have the
"flaws" he was complaining about. Some have done this, with varying
degrees of success.
> These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely
> required.
There is no rush. The potential for climate problems began to be
understood in the '70's, and the science is far better now. It may seem
like there is a rush because we've delayed taking action sooner when the
problem was smaller.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 27, 12:05*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
> Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
> keeps it bearable - but that flow is not immutable, apparently...

Very clearly shown in the the 0degree isotherm for January, see
http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/3000/3031/3031.jpg

Also consider that the "polar bear capital of Canada" is at the
same latitude as the south of England.

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 25, 6:06*pm, T8 > wrote:
> The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.

That used to be the case a generation ago, but now AGW *is*
the status quo. Time moves on, and now it is up to the AGW
skeptics to prove their case.

> However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
> These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> the extreme costs of such policy.

Where have you been for the past ~30 years? How long is required for
it not be be a "rush"!?


> Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
> have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
> that follows and <snipped>

The "other side" could mutate "political agenda" into "commercial
agenda" and use it as a weapon against the AGW skeptics.

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 27, 3:07*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> T8 wrote:
>
> > The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
> > prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
> > However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
> > opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
> > assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
>
> I'm all for transparency, but there are limits: "Every opportunity" is
> very open ended, and can lead to the scientist spending most of his time
> dealing with requests for more and more information, and more and more
> help understanding it, and more and more help running the models. You
> may not know the people requesting all this information and all this
> help expect it for *free*.
>
> The standard, instead, are the papers he produces. If they are good
> ones, they will provide the evidence needed. If the papers don't do
> that, they may not get published, or if they are, then they don't get
> much attention, are not cited very often, and the scientist finds
> himself in the professional dust bin.
>
> Besides, the raw data is available (and other resources), and nothing
> should stop another person from devising his own theories, developing
> his own models, and ultimately writing papers that don't have the
> "flaws" he was complaining about. Some have done this, with varying
> degrees of success.> These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
> > the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
> > required.
>
> There is no rush. The potential for climate problems began to be
> understood in the '70's, and the science is far better now. It may seem
> like there is a rush because we've delayed taking action sooner when the
> problem was smaller.

Very nicely put.

“Maintaining an open mind is essential when exploring the
unknown,
but allowing one’s brains to fall out in the process is
inadvisable.”
Dean Radin

[Valdi]

On Dec 26, 2:36*am, delboy wrote:
On Dec 25, 6:31*pm, brian whatcott wrote:

delboy wrote:
/snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.

Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
the reference is wishy-washy...)

Brian W

There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
age!

Derek C

Ya tell that to the Vikings that got forced out of farming Iceland in
the 14 century, who caused that?

The people (of Viking origin) that were farming Iceland in the 14th century did not stop farming there and their decendants are still farming Iceland.
You may be thinking of Greenland?

[Brian Whatcott]

Tom Gardner wrote:
> On Dec 27, 12:05 am, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
>> Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
>> keeps it bearable - but that flow is not immutable, apparently...
>
> Very clearly shown in the the 0degree isotherm for January, see
> http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/3000/3031/3031.jpg
>
> Also consider that the "polar bear capital of Canada" is at the
> same latitude as the south of England.

Interesting that the January 30degF isotherm pushes north in the North
Atlantic and North Pacific while the 70degF+ band in the tropics pushes
south at mid-Summer in South America, Australia and South Africa.

Brian W

[Tim Ward[_1_]]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:38 am, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >>
> >> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> >> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
> >>
> >> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
> >> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
> >> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
> >> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
> >> West Coast airports.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> > In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
> > (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
> > contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
> >
> So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

I think they explained it this way:
If the temperature rises when the clouds are _not_ there, then, logically,
it's possible that the presence of the clouds makes it cooler.

Tim Ward

[bildan]

On Dec 27, 3:32*pm, "Tim Ward" > wrote:
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 10:38 am, Martin Gregorie >
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> > >> > Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
> > >> > persistent contrails filled the southern sky.
>
> > >> Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
> > >> spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
> > >> period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
> > >> contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
> > >> West Coast airports.
>
> > >> --
>
> > > In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
> > > (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
> > > contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!
>
> > So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
> > the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> I think they explained it this way:
> If the temperature rises when the clouds are _not_ there, then, logically,
> it's possible that *the presence of the clouds makes it cooler.
>
> Tim Ward

Clouds cool in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and keep
the warmth in at night so minimum temps are warmer than on clear
nights.

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>delboy wrote:
>> On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott > wrote:
>>
>>> On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
>>> winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.
>>>
>>> Brian W- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
>> by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
>> wetter and snowier. What went wrong?
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>
>
>I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
>Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
>keeps it bearable

That would be the Gulf Stream.

rj

[Brian Whatcott]

Ralph Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
> > wrote:
>
>> delboy wrote:
>>> On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
>>>> winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.
>>>>
>>>> Brian W- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
>>> by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
>>> wetter and snowier. What went wrong?
>>>
>>> Derek Copeland
>>
>> I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
>> Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
>> keeps it bearable
>
> That would be the Gulf Stream.
>
> rj

I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue
with the idea that the climate is bearable! :-)

Brian W

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 29, 12:49*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Ralph Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
> > > wrote:
>
> >> delboy wrote:
> >>> On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> >>>> On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
> >>>> winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.
>
> >>>> Brian W- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
> >>> by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
> >>> wetter and snowier. What went wrong?
>
> >>> Derek Copeland
>
> >> I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
> >> Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
> >> keeps it bearable
>
> > That would be the Gulf Stream.
>
> > rj
>
> I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue
> with the idea that the climate is bearable! *:-)
>
> Brian W

ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!

.... the variability of which makes us acutely sensitive
to changes.

.... and is the reason why "the weather" is a standard
conversation topic amongst the British

[Morgans[_2_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote
>
> I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue with
> the idea that the climate is bearable! :-)

Remember the old joke that goes something like, "stick your left foot in a
pot of 140 degree (F) water, and your right foot in a pot of ice water. On
the average, your feet are comfortable."

Change that around to: "On January 31st, stick your bare left foot outside
the door in England, while putting your right foot in a freezer at the
outside temperature in Siberia at the same date, and wait a few minutes."

I predict you will then agree that the left foot is cold, but much more
reasonably warmer than your right foot.

No argument that they are both too damn cold for me. That is why I moved
from Ohio to North Carolina 20 some years ago. Still, today it is too damn
cold for me, even in North Carolina.

Everything is relative. In Key West (Florida) they put own down-stuffed
coats when it goes down below 50 degrees. In Wisconsin, when it gets to 50
degrees in the wintertime, they take off their coats, down to a short sleeve
T-shirt! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:40:00 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> delboy wrote:
>> 5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be
>> able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them
>> as much as possible.
>>
> "Eventually" is hundreds of years for coal, far beyond the current
> danger timelines.
>
You may be surprised. A around 2006 back I wondered about that, dug up
the estimates for global coal reserves and estimates for the then current
rates of increase in coal use (250 years reserve at the 2006 burn rate,
2% annual increase). I plugged those into a standard compound interest
calculation, which predicts all coal will be gone in 85 years.

A recent review (New Scientist, vol 197, no 2639, 19 Jan 2008 page 38) of
coal reserves supports my simplistic analysis. It thinks the coal,
industry reserve figures are twice reality and that we'll pass peak coal
not more than a decade or two after peak oil. IOW coal is unlikely to
become an oil substitute. Peak oil, by some estimates was passed in 2005
or 2006.

>> 6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike,
>> famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or
>> wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they had
>> it made!
>>
> And all of these will be easier to deal with if we aren't already in big
> trouble with climate problems.
>
I couldn't agree more.

I've also been trying to find out who said that technological
civilisation is a one-shot deal - meaning that if our technically-based
civilisation collapses for any reason (climate change, big asteroid
strike, nuclear war, pick your favourite disaster) while we're still
reliant on non-renewable natural resources then its most unlikely that it
will ever be possible to rebuild its replacement.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:01:59 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

> ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!
>
Hence the saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[delboy]

On 29 Dec 2009, 17:14, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:01:59 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!
>
> Hence the saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".

We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
relatively cold winter last year.

So the questions are:

1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?

2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
sceptical ones.

3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
melts (tongue in cheek question)?

4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!

Derek Copeland

[Mark Jardini]

While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.

Mark Jardini

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> Mark Jardini

I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
countries are also having a bad time.

The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:

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


The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
temperate, south-west direction.

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 7:59*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
> > While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> > world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> > local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> > climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> > progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> > gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> > would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> > Mark Jardini
>
> I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
> being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
> countries are also having a bad time.
>
> The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
> top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
> content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
> surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
> cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
> warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
> Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
> wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>
> The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
> airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
> blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
> temperate, south-west direction.
>
> Derek Copeland

Don't forget Mark's second point, which appears to be the more
significant in the long term. If the Gulf Stream shuts down then
olar bears will roam London (same latitude as Churchill in
Canada), presuming they haven't become extinct beforehand :)

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 6:35*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2009, 17:14, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:01:59 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!
>
> > Hence the saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".
>
> We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
> I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
> snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
> relatively cold winter last year.
>
> So the questions are:
>
> 1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?

Insufficient evidence to know which way things will tip,
but a good precursor of a flip to a different regime would
be more frequent extreme weather conditions.

> 2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
> unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
> fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
> sceptical ones.

Can I suggest you put the tinfoil hat back on. What on earth makes
you dream that they need *extra* powers/reasons/arguments/etc
to tax and control us!


> 3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
> melts (tongue in cheek question)?
>
> 4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
> climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
> 1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
> century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
> Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!

Anybody suggesting one year's *weather* as a indication of *climate*
change is a prime candidate for buying a secondhand bridge in
New York!

[Scott[_7_]]

Mark Jardini wrote:
> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> Mark Jardini


http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

[Scott[_7_]]

Tom Gardner wrote:
> On Jan 8, 7:59 am, delboy > wrote:
>> On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>>
>>> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
>>> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
>>> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
>>> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
>>> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
>>> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
>>> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>>> Mark Jardini
>> I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
>> being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
>> countries are also having a bad time.
>>
>> The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
>> top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
>> content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
>> surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
>> cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
>> warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
>> Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
>> wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>>
>> The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
>> airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
>> blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
>> temperate, south-west direction.
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>
> Don't forget Mark's second point, which appears to be the more
> significant in the long term. If the Gulf Stream shuts down then
> olar bears will roam London (same latitude as Churchill in
> Canada), presuming they haven't become extinct beforehand :)


Here's an interesting picture of a bunch of folks protesting against
global warming....rather interesting...

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/02/11/hundreds-attend-global-warming-protest/

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 11:25, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:35*am, delboy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec 2009, 17:14, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:01:59 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > > ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!
>
> > > Hence the saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".
>
> > We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
> > I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
> > snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
> > relatively cold winter last year.
>
> > So the questions are:
>
> > 1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?
>
> Insufficient evidence to know which way things will tip,
> but a good precursor of a flip to a different regime would
> be more frequent extreme weather conditions.
>
> > 2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
> > unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
> > fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
> > sceptical ones.
>
> Can I suggest you put the tinfoil hat back on. What on earth makes
> you dream that they need *extra* powers/reasons/arguments/etc
> to tax and control us!
>
> > 3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
> > melts (tongue in cheek question)?
>
> > 4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
> > climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
> > 1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
> > century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
> > Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!
>
> Anybody suggesting one year's *weather* as a indication of *climate*
> change is a prime candidate for buying a secondhand bridge in
> New York!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Tom,

1) On the control/taxation issue, you obviously don't live in the Nu
Labour governed UK. They are always looking for new ways to tax us,
and green issues give them a good excuse to do so. They have already
introduced Airport Travel Taxes and extra duties on motor fuels and
large engined cars.

2) The point I am trying to make (at least in my last posting) is that
there is good evidence that the climate has been variable before, with
naturally cold and warm periods. The fact that measured global
temperatures have increased by a fraction of a degree over the last
100 years, and the ice caps are melting, doesn't necessarily mean that
this will be a continuing trend.

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 11:48*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 11:25, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 6:35*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec 2009, 17:14, Martin Gregorie >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:01:59 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > > > ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!
>
> > > > Hence the saying "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".
>
> > > We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
> > > I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
> > > snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
> > > relatively cold winter last year.
>
> > > So the questions are:
>
> > > 1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?
>
> > Insufficient evidence to know which way things will tip,
> > but a good precursor of a flip to a different regime would
> > be more frequent extreme weather conditions.
>
> > > 2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
> > > unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
> > > fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
> > > sceptical ones.
>
> > Can I suggest you put the tinfoil hat back on. What on earth makes
> > you dream that they need *extra* powers/reasons/arguments/etc
> > to tax and control us!
>
> > > 3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
> > > melts (tongue in cheek question)?
>
> > > 4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
> > > climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
> > > 1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
> > > century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
> > > Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!
>
> > Anybody suggesting one year's *weather* as a indication of *climate*
> > change is a prime candidate for buying a secondhand bridge in
> > New York!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> 1) On the control/taxation issue, you obviously don't live in the Nu
> Labour governed UK. They are always looking for new ways to tax us,
> and green issues give them a good excuse to do so. They have already
> introduced Airport Travel Taxes and extra duties on motor fuels and
> large engined cars.

Er, I do live in England.

They don't need _*extra*_ powers etc (double emphasis since
you missed the emphasis in my last message).

If you think that the coming deluge of new taxes is something
to do with New Labour (i.e Margaret Thatcher's greatest
achievement) then you (a) don't understand the depth of the
current financial problems and (b) are going to be surprised
after the next election.


> 2) The point I am trying to make (at least in my last posting) is that
> there is good evidence that the climate has been variable before, with
> naturally cold and warm periods. The fact that measured global
> temperatures have increased by a fraction of a degree over the last
> 100 years, and the ice caps are melting, doesn't necessarily mean that
> this will be a continuing trend.

Of course. Only a fool would look at a single piece of
evidence and make dire predictions.

In addition, only a fool (or ostrich) doesn't attempt to extrapolate
current trends with associated sensitivity analyses.

The climate scientists look at history and pre-history and many
many snippets of current data. This isn't exactly a new
discipline - it has been gathering momentum
for the past 30 years.

Just what evidence would you require before you
believed that climate change is real?

Is it possible to have such evidence in time to avert
climate change?

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 11:30*am, Scott > wrote:

> Here's an interesting picture of a bunch of folks protesting against
> global warming....rather interesting...
>
> http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/02/11/hundreds-attend-global...

Excellent

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 12:08, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>>
> Just what evidence would you require before you
> believed that climate change is real?
>
> Is it possible to have such evidence in time to avert
> climate change?
>
This seems as good as anything:

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

As plants consume CO2 for photosynthesis, deforestation and land
clearance (particularly if it then turns into a desert) worry me more
than burning fossil fuels. With enough plant life, the Carbon in CO2
is naturally recycled.

As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
it would have already died out.

Derek Copeland

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote some questions, and asked for answers: I am glad to oblige:

> We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
> I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
> snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
> relatively cold winter last year.
>
> So the questions are:
>
> 1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?
>
No, unfortunately.

> 2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
> unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
> fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
> sceptical ones.
>
Any major effect will find its entrepreneurs and con men.
The unscrupulous politicians of my knowledge have been very slow to pick
up on the long term warming trend. Research meteorologists have
been slow too (IMO) to pick up on the greater variability that seems to
be going along with the trend.

> 3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
> melts (tongue in cheek question)?
>
Yes, but that melt will be hard to measure. Much easier, will be the
upcoming shelf slip and melt in the Antarctic.
That will just take a stick planted in a tidal flow, anywhere.

> 4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
> climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
> 1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
> century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
> Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!
>
> Derek Copeland

Dunno. That was then, and this is now.

Pleased to be of service.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:

> there is good evidence that the climate has been variable before, with
> naturally cold and warm periods. The fact that measured global
> temperatures have increased by a fraction of a degree over the last
> 100 years, and the ice caps are melting, doesn't necessarily mean that
> this will be a continuing trend.
>
> Derek Copeland
>
This point has to be conceded. After an observation comes the stage of
attempting to associate it with other factors, in order to establish a
causal link. When the observation is global, modulating the links
thought to be causal is not easy, particularly when they cut through the
classical path to the improvement of National living standards in many
places.


Brian W

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 12:52, brian whatcott > wrote:
> delboy wrote some questions, and asked for answers: I am glad to oblige:
>
> > We are having a very cold winter in the UK and Northern Europe (and so
> > I understand is North America). The whole of the UK is blanketed in
> > snow and gliding here has largely come to a halt. We also had a
> > relatively cold winter last year.
>
> > So the questions are:
>
> > 1) Are we entering another mini or maxi ice age?
>
> No, unfortunately.
>
> > 2) Is man made global warming/climate change a scam dreamed up by
> > unscrupulous politicians, so they can control and tax us more? They
> > fund the scientists who are trying to prove the case, but not the
> > sceptical ones.
>
> Any major effect will find its entrepreneurs and con men.
> The unscrupulous politicians of my knowledge have been very slow to pick
> up on the long term warming trend. * * *Research meteorologists have
> been slow too (IMO) to pick up on the greater variability that seems to
> be going along with the trend.
>
> > 3) Will sea levels rise when all the snow and ice on the UK eventually
> > melts (tongue in cheek question)?
>
> Yes, but that melt will be hard to measure. Much easier, will be the
> upcoming shelf slip and melt in the Antarctic.
> * That will just take a stick planted in a tidal flow, anywhere.
>
> > 4) If the cold winter is down to recent man made global warming/
> > climate change, we also had particularly cold winters in 1982,
> > 1962/63, 1948, and during the mini ice age period in the 14th - 19th
> > century. What caused them? Prior to the mini ice age, the British
> > Isles were warm enough to be a noted wine growing area!
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> Dunno. That was then, and this is now.
>
> Pleased to be of service.
>
> Brian W

The amount of water currently tied up as snow and ice on the UK
landmass is almost negligible in the whole scheme of things, and in
any case the sea level after the thaw (assuming we get one) will be
the same as it was before.

The melting of polar sea ice would not have anything like the great
effect on sea levels that people seem to think it should. It is
slightly less dense than cold water, so floats on top, displacing its
own weight of water. The Earth's gravity keeps water (displaced or
otherwise) at the same level throughout the globe, give or take a bit
for tides caused by the gravity of the moon. Melting of the ice caps
on landmasses such as Greenland and Antartica would have a much more
significant effect.

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 12:42*pm, delboy > wrote:
> As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
> relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
> pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
> it would have already died out.

Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
seconds to find on wackypedia.

In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
relevant.

A snippet to whet your appetite...

The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
temperature rise and further methane clathrate
destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
...
However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
became extinct 251 million years ago.

Sounds pretty drastic to me!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:48:08 -0800, delboy wrote:

>
> 2) The point I am trying to make (at least in my last posting) is that
> there is good evidence that the climate has been variable before, with
> naturally cold and warm periods. The fact that measured global
> temperatures have increased by a fraction of a degree over the last 100
> years, and the ice caps are melting, doesn't necessarily mean that this
> will be a continuing trend.
>
There are hints in fairly reputable circles, e.g. New Scientist, that
there could be two opposing effects operating:

On the warming side
the greenhouse effect forced by rising carbon dioxide levels from
burning foosil fuel and by rising methane levels from agriculture,
melting permafrost and (some say) sublimation of methane clathrates

On the cooling side
the extended quite sun effect. The sun has now been stuck in its
sunspot minimum for the last two years. A very long quiet sun
coincided with the Little Ice Age. The hypothesis is that:
- during a solar minimum the solar wind is also at a minimum
(known fact)
- if the solar wind is reduced, so is size of the sun's
magnetosphere (known fact)
- the magnetosphere deflects cosmic rays, which are high energy
charged particles from outside the solar system
- more cosmic rays cause more clouds as they disintegrate in
our atmosphere and ionise it.
- hence a prolonged solar minimum causes cloudier weather.
- increased cloudiness reflects more sunlight, cooling the earth
(known fact)

Hence a long solar minimum will start a cooling trend if it lasts
long enough to propagate outward far enough to affect the size of
the solar magnetosphere. The solar wind travels at 400-750 km/s,
the heliopause is around 150 AU in radius, so you'd expect to see
this cooling effect to start between 1 and 2 years after a long
solar minimum started.

NOTE: this cooling effect has nothing to do with variations in the sun's
energy output, which is pretty stable though it is thought to have
risen by about 25% since the earth formed. Just as well it *is* stable
life as we know it would be impossible near a variable star.

I'd just add that we've now had two rather poor, cloudy soaring seasons
and the solar minimum started 2 years ago....

Nobody knows, or seems to know, whether the cooling associated with a
solar minimum (assuming it is) is a bigger or a smaller effect than
current greenhouse warming.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 16:25, Tom Gardner > wrote:
..
>
> Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
> been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
> seconds to find on wackypedia.
>
> In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
> relevant.
>
> A snippet to whet your appetite...
>
> * The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
> * to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
> * falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
> * methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
> * seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
> * itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
> * temperature rise and further methane clathrate
> * destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
> * as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
> * ...
> * However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
> * clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
> * the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
> * number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
> * of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
> * Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
> * became extinct 251 million years ago.
>
> Sounds pretty drastic to me!

Er! Did I say there hadn't been any mass extinctions? There have been
lots of them, including the large dinosaurs (large meteorite strike?),
woolly mammoths (hunting, loss of habitat), dodos (stupid birds) and
even our near relatives the neanderthals (climate change - the last
ice age, probably nothing to do with CO2 emissions or methane
clathrates).

The fact of the matter is that all life forms on Earth are water
based, and with a few exceptions can only exist between about 0 - 60
degrees Centigrade, which is a tiny range in the scale of all things
in the Universe. The Earth is supposed to be a 'Goldilocks' planet:
Not too close to the Sun, not too far away, but just right!

I believe that methane releases are one possible explanation for the
many ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle. If there are a lot of methane
bubbles in the sea water, then it becomes insufficiently dense to
support the vessel and it just sinks! Of course it could just be
pirates.

Derek Copeland

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:59:25 -0800, delboy wrote:

> The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on top
> of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt content,
> will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to
> see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are cyclical, and
> apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini warm period
> between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the Vikings to settle
> in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were wiped out by cold
> weather in the 15th century. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>
The best reference I've seen so far about this is:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

A page of it was originally quoted to show how far the Gulf Stream's
effects extend into the Arctic but I found the whole thing a most
interesting read.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mark Jardini]

The ice sheets floating on the sea may melt but will not raise the sea
level. The ice sheets on Greenland, several miles thick, if and when
they melt will certainly raise the sea levels as advertised.

mj

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 8, 5:58*pm, delboy > wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 16:25, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
> > been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
> > seconds to find on wackypedia.
>
> > In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
> > relevant.
>
> > A snippet to whet your appetite...
>
> > * The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
> > * to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
> > * falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
> > * methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
> > * seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
> > * itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
> > * temperature rise and further methane clathrate
> > * destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
> > * as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
> > * ...
> > * However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
> > * clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
> > * the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
> > * number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
> > * of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
> > * Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
> > * became extinct 251 million years ago.
>
> > Sounds pretty drastic to me!
>
> Er! Did I say there hadn't been any mass extinctions?

You said close to that in your last sentence (see below) - to
within 4%, to be more "precise"

I included what you said - since you omitted it, here it is again.

>On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, delboy > wrote:
> As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
> relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
> pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
> it would have already died out.

------

> There have been
> lots of them, including the large dinosaurs (large meteorite strike?),
> woolly mammoths (hunting, loss of habitat), dodos (stupid birds) and
> even our near relatives the neanderthals (climate change - the last
> ice age, probably nothing to do with CO2 emissions or methane
> clathrates).

Straw man arguments - you are discussing points with yourself,
because I didn't make any such points.

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 19:05, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:58*pm, delboy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Jan, 16:25, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> > .
>
> > > Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
> > > been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
> > > seconds to find on wackypedia.
>
> > > In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
> > > relevant.
>
> > > A snippet to whet your appetite...
>
> > > * The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
> > > * to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
> > > * falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
> > > * methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
> > > * seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
> > > * itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
> > > * temperature rise and further methane clathrate
> > > * destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
> > > * as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
> > > * ...
> > > * However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
> > > * clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
> > > * the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
> > > * number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
> > > * of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
> > > * Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
> > > * became extinct 251 million years ago.
>
> > > Sounds pretty drastic to me!
>
> > Er! Did I say there hadn't been any mass extinctions?
>
> You said close to that in your last sentence (see below) - to
> within 4%, to be more "precise"
>
> I included what you said - since you omitted it, here it is again.
>
> >On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, delboy > wrote:
> > As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
> > relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
> > pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
> > it would have already died out.
>
> ------
>
> > There have been
> > lots of them, including the large dinosaurs (large meteorite strike?),
> > woolly mammoths (hunting, loss of habitat), dodos (stupid birds) and
> > even our near relatives the neanderthals (climate change - the last
> > ice age, probably nothing to do with CO2 emissions or methane
> > clathrates).
>
> Straw man arguments - you are discussing points with yourself,
> because I didn't make any such points.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I meant that all life forms on Earth would have been wiped out by a
really significant change in temperature, particularly on the hot
side! Some organisms and small creatures can survive being frozen for
a period. You brought up the multiple extinctions events.

Derek Copeland

[mike]

On Jan 8, 4:26*am, Scott > wrote:
> Mark Jardini wrote:
> > While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> > world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> > local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> > climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> > progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> > gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> > would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> > Mark Jardini
>
> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

[Mark Jardini]

I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

[Brian Whatcott]

mike wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott > wrote:
>> Mark Jardini wrote:
>>> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
>>> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
>>> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
>>> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
>>> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
>>> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
>>> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>>> Mark Jardini
>> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
>
> Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.
>
> Mike Carris

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Mark Jardini wrote:
John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
> informed opinion on climate change.
>

Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Brian W

[Greg Arnold]

brian whatcott wrote:
> mike wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott > wrote:
>>> Mark Jardini wrote:
>>>> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
>>>> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
>>>> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
>>>> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
>>>> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
>>>> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
>>>> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>>>> Mark Jardini
>>> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
>>
>> Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.
>>
>> Mike Carris
>
> Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.
>
> After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
> anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
> anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
> WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.
>
> What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
> in the field against a media expert TV weather man?
>
> Brian W


His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
logical fallacies.

[bildan]

On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
> of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
> It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
> compared to the whole state.
> Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
> and mind.
>
> The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
> raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
> not what they seem.
>
> Mark Jardini
>
> Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet - http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

[Mark Jardini]

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
> > of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
> > It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
> > compared to the whole state.
> > Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
> > and mind.
>
> > The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
> > raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
> > not what they seem.
>
> > Mark Jardini
>
> > Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> > forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> > informed opinion on climate change.
>
> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
> that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
> that.
>
> Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
> ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
> putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.
>
> That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
> more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
> space.
>
> Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
> effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj

[Brad[_2_]]

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
> > of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
> > It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
> > compared to the whole state.
> > Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
> > and mind.
>
> > The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
> > raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
> > not what they seem.
>
> > Mark Jardini
>
> > Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> > forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> > informed opinion on climate change.
>
> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
> that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
> that.
>
> Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
> ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
> putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.
>
> That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
> more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
> space.
>
> Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
> effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

[Bruce Hoult]

On Jan 9, 4:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
> that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
> that.
>
> Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
> ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
> putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

Fortunately for us, it didn't melt even in periods in history when it
was not only much warmer than now, but also much warmer than anything
currently predicted with any level of seriousness.

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:


>
> Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 8, 7:57*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
> of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.

According to the Lake Tahoe Vacation Guide http://www.tahoevacationguide.com/laketahoe.html
it is 14 inches. 14 inches is geometrically/mathematically correct if
the entire state were at the same elevation. Calif is about 404,000
sq. km in projected area and Lake Tahoe contains about 39 trillion
gallons of water if one accepts the figures given. That would be
1.48e18 cubic cm / 4.04e16 square cm = 36.6 cm = about 14 inches. But
I would think that the peaks in elevation of California exceed the
valleys so in "reality" the lowland flooding would exceed 14" and
higher ground would be left dry - but that's a bit of a quibble.
Thinking of it as 14" is just fine for illustration.

Regards,

-Doug (It must be winter or why would I bother doing the math?) ;-)

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 9, 4:27*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> > forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> > informed opinion on climate change.
>
> As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
> would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
> I can tell.
>
> The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
> us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
> difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
> CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
> stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
> technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
> or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
> crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
> continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.
>
> Derek Copeland

Excellent observation. If one truly believed that human created CO2
is causing the damage that some claim, then the only rational action
would be for us all to immediately park our cars/trucks/airplanes etc.
and throw away the keys, and disconnect our houses/buildings from
electricity/gas.etc. The inconvenience of doing so would be small
compared to the advertised consequences of global climate
change. ...that is IF one truly believed.

Regards,

-Doug

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

Al Gore currently owns several rather large houses. Presumably they
are equipped with air conditioning, heating, lights, large screen TVs,
pool heaters, and so forth. But he says that's OK because he is (or
would) pay an offsetting "carbon credit tax" which I gather would go
towards reforestation or something equivalent. Is that like buying
your way into heaven? Gore would be much more credible, at least to
me, if he were to *both* downsize/mostly eliminate his energy-hogging
abodes and also contribute funds for reforestation etc. He certainly
has the money to do the latter. Meanwhile I watch what he does, not
what he says, and find his credibility on GCC to be questionable.

Regards,

-Doug

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy > wrote:
> Have we actually proved
> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


> and should we give up all modern
> technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.


> Global warming
> or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
> crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

> That's not to say that we shouldn't
> continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 9, 2:19*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Mark Jardini wrote:
>
> John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
>
> > forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> > informed opinion on climate change.
>
> Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Now I've got to clear the coffee off my keyboard.

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > Have we actually proved
> > that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,


> Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
> that then there is never going to be the basis of any
> form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature? Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?
>
> > and should we give up all modern
> > technology because of an unproven mathematical model?
>
> No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
> in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
> of reputable scientists.
>
> > Global warming
> > or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
> > crusade, than hard science.
>
> Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
> doesn't help the deniers' position.
>
> > That's not to say that we shouldn't
> > continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.
>
> There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

Derek Copeland

[T8]

On Jan 9, 6:56*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > Have we actually proved
> > that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
>
> Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
> that then there is never going to be the basis of any
> form of useful discussion.
>

Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

"Of course it has been proven"? Well, yes, the agenda setters take
that view. It's regarded as a weak point of the AGW thesis by some.
It's an area that I think deserves particularly careful study, as this
is *the* key to the "A" in AGW.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 13:02, T8 > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:56*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > > Have we actually proved
> > > that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
>
> > Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
> > that then there is never going to be the basis of any
> > form of useful discussion.
>
> Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. *That's basic physics.
>
> The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
> atmospheric CO2 concentration?
>
> Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
> wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
> increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
> probably unmeasurable effects on climate. *There are weaker absorption
> bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
> areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
> as water vapor is present.
>
> "Of course it has been proven"? *Well, yes, the agenda setters take
> that view. *It's regarded as a weak point of the AGW thesis by some.
> It's an area that I think deserves particularly careful study, as this
> is *the* key to the "A" in AGW.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Relevant info?

http://tiny.cc/o22Sr

Derek Copeland

[bildan]

There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. One is "Believe or belief". Another is "proof". Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.

[Lewis Hartswick]

Mark Jardini wrote:
> I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
> of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
> It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
> compared to the whole state.
> Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
> and mind.
>

If someone told you that they are full of something that should be
flushed down the drain line.

> The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
> raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
> not what they seem.
>

Another bit of errata.

> Mark Jardini
>
...lew...

[Lewis Hartswick]

T8 wrote:
>
> Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
> wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
> increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
> probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
> bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
> areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
> as water vapor is present.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

I have tried to make that point over a year ago, having worked
in the IR surveillance field for 20 years and found you can't
shake the "true believers" faith with facts. :-(
...lew...

[Scott[_7_]]

mike wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott > wrote:
>> Mark Jardini wrote:
>>> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
>>> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
>>> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
>>> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
>>> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
>>> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
>>> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>>> Mark Jardini
>> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
>
> Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.
>
> Mike Carris

Well, I won't unequivocally say a voice of reason, but I know I'M not
buying all of the global warming stuff. It's zero here this morning ;)

The part that bothers me a bit is they are focused on CO2 emissions. We
humans emit CO2. Probably lots of it (along with a little Methane on
occasion). So, with the auctioning of "carbon credits", if they go
after humans, how long will it be before I need to be "shut down"
because I can't afford enough carbon credits to keep me breathing?

;)

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

Mark Jardini wrote:

>> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
>> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
> Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....
>
> mj


Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet ;)

I live 1000 AGL. I ain't scared! ;)

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

delboy wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
>
>> Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
>> forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
>> informed opinion on climate change.
>
> As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
> would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
> I can tell.
>
> The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
> us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
> difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
> CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
> stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
> technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
> or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
> crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
> continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.
>
> Derek Copeland

Don't forget that humans emit CO2! You don't want the government
shutting THEM down, do you? ;)

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

Tom Gardner wrote:

>
> Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
> been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
> seconds to find on wackypedia.
>

Over billions of years, yes? How long have we been burning fossil
fuels? 200 years perhaps?

> In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
> relevant.

> ...
> However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
> clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
> the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
> number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
> of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
> Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
> became extinct 251 million years ago.

And human use of fossils fuels couldn't have caused that. We weren't
using coal to generate electricity or burning gas for our cars 251
million years ago.
>
> Sounds pretty drastic to me!

But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

[Steve]

Would the skeptics believe Al Gore if he was a TV weatherman?

Steve

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 15:59, bildan > wrote:
> There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
> thread. *One is "Believe or belief". *Another is "proof". *Neither
> have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.
>
> "Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.
>
> "Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
> disciplines.
>
> It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
> scientific method. *No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
> is beyond criticism based on new data. *However, there are rules for
> presenting criticism. *Any valid data contradicting the current
> warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
> would get top billing.
>
> The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
> the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
> disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. *This
> requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
> chancy endeavor at best.
>
> Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
> softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . *They don't worry much about
> being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
> set will change their models and theories. *The study of climate
> change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
> it.
>
> If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
> all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. *The
> popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
> stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. * *Avoid too the
> radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
> more sinister. *Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
> American or New Scientist.

The whole basis of experimental science is that you observe what
happens, and then produce a theory or a mathematical model to explain
the observed facts. You then make further observations or carry out
experiments to test the theory. If the observations and experiments
continue to support the theory it eventually becomes accepted as a law
(although still a theory). If they don't you then have to modify the
theory. Isaac Newton almost got his laws of physics dead right, but
then Einstein then discovered relativity which modified things again.

The worst scientific mistakes seem to occur when scientists are
convinced they are right and then falsify evidence to prove their
case. Examples include Piltdown Man which was supposed to be the
missing link between apes and man, and it seems even Gregor Mendel
(father of genetics) probably fiddled his data, because statistically
speaking his results came out too well.

The problem for a scientist with a theory is; what do you do if you
start getting data that doesn't quite fit? Do you dismiss them as
statistical outliers, do you keep repeating the observations or
experiments until you do get the right answer (probably what Mendel
did), do you make up false evidence (as per Piltdown Man), or do you
revise the theory?

Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
you have a correlation. Then you nail your colours to the mast, go to
the politicians and say 'we have a big problem here'. The politicians
then start scaring the hell out of the population by showing films of
crumbling ice cliffs (which were probably crumbling anyway) and polar
bears falling out the sky, and generally brainwashing the young and
impressionable people with spin, who then become Climate Change
Protesters. Then the global temperatures stop going up! What do you do
next? Interesting dilemma!

Derek Copeland

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 17:38, Steve > wrote:
> Would the skeptics believe Al Gore if he was a TV weatherman?
>
> Steve

NO!

Derek C

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

And if you are a scientist who relies on government grants all the
more pressure to fill in your own dots.

http://tinyurl.com/yex55dm

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, delboy > wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > > Have we actually proved
> > > that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
> > Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
> > that then there is never going to be the basis of any
> > form of useful discussion.
>
> So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
> increase in temperature?

(1) it is, within the limits expected
(2) the reasons used by the denialists: Other
Counterbalancing Factors

> Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
> planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
> already have) anyway?

Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
(1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
(2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die

It would, however be OK if the dead trees were buried so
the carbon didn't resurface. Maybe in the form of a nice black solid
that we're already excavating pretty fast.

> > > That's not to say that we shouldn't
> > > continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.
>
> > There we agree.
>
> OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
> generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
> dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
> electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
> rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
> to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
> required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
> means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
> would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
> generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
> oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
> a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
> crashed?

Summary of that position: it is too difficult, so we shouldn't even
try.

> Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

When did you leave? I haven't lived in a cave since November 1981.
(or was it '80).

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 9, 5:09*pm, Scott > wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
>
> > Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
> > been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
> > seconds to find on wackypedia.
>
> Over billions of years, yes? *How long have we been burning fossil
> fuels? *200 years perhaps?

You've forgotten the context in which I made my point.
Hence your points are true but irrelevant.

>
> > In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
> > relevant.
> > * ...
> > * However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
> > * clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
> > * the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
> > * number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
> > * of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
> > * Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
> > * became extinct 251 million years ago.
>
> And human use of fossils fuels couldn't have caused that. *We weren't
> using coal to generate electricity or burning gas for our cars 251
> million years ago.

Correct but irrelevant to the context in which I made my point.

> > Sounds pretty drastic to me!
>
> But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.

[delboy]

On 9 Jan, 19:56, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> > Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
> > planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
> > already have) anyway?
>
> Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
> (1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
> (2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die
>
Precisely. Trees are Carbon Neutral and not all the CO2 gets locked up
as wood - some of it is used for making leaves which are shed and rot
down. When a tree has reached full maturity, it can be chopped down
and the wood used as a building material, which locks up carbon for
further period of time. All the unwanted branches and offcuts can be
burnt as a fuel. This is what humans always did before coal, oil and
natural gas became available, and what we will probably have to go
back to doing after they run out. The important thing is to plant
another tree that will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,
which is what we have failed to do on a consistant basis for the last
few hundred years.

Trees and all other plants also breathe out Oxygen, which we do rather
need for our own metabolic purposes. QED.

Derek Copeland

[Scott[_7_]]

Tom Gardner wrote:

>
>>> Sounds pretty drastic to me!
>> But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...
>
> True. So what.
>

My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. Do we know
that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? For all we know, our supposed
man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

[Scott[_7_]]

delboy wrote:

>
> Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
> global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
> increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
> you have a correlation.
>
> Derek Copeland
>

Exactly...is increasing CO2 warming the planet or is a warming planet
increasing the levels of CO2? Which is causing which? As a homebrewer
who deals with carbonation, a warmer liquid can not hold as much gas in
suspension as a cold liquid. Maybe any dissolved CO2 in water is being
expelled as the Earth warms and the water's temperature increases...

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 9, 11:24*pm, Scott > wrote:
> My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
> itself

What on earth does that mean, exactly. Sounds like you
are some for of a new-age Gaia devotee.

> as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
> will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. *

Perhaps you would like earth to "clense itself" of all this
nasty oxygen, and go back to the earth's original pristine
reducing atmosphere.

> Do we know
> that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
> the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? *For all we know, our supposed
> man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
> or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

[Scott[_7_]]

Tom Gardner wrote:

>
> Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
> is
> to Carry On Regardless.
>
> Not an impressive intellectual position.
>
Not meant to be. Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? Didn't think so. You don't know, I don't know.
All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? Do you want
electricity? How will it get generated?

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just know human nature...once we
have something (luxuries, etc. like easy travel, electricity) nobody
wants to give it up.

So, give me a list of what you will do to reduce your carbon
contributions...maybe it will give me some ideas.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000, Scott wrote:

> Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>
>>>> Sounds pretty drastic to me!
>>> But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...
>>
>> True. So what.
>>
>>
> My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
> itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
> will likely continue to do so, with or without human help.
>
Quite possibly, but have you considered that temperature swings, sea
level changes and ocean acidification may wipe out civilisation as we
know it (along with an unknown number of additional species) before a
new steady state is reached?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:
...
>> The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
>> atmospheric CO2 concentration?
>>
>> Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
>> wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense

/snip/
>> -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Relevant info?
>
> http://tiny.cc/o22Sr
>
> Derek Copeland


It's not fair to call James Delingpole just a columnist: he has written
fiction too: of which the best known is
"How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History"

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Gary Evans wrote:
> And if you are a scientist who relies on government grants all the
> more pressure to fill in your own dots.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yex55dm

I tried to open this but couldn't. I grasped the title though:
it included the words Climate-Gate and Scandal.

This indicates it's a solid scientific examination, I would think?

Brian W

[Eric Greenwell]

Scott wrote:
> Mark Jardini wrote:
>
>>> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
>>> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
>> Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....
>>
>> mj
>
>
> Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet ;)
Nah, he didn't say that; a reporter said that. I have heard the guys
that DID invent the Internet and the World Wide Web (aka www) say Al
Gore was instrumental in the development of the Internet, and they
clearly had a lot of respect for him.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Brad wrote:
>>
>> The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
>> sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
>> that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
>> that.
>>
>> Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
>> ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
>> putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.
>>
>> That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
>> more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
>> space.
>>
>> Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
>> effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.
>>
>
> my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............
>
> Brad
>
Be prepared for a LOT of guests when Seattle is under water! And that is
the end of flying out of Arlington, too.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell[_3_]]

delboy wrote:
> On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
>> Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
>> forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
>> informed opinion on climate change.
>
> As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
> would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
> I can tell.
>
> The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
> us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
> difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
> CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
> stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.
> and should we give up all modern
> technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
covering the usual questions and claims.

http://skepticalscience.com/

If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:

http://www.realclimate.org/

RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
Derek is trying to do, because these sites are well organized, easy
to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.

And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Al Gore currently owns several rather large houses. Presumably they
> are equipped with air conditioning, heating, lights, large screen TVs,
> pool heaters, and so forth. But he says that's OK because he is (or
> would) pay an offsetting "carbon credit tax" which I gather would go
> towards reforestation or something equivalent. Is that like buying
> your way into heaven? Gore would be much more credible, at least to
> me, if he were to *both* downsize/mostly eliminate his energy-hogging
> abodes and also contribute funds for reforestation etc. He certainly
> has the money to do the latter. Meanwhile I watch what he does, not
> what he says, and find his credibility on GCC to be questionable.
>
Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
place or on the way, and so on. Check here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Have we actually proved
>>> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
>>>
>> Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
>> that then there is never going to be the basis of any
>> form of useful discussion.
>>
>
> Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. That's basic physics.
>
> The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
> atmospheric CO2 concentration?
>
> Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
> wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
> increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
> probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
> bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
> areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
> as water vapor is present.
If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus; in fact, heat
does work it's way up to the top of the atmosphere, and radiate into
space. It is up there, where the heat is actually escaping the planet,
that the concentration of CO2 is important, and the concentration of
water vapor is very low by comparison. Increasing the CO2 in the upper
levels of the atmosphere does significantly effect how easily heat
leaves the planet. This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=133

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Tom Gardner]

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable
and regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate
because it is a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t.
energy futures.

On Jan 10, 12:32*am, Scott > wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
>
> > Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
> > is
> > to Carry On Regardless.
>
> > Not an impressive intellectual position.
>
> Not meant to be. *Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
> be doing IS harmful? *

Your argument is silly and unhelpful.

Can you prove the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning?
Can you prove that 1+1=2?

No, you can't.

In this life on this planet (as opposed to any other life on any
other planet) we have to make best guesses to the future,
and bet our health and lives on those guesses.

> All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
> * Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? *

Carbon credits are, IMNSHO, a scam in multiple dimensions:
- they are a fig leaf to allow us to continue unchanged
- simple criminal fraud, as is beginning to become apparent

> Do you want
> electricity? *How will it get generated?

Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

"For anyone with influence on energy policy, whether in
government, business or a campaign group, this book
should be compulsory reading." Tony Juniper
Former Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

"At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true
facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both
highly readable and entertaining." Robert Sansom
EDF Energy

"The Freakonomics of conservation, climate and energy."
Cory Doctorow,

"...a tour de force..." The Economist
"... a cold blast of reality ... a must-read analysis..." Science
magazine
"...this year's must-read book..." The Guardian

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 10, 1:57*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
> just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
> place or on the way, and so on. Check here:

Eric,

Thanks for doing the googling for me. You're right, it's not just a
large home, it's a huge home at 10,000 sq.ft.

> More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
> and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
> nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.

*All* the money? That is impressive. One might wonder how he pays
his bills.

Regards,

-Doug

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

> Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
> regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
> a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.
>
..../snippage/...
>
> A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
> electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
> http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/
>
A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out that www.withoutair.com is hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[T8]

On Jan 10, 5:25*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:

> > Do you want
> > electricity? *How will it get generated?
>
> Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...
>
> A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
> electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) ishttp://www.withouthotair.com/or its backup sitehttp://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

Thanks for that.

-Evan

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Jan 10, 6:22*am, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:57*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
> > just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
> > place or on the way, and so on. Check here:
>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks for doing the googling for me. *You're right, it's not just a
> large home, it's a huge home at 10,000 sq.ft.
>
> > More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
> > and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
> > nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.
>
> *All* the money? *That is impressive. *One might wonder how he pays
> his bills.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

Perhaps his pay for being the COB of the organization pays the bills
and then there is always the carbon credit business income.

[delboy]

On 10 Jan, 06:25, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> > On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
> >> Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
> >> forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
> >> informed opinion on climate change.
>
> > As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
> > would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
> > I can tell.
>
> > The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
> > us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
> > difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
> > CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
> > stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
> > that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
>
> OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
> the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.
>
> > *and should we give up all modern
> > technology because of an unproven mathematical model?
>
> Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
> characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
> site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
> to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
> entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/
>
> Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
> where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
> covering the usual questions and claims.
>
> http://skepticalscience.com/
>
> If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
> accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
> publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
> Derek is trying to do, because these sites *are *well organized, easy
> to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
> for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
> aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.
>
> And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
> soaring.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I can only assume that Eric thinks he is losing the argument, as he
has lowered himself to slagging me off. For the record I have a
Masters degree in Chemistry and spent most of my life earning a crust
as an atomic spectroscopist. I am quite familiar with the absorption
characteristics of CO2 thanks.

The salesmen of AGW are in a similar position to financial services
salesmen in a bull market. They can point to a graph showing ever
increasing share values (global temperatures), and predict that you
will worth billions by the time you retire (the world will have become
a fireball). Unfortunately stock markets are as cyclical as the
climate, and sooner or later you will hit a bear market. This is what
seems to be happening now to global temperatures.

I would also like to do some soaring, but at the moment my club's site
is under a few feet of snow!

Derek Copeland

[Eric Greenwell]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott > wrote:
>>>> Mark Jardini wrote:
>>>>> While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the
>>>>> whole
>>>>> world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
>>>>> local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
>>>>> climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
>>>>> progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
>>>>> gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
>>>>> would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>>>>> Mark Jardini
>>>> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
>>>
>>> Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.
>>>
>>> Mike Carris
>>
>> Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.
>>
>> After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
>> anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
>> anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
>> WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.
>>
>> What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of
>> researchers in the field against a media expert TV weather man?
>>
>> Brian W
>
> His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
> logical fallacies.
Exactly! A good rebuttal of his major arguments, scientific and (often)
otherwise is here:

*http://tinyurl.com/chwffj*

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:57 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>> Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
>> just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
>> place or on the way, and so on. Check here:
>>
>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks for doing the googling for me. You're right, it's not just a
> large home, it's a huge home at 10,000 sq.ft.
>
>
>> More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
>> and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
>> nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.
>>
>
> *All* the money? That is impressive. One might wonder how he pays
> his bills.
>
I didn't say ALL his money, just the money that comes from books,
movies, and clean energy investments, which is substantial (millions).
He has other income (living on a government pension after being a
senator and vice president for decades isn't exactly being destitute),
as does his wife.

You said you would find him more credible if he used his money to fight
climate change, and now that you know he is, are you finding him more
credible, or are you still looking for something quibble over?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[T8]

On Jan 10, 2:11*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> T8 wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy > wrote:
>
> >>> Have we actually proved
> >>> that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
>
> >> Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
> >> that then there is never going to be the basis of any
> >> form of useful discussion.
>
> > Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. *That's basic physics.
>
> > The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
> > atmospheric CO2 concentration?
>
> > Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
> > wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
> > increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
> > probably unmeasurable effects on climate. *There are weaker absorption
> > bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
> > areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
> > as water vapor is present.
>
> If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus;

Eric, that's nonsense worthy of Al Gore.

> in fact, heat
> does work it's way up to the top of the atmosphere, and radiate into
> space. It is up there, where the heat is actually escaping the planet

Yes, that's part of the story.

> that the concentration of CO2 is important, and the concentration of
> water vapor is very low by comparison. Increasing the CO2 in the upper
> levels of the atmosphere does significantly effect how easily heat
> leaves the planet.

In theory. But that theory predicts temperature changes in the upper
atmosphere that aren't observed, yes? I'll admit to be being a good
deal less than current here, but I think this is the nut of Lindzen's
recent work compiling satellite measurements. If this 'problem' has
been resolved, good for the scientists that did it (but let's
carefully check the results, please), possibly rather bad for the
human race. It's something I've been meaning to look into a little
further. This is hugely important. Very much more so than any number
of computer models invoking huge amounts of positive feedback.

> This site has a pretty good explanation:
>
> http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=133

Link isn't working. Previous trips to that site were somewhat
unsatisfying -- too much hot air -- but I'll try to hunt this down.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Eric Greenwell]

Scott wrote:
> delboy wrote:
>
>>
>> Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
>> global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
>> increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
>> you have a correlation.
>> Derek Copeland
>>
>
> Exactly...is increasing CO2 warming the planet or is a warming planet
> increasing the levels of CO2? Which is causing which? As a
> homebrewer who deals with carbonation, a warmer liquid can not hold as
> much gas in suspension as a cold liquid. Maybe any dissolved CO2 in
> water is being expelled as the Earth warms and the water's temperature
> increases...
Science has moved well beyond simple correlation; in fact, the potential
for global warming was recognized over a century ago, just based on the
physics of CO2 and the atmosphere (look up Svante Arrhenius). The
investigation of the impact of CO2 is based on physics, not statistics.
CO2 has been increasing at a relatively steady rate for over 6 decades;
meanwhile, the yearly global temperatures have oscillated far more, as
you would expect from natural variability. The idea you should base the
science on a graph as Derek says is wrong and climate science doesn't
even try to do it.

The contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are not a mystery. For
example, the acidity of the oceans is easily measured, and it shows CO2
is INCREASING in the oceans. Oceans are, in fact, the major sink of CO2,
and this increasing acidity is causing problems for the ocean life.
These problems must be addressed soon, even if global warming were not a
problem. Another example: carbon has several isotopes, and this allows
the contribution from fossil fuel burning to measured separately from
other sources. See

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

You don't have to follow the science of climate change very long to
realize the questions Derek is bringing up have been answered many
times and long before now. It's clear to me he is not posting here to
improve his understanding of climate science, but to raise doubts about
it. RAS is NOT the place to do this; there are many better places to
discuss it besides an unwieldy thread here.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[T8]

On Jan 10, 12:34*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Science has moved well beyond simple correlation; in fact, the potential
> for global warming was recognized over a century ago, just based on the
> physics of CO2 and the atmosphere (look up Svante Arrhenius). The
> investigation of the impact of CO2 is based on physics, not statistics.

You've evidently misread Arrhenius and Angstrom. They thought that
the absorption spectrum of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was well beyond
saturation and that further increases in CO2 would have no effect.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
>
>> This site has a pretty good explanation:
>>
>> http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=133
>>
>
> Link isn't working. Previous trips to that site were somewhat
> unsatisfying -- too much hot air -- but I'll try to hunt this down.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
It's broken, alright. Use the direct link:

http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Blah blah blah.
"Your expert is an idiot"
"No, your expert is an idiot"
"He killed the best man! No I didn't. Kill him! Arh! Ah ha!
Sorry, sorry. I just got carried away. People, people, please!
This is Sir Lancelot, from Camelot! Let's not bicker and argue over
who killed who. This is supposed to be a Happy Occasion. I would
rather not think that I have lost a son, as gained and daugther, in
the real legal, and binding sense!"
Nobody is going to convince anyone else that they are right and you
are wrong here.
Rec.Aviation.Soaring. Place of world controversy.

PW-5s are beautiful. There, maybe that will stop all this nonsense.

I now return you to your regular programming...

"Well, maybe if two swallows grabbed it by the husk..."

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:34 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>> Science has moved well beyond simple correlation; in fact, the potential
>> for global warming was recognized over a century ago, just based on the
>> physics of CO2 and the atmosphere (look up Svante Arrhenius). The
>> investigation of the impact of CO2 is based on physics, not statistics.
>>
>
> You've evidently misread Arrhenius and Angstrom. They thought that
> the absorption spectrum of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was well beyond
> saturation and that further increases in CO2 would have no effect.
>
I didn't mean to imply he had the science correct, only that the
potential was recognized. As I understand it, computing the effects of
the CO2 spectrum really needs a good computer, not hand calculations;
also, I don't think the spectra they had then were sufficiently accurate
to do it properly.

I mentioned Arrhenius just to inform folks that this is not something Al
Gore thought up a few years ago ;-)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
> > regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
> > a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.
>
> .../snippage/...
>
> > A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
> > electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
> >http://www.withouthotair.com/or its backup site
> >http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/
>
> A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
> found out thatwww.withoutair.comis hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
> that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
> 'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
> > > regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
> > > a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.
>
> > .../snippage/...
>
> > > A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
> > > electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
> > >http://www.withouthotair.com/orits backup site
> > >http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/
>
> > A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
> > found out thatwww.withoutair.comishosted on a bandwidth-limited server
> > that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
> > 'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.
>
> I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
> that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
> held.
>
> I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
> * - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
> * - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
> He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
> generating
> numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
> checking
> them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > > Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
> > > > regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
> > > > a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.
>
> > > .../snippage/...
>
> > > > A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
> > > > electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
> > > >http://www.withouthotair.com/oritsbackup site
> > > >http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/
>
> > > A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
> > > found out thatwww.withoutair.comishostedon a bandwidth-limited server
> > > that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
> > > 'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.
>
> > I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
> > that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
> > held.
>
> > I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
> > * - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
> > * - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
> > He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
> > generating
> > numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
> > checking
> > them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.
>
> Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

Very true.

MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
"normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
- work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
- for each use to which that area could be put, how
much can we extract
- what are our current needs, and how could they be
realistically changed
Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
or aircraft etc.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
> Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.
>
> Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

As MacKay says ...

In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.

We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
sible, comparable, and memorable.

With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
such as these:
1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
en-
ergy sources?
2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
outside
temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
“an enemy of the people”?
6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
govern-
ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
“advocating acts of consumption”?
7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

[MickiMinner]

>
> >> More to the point, he has earned tens of millions with his books, movie,
> >> and clean energy investments, and all this money is put into the
> >> nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection to fight climate change.
>
> > *All* the money? *That is impressive. *One might wonder how he pays
> > his bills.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Just for the sake of accuracy here:
The home that the Gores live in (both their home and their offices)
was handed down in the family. Al Gore's father was a senator from TN
for many many years. That is the home where Al Gore grew up. Belle
Meade is a very exclusive enclave suburb outside of Nashville. Al
Gore spent more than the house cost in order to change what he could
to make it more energy efficient. (some failed experiments as well,
like the heated water pipes in the flooring) - solar heating in the
pool house. Also, Al Gore established a new electrical cooperative in
the area. The new cooperative he started purchases alternative energy
to produce electricity. when this was started years ago, few of the
other Nashville residents would purchase electricity from this
cooperative. Al Gore's family spent years spending twice as much as
any other home owner in the area for electricity, because he insisted
on using alternative fuel sources for his electricity. In recent
years, the cost has become more reasonable as more people have joined
the cooperative.
Back to climate control, but until you can make changes to lessen your
carbon footprint and be accurate about the reporting of it....leave
the Gore family out of it. (whether you are democrat or republican, or
green, or independent)

[bildan]

On Jan 10, 1:47*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.
>
> > Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.
>
> As MacKay says ...
>
> In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
> campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.
>
> We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
> sible, comparable, and memorable.
>
> With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
> such as these:
> 1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
> en-
> ergy sources?
> 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
> outside
> temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
> when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
> 3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
> 4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
> 5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
> “an enemy of the people”?
> 6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
> govern-
> ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
> “advocating acts of consumption”?
> 7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
> bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
> 8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
> 9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

I sort of liked the "tongue in cheek" idea expressed in (I think) the
San Jose, CA Mercury News that gasoline taxes should escalate with the
amount purchased. For example, 5 gallons would cost $5 while 50
gallons would cost $500. Of course a Hummer could be driven station
to station buying 5 gallons at each but that would get tiresome in a
hurry. Meanwhile, the owner of a super-efficient vehicle would be
rewarded with $1/Gal gas.

[delboy]

On 10 Jan, 20:39, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
> "normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
> * - work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
> * * i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
> * * all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
> * - for each use to which that area could be put, how
> * * much can we extract
> * - what are our current needs, and how could they be
> * * realistically changed
> Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
> energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
> or aircraft etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The UK Government was very keen on carbon neutral biofuels from crops,
until it was pointed out to them that the land area required would
leave very little for growing food!

Derek Copeland

[T8]

Oh, dear... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

[Brian Whatcott]

bildan wrote:
> /snip/
> I sort of liked the "tongue in cheek" idea expressed in (I think) the
> San Jose, CA Mercury News that gasoline taxes should escalate with the
> amount purchased. For example, 5 gallons would cost $5 while 50
> gallons would cost $500. Of course a Hummer could be driven station
> to station buying 5 gallons at each but that would get tiresome in a
> hurry. Meanwhile, the owner of a super-efficient vehicle would be
> rewarded with $1/Gal gas.

...which reminds me - after taking a joyride out to a local field not 30
miles away, Quanah (named for an illustrious Indian chief of yore) and
looking over the virtual time capsule in the flight lounge, with its
newpaper cuttings - one describing the opening of the field in 1941 and
the intrepid band of would be pilots who bought a Cub (??) to train
with, onto an obit of one of this gang when he died in his nineties
after a sixty six year marriage (I noticed he did not survive his wife
by long). Oops! I am drifting away. When I put the plane away and noted
the Hobbs and Tach time in my log, I stopped for tea
(Stands the Clock at Half Past Three?) and noticed a convoy of two rag
tops which looked remarkably like the Mercedes sub-compact - is it the
Smart Car? The logo said Coco Kandi ( I am not making this up)
These were the first I'd seen in this little town. One driver said
they go for $6 or $7 grand in Oklahoma City (can this be right?)

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:
>xt -
>
> The UK Government was very keen on carbon neutral biofuels from crops,
> until it was pointed out to them that the land area required would
> leave very little for growing food!
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
>
They now seem enthused about the off-shore windmills now in operation
there. Some said to be many miles offshore.

Brian W

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 10, 11:59*pm, T8 > wrote:
> Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The...

A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
do regard not-X as true.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 10, 11:15*pm, delboy > wrote:
> On 10 Jan, 20:39, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > > MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
> > "normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
> > * - work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
> > * * i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
> > * * all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
> > * - for each use to which that area could be put, how
> > * * much can we extract
> > * - what are our current needs, and how could they be
> > * * realistically changed
> > Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
> > energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
> > or aircraft etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The UK Government was very keen on carbon neutral biofuels from crops,
> until it was pointed out to them that the land area required would
> leave very little for growing food!
>
> Derek Copeland

MacKay is very good at pointing out such woolly thinking.
Or, more accurately, at pointing out that what you gain on
the swings you lose on the roundabouts.

[bildan]

On Jan 10, 4:59*pm, T8 > wrote:
> Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The...

Well, if it is the start of an ice age, those transitions tend to
happen extremely fast in geologic terms. Sort of like a sudden
viscous winter storm that doesn't stop for 200,000 years.

In reality, the part of the story about arctic sea ice increasing 27%
since 2007 is typical media rabble rousing. 2007 saw the least arctic
sea ice on record so any subsequent year would likely see an increase
even though the overall trend is steeply down.

Seeing the Arctic ocean clear of ice in summer within the next decade
is still a plausible bet. If it does happen, there will be political
havoc on the right.

[T8]

On Jan 10, 8:41*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:59*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The...
>
> A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
> says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
> do regard not-X as true.

:-). Yes, I added that primarily for light amusement. The gal on the
right hand margin in body paint adds a little color to a drab January
day, as well.

Thanks again for the link to MacKay. I'm fascinated by the deftness
with which he breaks these topics down into bits that any sharp
highschool student can grapple with. A superb teacher.

-T8

[Eric Greenwell]

Tom Gardner wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:59 pm, T8 > wrote:
>
>> Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The...
>>
>
> A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
> says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
> do regard not-X as true.
>
And along those lines, be sure to read what the US National Snow and Ice
Data Centre in Colorado, a source they reference, says regarding 2009:

"Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark"

"We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”

"Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal"

"The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade."

"Despite the cool summer, the ice remained thin and vulnerable at the
sea ice minimum, with little of the older, thicker ice that used to
characterize much of the Arctic."

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

No good news there, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[delboy]

On 10 Jan, 20:47, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.
>
> > Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.
>
> As MacKay says ...
>
> In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
> campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.
>
> We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
> sible, comparable, and memorable.
>
> With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
> such as these:
> 1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
> en-
> ergy sources?
> 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
> outside
> temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
> when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
> 3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
> 4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
> 5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
> “an enemy of the people”?
> 6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
> govern-
> ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
> “advocating acts of consumption”?
> 7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
> bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
> 8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
> 9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

Hopefully yes to question 1 and possibly question 7, and no to the
rest.

If AGW is shown to be a scientific myth, I trust that the UK
Government will withdraw Airport Passenger Duty (tax) and other
'green' taxes.

Derek Copeland

[Bruce Hoult]

On Jan 11, 4:39*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.

[delboy]

On 11 Jan, 01:37, brian whatcott > wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> >xt -
>
> > The UK Government was very keen on carbon neutral biofuels from crops,
> > until it was pointed out to them that the land area required would
> > leave very little for growing food!
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> They now seem enthused about the off-shore windmills now in operation
> there. * Some said to be many miles offshore.
>
The off-shore windmills will be a hazard to navigation and shipping,
and possibly sea birds.

Windmills on land apparently interfere with Air Traffic Control radar,
as well as making some ridges untenable for gliders and being a
general eyesore (visual pollution of the environment). Every bit of
high ground in otherwise beautiful Spain is covered with the goddam
things. If we relied on these for electricity, we would have to turn
everything off on still days, or fire up the remaining fossil fuelled
power stations.

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

Read the book; it *is* worth it.

On Jan 11, 6:04Â*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 10 Jan, 20:47, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 8:24Â*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > > Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.
>
> > > Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.
>
> > As MacKay says ...
>
> > In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
> > campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.
>
> > We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
> > sible, comparable, and memorable.
>
> > With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
> > such as these:
> > 1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
> > en-
> > ergy sources?
> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
> > outside
> > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
> > when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
> > 3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
> > 4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
> > 5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
> > “an enemy of the people�?
> > 6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,� should
> > govern-
> > ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel� and pass laws against
> > “advocating acts of consumption�?
> > 7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies� allow us to eliminate car-
> > bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
> > 8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
> > 9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?
>
> Hopefully yes to question 1 and possibly question 7, and no to the
> rest.

"Hopefully" is intellectually lazy; we need numbers and
consequences (e.g. yes, X can happen provided that Y is
halved, or whatever)

MacKay gives such numbers and consequences, and presents
a number of possible futures.

As he says part way through the book

We are drawing to the close of Part I. The assumption was that we
want
to get off fossil fuels, for one or more of the reasons listed in
Chapter 1 –
climate change, security of supply, and so forth. Figure 18.9 shows
how
much power we currently get from renewables and nuclear. They amount
to just 4% of our total power consumption.
The two conclusions we can draw from Part I are:
1. To make a difference, renewable facilities have to be country-
sized.
For any renewable facility to make a contribution comparable to
our
current consumption, it has to be country-sized. To get a big
contribu-
tion from wind, we used wind farms with the area of Wales. To
get a
big contribution from solar photovoltaics, we required half the
area
of Wales. To get a big contribution from waves, we imagined wave
farms covering 500 km of coastline. To make energy crops with a
big
contribution, we took 75% of the whole country.
Renewable facilities have to be country-sized because all
renewables
are so diffuse. Table 18.10 summarizes most of the powers-per-
unit-
area that we encountered in Part I.
To sustain Britain’s lifestyle on its renewables alone would be
very
dif�cult. A renewable-based energy solution will necessarily be
large
and intrusive.
2. It’s not going to be easy to make a plan that adds up using
renewables
alone. If we are serious about getting off fossil fuels, Brits
are going
to have to learn to start saying “yes� to something. Indeed to
several
somethings.
In Part II I’ll ask, “assuming that we can’t get production from
renew-
ables to add up to our current consumption, what are the other
options?�

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

It may be a little premature to decommission your home heating system
just yet.

http://tinyurl.com/yj52vby

[Brian Whatcott]

delboy wrote:

> If AGW is shown to be a scientific myth, I trust that the UK
> Government will withdraw Airport Passenger Duty (tax) and other
> 'green' taxes.
>
> Derek Copeland

Some people in the US are no saying, if WE had instituted escalating
fuel taxes 20 yrs ago, we would not now be dealing with gas-guzzlers,
but instead choosing from more miserly fuel consumers like Them Thar
folks in Europe....

Air Ticket taxes are disincentivizing air travel - but not so much as
the "look Ma! she's nekkid" equipment now being installed....

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
>> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
>
> I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
> the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
> recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
> years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
> not bad news.


On the face of it, this looks like the opinion of a person with a 2 year
time horizon, but there's more to it: if 81% of ice in some location
disappeared at least 2 years ago, then we are not seeing catastrophic
results from that.

Or are we? :-)

Brian W

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

> 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.

Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
but they're too chicken to mention it.

Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
for selling one that burns power when its under no load.

Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
disconnected from the things they charge:

18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) 0 watts.
my much older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) 1.9 watts.
iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w o/p) 2.0 watts.
2001 Motorola T250 phone charger (2.5w o/p) 0 watts.

[1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins. It
which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a 13
amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just plug
them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
>> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
>>
>
> I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
> the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
> recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
> years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
> not bad news.
>
It has not staged a "huge" recovery. 2009 is the _third lowest year_ in
the 30 year satellite record. And the loss of multi-year ice is crucial:
"The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt
in coming summers."

That's from http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

While you are on that page, take a look at fig. 3 to see the extent of
the recovery.

And finally, the examination of the ice from ships found the ice was
less that the satellites were reporting:

"Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
small, rotten ice <http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice>
floes."

There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
of the The Mail says.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Gary Evans wrote:
> It may be a little premature to decommission your home heating system
> just yet.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yj52vby
>
Hi Gary - you need to read beyond the article, and look at their
reference. Here is what I posted earlier---------------

And along those lines, be sure to read what the US National Snow and Ice
Data Centre in Colorado, a source they reference, says regarding 2009:

"Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark"

"We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”

"Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal"

"The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade."

"Despite the cool summer, the ice remained thin and vulnerable at the
sea ice minimum, with little of the older, thicker ice that used to
characterize much of the Arctic."

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

Finally, look at fig. 3 on this page:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

No good news at the NSIDC, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[delboy]

On Jan 12, 1:56*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> > not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
> a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
> but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
>
It's interesting how 4x4s suddenly went from being reviled 'gas-
guzzling destroyers of the planet' and 'Chelsea Tractors' to being the
best thing since sliced bread, during the UK's recent return to the
ice age!

As far as I am aware, none of the current electric or hydrid vehicles
have much in the way of towing capacity, which would be a big problem
for glider pilots, even those who own electrically powered self
launchers such as the Antares. It should be accepted that some
vehicles do need to be gasoline or diesel powered for some
applications.

Derek Copeland

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Jan 11, 7:54*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Gary Evans wrote:
> > It may be a little premature to decommission your home heating system
> > just yet.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yj52vby
>
> Hi Gary - you need to read beyond the article, and look at their
> reference. Here is what I posted earlier---------------
>
> And along those lines, be sure to read what the US National Snow and Ice
> Data Centre in Colorado, a source they reference, says regarding 2009:
>
> "Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark"
>
> "We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades..”
>
> "Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal"
>
> "The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade."
>
> "Despite the cool summer, the ice remained thin and vulnerable at the
> sea ice minimum, with little of the older, thicker ice that used to
> characterize much of the Arctic."
>
> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
>
> Finally, look at fig. 3 on this page:
>
> http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
>
> No good news at the NSIDC, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly


Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?
http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
There is just so much conflicting information out there and both sides
are soooo convinced that they have it right.
There appears to be just as good an argument on either side but as I
mentioned before religions require both faith and sacrifice. If you
really think the ice is going away there are two choices. One is to
try and convince everyone else that they must join the new religion of
self-flagellation and some how turn this whole thing around by paying
third world countries not to cut down any more trees. The other more
direct action would be to measure exactly how high your house is above
the sea level and act accordingly while prices are still up. You do
live on high ground right?

[bildan]

On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> > not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
> a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
> but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
> Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts.
> my much older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts.
> iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2..0 watts.
> 2001 Motorola T250 phone charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins. It *
> which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a 13
> amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just plug
> them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more
frequently. This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry
has used it for years.

If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
wheels. If a glider trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize
the loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering
itself. The wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.

The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which
permits the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. The fuel
savings while towing would be small compared to the fuel savings
achieved by driving a small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when
not towing.

The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
the airport.

[T8]

On Jan 12, 11:12*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> > > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> > > not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> > My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> > houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
> > a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> > Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> > main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> > nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> > Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
> > but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> > Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
> > Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> > to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> > for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> > Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> > here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> > disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> > 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts.
> > my much older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts.
> > iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.0 watts.
> > 2001 Motorola T250 phone charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> > [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins. It *
> > which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> > consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a 13
> > amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just plug
> > them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more
> frequently. *This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry
> has used it for years.
>
> If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> wheels. *If a glider *trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize
> the loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering
> itself. *The wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which
> permits the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. *The fuel
> savings while towing would be small compared to the fuel savings
> achieved by driving a small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when
> not towing.
>
> The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> the airport.

The problem with EVs isn't power, it's on-board energy storage.

I have a friend who is a hybrid/EV enthusiast. He reckons the holy
grail is 40 mile range. Okay, adequate for most people buying
groceries or going to work, but completely useless for XC travel. We
need 1 - 2 magnitudes of improvement in energy density and 3 or 4 in
re-fueling time before you can reasonably talk about competing with
existing gas/diesel for hauling pilot/plane/crew to a site several
hundred miles distant.

That, or we turn I80 into a giant sized nuclear powered HO slot car
track :-).

Back to trailers: From fuel consumption numbers, I can back out that
my Komet trailer/glider has an effective fuel consumption of 120 miles
to the gallon at 60 - 65 mph on level road, no wind. Figure about 6
hp. Two or three times that under acceleration or ascending steep
grade. The point is: it's a small load. A decently capable EV could
tow it without difficulty.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[bildan]

On Jan 12, 10:40*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 11:12*am, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> > > > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> > > > not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> > > My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> > > houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
> > > a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> > > Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> > > main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> > > nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> > > Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
> > > but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> > > Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned..
> > > Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> > > to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> > > for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> > > Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> > > here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> > > disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> > > 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts.
> > > my much older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts.
> > > iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.0 watts.
> > > 2001 Motorola T250 phone charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> > > [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins. It *
> > > which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> > > consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a 13
> > > amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just plug
> > > them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> > > --
> > > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > > org * * * |
>
> > I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more
> > frequently. *This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry
> > has used it for years.
>
> > If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> > hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> > wheels. *If a glider *trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> > with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize
> > the loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering
> > itself. *The wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> > The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which
> > permits the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. *The fuel
> > savings while towing would be small compared to the fuel savings
> > achieved by driving a small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when
> > not towing.
>
> > The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> > could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> > the airport.
>
> The problem with EVs isn't power, it's on-board energy storage.
>
> I have a friend who is a hybrid/EV enthusiast. *He reckons the holy
> grail is 40 mile range. *Okay, adequate for most people buying
> groceries or going to work, but completely useless for XC travel. *We
> need 1 - 2 magnitudes of improvement in energy density and 3 or 4 in
> re-fueling time before you can reasonably talk about competing with
> existing gas/diesel for hauling pilot/plane/crew to a site several
> hundred miles distant.
>
> That, or we turn I80 into a giant sized nuclear powered HO slot car
> track :-).
>
> Back to trailers: *From fuel consumption numbers, I can back out that
> my Komet trailer/glider has an effective fuel consumption of 120 miles
> to the gallon at 60 - 65 mph on level road, no wind. *Figure about 6
> hp. *Two or three times that under acceleration or ascending steep
> grade. * The point is: it's a small load. *A decently capable EV could
> tow it without difficulty.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes, pretty much any econobox can pull a glider trailer on a level
road. Where the 'powered trailer' idea would come in is on hills.
~90% of the time, the trailer would be unpowered and the trailers
wheel motors would only kick in when the towing econobox couldn't
handle the load alone. On downhill grades, the wheel motors would
switch to regenerative braking to recharge the trailer battery and
save the towing vehicle's brakes.

Set up correctly, the charge in the trailer battery should last as
long as the fuel in the towing vehicle's tank. If recharging stations
proliferate, the trailer battery could be recharged while the tow
car's tank is being refilled.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 12, 7:05*pm, bildan > wrote:
>*On downhill grades, the wheel motors would
> switch to regenerative braking to recharge the trailer battery and
> save the towing vehicle's brakes.

Is that actually the case? I was under the impression
that the electrolyte will boil if you try to put energy into
batteries as fast as it can be taken out.

I'm more than happy to be corrected, if necessary.

[bildan]

On Jan 12, 1:47*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:05*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> >*On downhill grades, the wheel motors would
> > switch to regenerative braking to recharge the trailer battery and
> > save the towing vehicle's brakes.
>
> Is that actually the case? I was under the impression
> that the electrolyte will boil if you try to put energy into
> batteries as fast as it can be taken out.
>
> I'm more than happy to be corrected, if necessary.

With the old lead-acid liquid electrolyte batteries, that would be
true.

The new "fast-charge" lithium based solid electrolyte electric vehicle
batteries can take a full charge in less than 10 minutes. They also
have a far larger energy density and power density.

However, even this may not be good enough for heavy regenerative
braking - enter the Ultra-capacitor. Ultra-capacitors can charge
almost instantly then trickle the charge into a battery pack at a
charge rate that keeps it happy.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:12:31 -0800, bildan wrote:

> On Jan 11, 6:56Â*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
>> > outside temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone
>> > chargers when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>>
>> My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
>> houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is
>> not a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>>
>> Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
>> main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
>> nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
>> Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the
>> rest but they're too chicken to mention it.
>>
>> Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
>> Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
>> to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
>> for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>>
>> Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
>> here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
>> disconnected from the things they charge:
>>
>> 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) Â* Â* Â* Â*0 Â* watts. my much
>> older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) Â* Â* Â* 1.9 watts. iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w
>> o/p) Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* 2.0 watts. 2001 Motorola T250 phone
>> charger (2.5w o/p) Â* Â* 0 Â* watts.
>>
>> [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins.
>> It which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
>> consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a
>> 13 amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just
>> plug them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>>
>> --
>> martin@ Â* | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org Â* Â* Â* |
>
> I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more frequently.
> This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry has used it
> for years.
>
> If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> wheels. If a glider trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize the
> loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering itself. The
> wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which permits
> the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. The fuel savings while
> towing would be small compared to the fuel savings achieved by driving a
> small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when not towing.
>
> The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> the airport.

That sounds good, practical, even. I've seen film of power trailers
behind Landrovers which seemed remarkably good at ploughing through mud
in off-road tests. Do you know if there are stability problems with these
rigs at highway speeds? I ask because I expect mining trailers would be
somewhat slower and the film didn't show anything operating at much over
10 mph.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[bildan]

On Jan 12, 5:08*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:12:31 -0800, bildan wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
> >> > outside temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone
> >> > chargers when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> >> My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> >> houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is
> >> not a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> >> Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> >> main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> >> nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> >> Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the
> >> rest but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> >> Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
> >> Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> >> to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> >> for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> >> Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> >> here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> >> disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> >> 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts. my much
> >> older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts. iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w
> >> o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.0 watts. 2001 Motorola T250 phone
> >> charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> >> [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins.
> >> It which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> >> consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a
> >> 13 amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just
> >> plug them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> >> --
> >> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> >> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> >> org * * * |
>
> > I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more frequently..
> > *This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry has used it
> > for years.
>
> > If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> > hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> > wheels. *If a glider *trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> > with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize the
> > loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering itself. *The
> > wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> > The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which permits
> > the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. *The fuel savings while
> > towing would be small compared to the fuel savings achieved by driving a
> > small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when not towing.
>
> > The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> > could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> > the airport.
>
> That sounds good, practical, even. I've seen film of power trailers
> behind Landrovers which seemed remarkably good at ploughing through mud
> in off-road tests. Do you know if there are stability problems with these
> rigs at highway speeds? I ask because I expect mining trailers would be
> somewhat slower and the film didn't show anything operating at much over
> 10 mph.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I guess it could be done wrong so stability problems ensued. However,
electric wheel motors create an opportunity for dynamic stability
control. One motor could be instantly braked while the other powered
forward to counter sway. Since the motors are directly coupled to the
wheels, this could happen at the speed of electronics. Accelerometers
in the trailer would sense sway. I would think it could be done in a
way to create dead solid stability.

[bildan]

On Jan 11, 7:34*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> >> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
> >> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
>
> > I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
> > the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
> > recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
> > years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
> > not bad news.
>
> It has not staged a "huge" recovery. 2009 is the _third lowest year_ in
> the 30 year satellite record. And the loss of multi-year ice is crucial:
> "The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt
> in coming summers."
>
> That's fromhttp://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
>
> While you are on that page, take a look at fig. 3 to see the extent of
> the recovery.
>
> And finally, the examination of the ice from ships found the ice was
> less that the satellites were reporting:
>
> "Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
> cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
> data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
> small, rotten ice <http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice>
> floes."
>
> There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
> of the The Mail says.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Look at this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242

[delboy]

On Jan 12, 4:12*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the outside
> > > temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers when
> > > not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> > My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> > houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is not
> > a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> > Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> > main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> > nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> > Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the rest
> > but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> > Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
> > Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> > to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> > for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> > Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> > here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> > disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> > 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts.
> > my much older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts.
> > iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.0 watts.
> > 2001 Motorola T250 phone charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> > [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins. It *
> > which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> > consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a 13
> > amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just plug
> > them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more
> frequently. *This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry
> has used it for years.
>
> If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> wheels. *If a glider *trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize
> the loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering
> itself. *The wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which
> permits the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. *The fuel
> savings while towing would be small compared to the fuel savings
> achieved by driving a small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when
> not towing.
>
> The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> the airport.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just a small practical problem, if you want to go at any speed.
Generally speaking the heavier the trailer is in relation to the
towing vehicle, the less stable the combination becomes. I suspect
that the concept of the trailer pushing a small car would make it even
more unstable.

Derek Copeland

[Bruce Hoult]

On Jan 13, 6:40*am, T8 > wrote:
> Back to trailers: *From fuel consumption numbers, I can back out that
> my Komet trailer/glider has an effective fuel consumption of 120 miles
> to the gallon at 60 - 65 mph on level road, no wind.

That's pretty impressive.

When I was towing a Grob two seater in (admittedly a pretty crappy
trailer) it reduced the range of my 2.5l Subaru on a 56l fill up from
about 620 km to about 350 km. Say, from 32 mpg to about 18 mpg.

http://hoult.org/bruce/Subaru_with_TA.jpg

To put it into the normal units used here, the car alone normally uses
about 9 l/100 km on a long trip, and the combo used about 16 l/100km.
That implies that the trailer used about 7 l/100 km, or 40 mpg.

I'm sure a Komet with a single seat glider would be much better, but
I'm surprised it's three times better.

I note in passing that my Subaru&trailer combo used only very slightly
more fuel than my Dad's 4.1 l Falcon station wagon does by itself.


One more point: for most of us outside the USA, I believe that the
practical lower limit on vehicle size for towing is governed not by
power (you can always change down and go slower when necessary) but by
the stability and controllability of the combo under braking and on
steep downhills. Too-small cars are ones that get shoved badly when
braking on downhill switchbacks, and ones that arrive at the bottom of
a couple of thousand foot descent with the brakes smoking.

Here in Wellington NZ, the benchmark is a run over the Rimutaka Hill
to the Wairarapa for a day's gliding at Jury Hill or Masterton. The
summit is only 1800 ft but it's enough to sort the good tow cars from
the bad ones (or stupid drivers who don't use engine braking).

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:33:59 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> I'm sure a Komet with a single seat glider would be much better, but I'm
> surprised it's three times better.
>
That probably depends on what you're driving: a single seat trailer is
usually no higher than the tow car. If the latter is an estate (station
wagon) then hanging a trailer on it may only add rolling drag from the
extra axle plus skin friction drag. If the trailer cross section fits
behind the tow vehicle you've effectively lost its front surface drag and
transferred the tow vehicle's rear end drag to the rear of the trailer.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[bildan]

On Jan 12, 5:08*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:12:31 -0800, bildan wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 6:56*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:47:53 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> > 2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
> >> > outside temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone
> >> > chargers when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
>
> >> My sister pointed out recently that British people tend to keep their
> >> houses warmer than we did/do in NZ, so turning down the thermostat is
> >> not a hardship - just put on a pullover over your T-shirt in winter.
>
> >> Smaller cars is a problem for us in the trailer towing fraternity. My
> >> main gripe with the current crop of electric and hybrid cars is that
> >> nobody mentions towing, that I've seen anyway. There's one exception:
> >> Aptera say NO TOWING up front. I guess the same goes for many of the
> >> rest but they're too chicken to mention it.
>
> >> Hungry chargers are just stupidly bad technology and should be banned.
> >> Chargers that use no power[1] when they're plugged in but not connected
> >> to anything have been around for at least 8 years, so there's no excuse
> >> for selling one that burns power when its under no load.
>
> >> Anyway, I just looked at four chargers I happened to have handy and
> >> here's what it shows they burn when plugged into the mains and
> >> disconnected from the things they charge:
>
> >> 18 month old Lenovo laptop PSU (65w o/p) * * * *0 * watts. my much
> >> older Thinkpad 560Z PSU (54w o/p) * * * 1.9 watts. iPAQ 3630 PSU (10w
> >> o/p) * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.0 watts. 2001 Motorola T250 phone
> >> charger (2.5w o/p) * * 0 * watts.
>
> >> [1] I recently bought myself a power meter for a tenner from Maplins.
> >> It which reads to 0.1 watts, so a reading of 0.0 should mean 50 mW
> >> consumption or less. These power meters are simple to use: they have a
> >> 13 amp plug on the back and a 13 amp socket on the front, so you just
> >> plug them in between the wall and the device you want to measure.
>
> >> --
> >> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> >> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> >> org * * * |
>
> > I suspect the concept of "powered trailers" will pop up more frequently..
> > *This is not an unproven concept since the mining industry has used it
> > for years.
>
> > If you use a load cell to measure the push-pull loads at the trailer
> > hitch, the data can be used to control electric motors in the trailer
> > wheels. *If a glider *trailer housed a large battery, possibly charged
> > with a large solar panel on top and wheel motors, it could minimize the
> > loads imposed on the towing vehicle by essentially powering itself. *The
> > wheel motors would also provide regenerative braking.
>
> > The whole car-trailer combo then becomes a parallel hybrid which permits
> > the use of a much smaller and less powerful car. *The fuel savings while
> > towing would be small compared to the fuel savings achieved by driving a
> > small, fuel efficient yet tow capable car when not towing.
>
> > The energy capacity of the trailer battery pack coupled to an inverter
> > could also power things like power tools and polishers when parked at
> > the airport.
>
> That sounds good, practical, even. I've seen film of power trailers
> behind Landrovers which seemed remarkably good at ploughing through mud
> in off-road tests. Do you know if there are stability problems with these
> rigs at highway speeds? I ask because I expect mining trailers would be
> somewhat slower and the film didn't show anything operating at much over
> 10 mph.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Just to clear up a small confusion, the powered trailer would never
'push' the towing vehicle. In fact, there would likely always be some
residual "pull" to prevent noisy load reversals.

[Eric Greenwell]

bildan wrote:
>>
>> That sounds good, practical, even. I've seen film of power trailers
>> behind Landrovers which seemed remarkably good at ploughing through mud
>> in off-road tests. Do you know if there are stability problems with these
>> rigs at highway speeds? I ask because I expect mining trailers would be
>> somewhat slower and the film didn't show anything operating at much over
>> 10 mph.
>>
>
> I guess it could be done wrong so stability problems ensued. However,
> electric wheel motors create an opportunity for dynamic stability
> control. One motor could be instantly braked while the other powered
> forward to counter sway. Since the motors are directly coupled to the
> wheels, this could happen at the speed of electronics. Accelerometers
> in the trailer would sense sway. I would think it could be done in a
> way to create dead solid stability.
>
SparrowHawk owners, and maybe PW-5 owners, probably are looking forward
to towing with EV!

A lot of the glider pilots I know bring the glider over the mountains to
Ephrata and leave it there all season, then take it home. They could
borrow or rent a vehicle to do that, and use an EV or other high mpg car
to go soaring the rest of the time. Pilots with self-launchers often
avoid a lot of towing, since they can fly from a nearby airport instead
driving to someplace with a tow plane, and don't need retrieves. Works
for me.

I like the idea of a powered trailer, though.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 12, 6:16*am, Gary Evans > wrote:

> Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk

The silence is almost deafening.

Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. He has spent his career
analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
data. History has shown that he is very, very good at it. He also
has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.

Regards,

-Doug

[Eric Greenwell]

bildan wrote:
>>
>> "Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
>> cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
>> data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
>> small, rotten ice <http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice>
>> floes."
>>
>> There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
>> of the The Mail says.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>
> Look at this:
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242
>
I had no idea the mass loss was accelerating. No good news at the South
Pole, either.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[bildan]

On Jan 13, 9:28*pm, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 6:16*am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>
> The silence is almost deafening.
>
> Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career
> analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
> data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also
> has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

It's amazing that all the 'scientific' climate deniers have zero
credibility as climatologists.

My leading aeronautical engineering hero is Kelly Johnson of
Lockheed. Jack Northrop and "Dutch" Kindelburger make the list too -
Burt Rutan doesn't.

[Eric Greenwell]

Gary Evans wrote:
>> "Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
>> satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
>>
>> Finally, look at fig. 3 on this page:
>>
>> http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
>>
>> No good news at the NSIDC, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.
>>
>>
>
>
> Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?
> http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>
I just finished reading the Dec 2009 presentation. It was truly
depressing experience, because Burt Rutan has been one of my heroes.
It's sad to see him sucked into a field where he has no expertise, and
yet is so absolutely certain of his abilities, he thinks he can demolish
50 years of climate science, produced by thousands of scientists around
the world, in a few pages. Even with my very modest understanding, I
could see some grave mistakes.
> There is just so much conflicting information out there and both sides
> are soooo convinced that they have it right.
> There appears to be just as good an argument on either side but as I
> mentioned before religions require both faith and sacrifice.
There is very little conflicting _scientific_ information. There is a
ton conflicting _misinformation_, and plenty of confusion, and I
certainly do not think science is a religion.
> If you
> really think the ice is going away there are two choices. One is to
> try and convince everyone else that they must join the new religion of
> self-flagellation and some how turn this whole thing around by paying
> third world countries not to cut down any more trees. The other more
> direct action would be to measure exactly how high your house is above
> the sea level and act accordingly while prices are still up. You do
> live on high ground right?
In fact there much better choices than either one. 190 countries did not
show up in Copenhagen to debate about which to those two "choices" was
the best one!

If you want to discuss Burt's presentation, contact me privately. I
still think RAS is not a good place to do this.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 12, 6:16 am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
>
>> Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>>
>
> The silence is almost deafening.
>
I try not to make RAS my life, so I usually read it only in the evening
;-)
> Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. He has spent his career
> analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
> data. History has shown that he is very, very good at it. He also
> has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.
Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
scientist. Would you climb into an airplane designed and built by any of
the leading climate scientists? No, and neither would I. It doesn't make
any more sense to assume Rutan is going to do climate science well, either.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Jan 13, 10:43*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 6:16 am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> >> Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>
> > The silence is almost deafening.
>
> I try not to make RAS my life, so I usually read it only in the evening *
> ;-)> Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career
> > analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
> > data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also
> > has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.
>
> Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
> engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
> scientist. Would you climb into an airplane designed and built by any of
> the leading climate scientists? No, and neither would I. It doesn't make
> any more sense to assume Rutan is going to do climate science well, either.

[ZL]

On 1/13/2010 9:43 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> bildan wrote:
>>>
>>> "Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
>>> cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
>>> data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
>>> small, rotten ice <http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice>
>>> floes."
>>>
>>> There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
>>> of the The Mail says.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> Look at this:
>>
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242
> I had no idea the mass loss was accelerating. No good news at the South
> Pole, either.
>
Hmmm. 24 cubic miles of ice loss per year since 2002 across Antarctica.
Sounds pretty bad. Thats a lot of ice.

But the area of Antarctica is 5.5 million square miles. Average ice
depth across the interior is estimated to be 1.2 km. Thats a couple
million cubic miles of ice. Now that's a lot of ice.

Makes 24 cubic miles seem pretty trivial. But maybe its wildly abnormal
to loose that much. Or maybe it really is trivial normal variation. I
don't know.

But watch out for scale and context. Big numbers can be used to
illustrate, impress, or deceive.

A seven knot thermal may sound pretty impressive. But on a strong day at
Parowan, its not even worth slowing down for :)

-Dave

[Scott Lamont]

Speaking of big numbers, here's a recent article that explains how the
temps at the Vostok research station in Antarctica dropped to a record
-89 C in 1983; http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8087

-Scott

[T8]

On Jan 13, 4:33*am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:40*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > Back to trailers: *From fuel consumption numbers, I can back out that
> > my Komet trailer/glider has an effective fuel consumption of 120 miles
> > to the gallon at 60 - 65 mph on level road, no wind.
>
> That's pretty impressive.
>
> When I was towing a Grob two seater in (admittedly a pretty crappy
> trailer) it reduced the range of my 2.5l Subaru on a 56l fill up from
> about 620 km to about 350 km. *Say, from 32 mpg to about 18 mpg.
>
> http://hoult.org/bruce/Subaru_with_TA.jpg
>
> To put it into the normal units used here, the car alone normally uses
> about 9 l/100 km on a long trip, and the combo used about 16 l/100km.
> That implies that the trailer used about 7 l/100 km, or 40 mpg.
>
> I'm sure a Komet with a single seat glider would be much better, but
> I'm surprised it's three times better.

The Komet wins on aerodynamics. My old Schreder trailer, despite
being lighter, had twice the incremental fuel consumption at 65 mph,
so 60 mpg. It is similar in shape to your Grob trailer. Relative to
the Komet, it was like towing a parachute! I tow 'em all European
style behind small hatchbacks. Martin's correct, towed behind a large
RV or similar, there would be less difference.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 14, 12:43*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 6:16 am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> >> Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>
> > The silence is almost deafening.
>
> I try not to make RAS my life, so I usually read it only in the evening * ;-)

Sorry. No disrespect intended. You are typically very thorough and
the question had been up for a few days. Time lag understood.

> > Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career
> > analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
> > data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also
> > has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.
>
> Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
> engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
> scientist.

How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would
suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about
GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response.

Regards,

-Doug

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Jan 13, 11:43*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:28*pm, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 6:16*am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > > Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk
>
> > The silence is almost deafening.
>
> > Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career
> > analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
> > data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also
> > has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.


> It's amazing that all the 'scientific' climate deniers have zero
> credibility as climatologists.
>
> My leading aeronautical engineering hero is Kelly Johnson of
> Lockheed. *Jack Northrop and "Dutch" Kindelburger make the list too -
> Burt Rutan doesn't.

Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific
accomplishments. He's certainly no rocket scientist. So let's all
just accept, without question, the clearly non-political Carbon Tax
legislation when it comes.

I wonder what the reaction of "just plain folk" will be when they
start getting billed by the feds for their excess "carbon footprint"
whenever their monthly electricity consumption exceeds the mandated
limit. Or their meat consumption is in excess. Or their gasoline use
exceeds allowable limits. Or.... (fill in the many possibilities).
Can you say $150 tow...

Regards,

-Doug

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans > wrote:
> He (Rutan)simply found
> information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue
> and put it together.

Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever.

That's easy and cheap.

What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available
evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement.

> I think thats pretty commendable

No, it isn't - see above.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 15, 10:59*am, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific
> accomplishments. *

Correct, in the area under discussion.

> He's certainly no rocket scientist. *

Almost false - he's damn close to that!

> So let's all
> just accept, without question, the clearly non-political Carbon Tax
> legislation when it comes.

A complete non-sequiteur.

Just *what* does a very iffy concept and potential legislation
(Carbon Tax) have to do with proving/disproving climate change?

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Jan 15, 8:47*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > He (Rutan)simply found
> > information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue
> > and put it together.
>
> Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
> want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever.
>
> That's easy and cheap.
>
> What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available
> evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement.
>
> > I think thats pretty commendable
>
> No, it isn't - see above.

"Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever."

Your right on that and I think that was Rutan's point.

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 15, 4:07*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:47*am, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
> > > He (Rutan)simply found
> > > information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue
> > > and put it together.
>
> > Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
> > want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever.
>
> > That's easy and cheap.
>
> > What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available
> > evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement.
>
> > > I think thats pretty commendable
>
> > No, it isn't - see above.
>
> "Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
> want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever."
>
> Your right on that and I think that was Rutan's point.

For clarity, I wasn't actually commenting on what's on Rutan's
website,
since I haven't read it.

My comments were solely about what was in your post (that I cited).

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> It's amazing that all the 'scientific' climate deniers have zero
>> credibility as climatologists.
>>
>> My leading aeronautical engineering hero is Kelly Johnson of
>> Lockheed. Jack Northrop and "Dutch" Kindelburger make the list too -
>> Burt Rutan doesn't.
>>
>
> Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific
> accomplishments.
What are his scientific accomplishments? I'm aware of his many of his
engineering and business achievements, but not the scientific ones.
> He's certainly no rocket scientist.
True. If he was, we could read the peer reviewed papers he's written for
rocket science journals.

You know, I'm sure, that he doesn't do all that great stuff by himself.
He hires people that know what they are doing to help him with the
tricky bits he's not familiar with. If he had done that for his foray
into climate science, that presentation he wrote would be much, much better.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
>>> Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. He has spent his career
>>> analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
>>> data. History has shown that he is very, very good at it. He also
>>> has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.
>>>
>> Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
>> engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
>> scientist.
>>
>
> How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would
> suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about
> GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response.
Nonsense. Many are already talking intelligently about it, because they
know their limitations and proceed cautiously, trying to learn about it
instead of refute it. Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec
2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that
reading further is almost pointless. From page 3:

"Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[Brian Whatcott]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> /snip/ Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec
> 2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that
> reading further is almost pointless. From page 3:
>
> "Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
> CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny."
>

Hmmm..I haven't checked the original, but I am supposing that
if he had written...
"the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric H2O is tiny."

....he might still have been wrong, but the syllogism would have made
more sense to me.

It's true I am disappointed with him though.

Brian W

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

http://tinyurl.com/yedncvo

[Brian Whatcott]

Gary Evans wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/yedncvo
>
>

This is a graphic by Monte Heib, who is called in the URL below "an
amateur climatologist" though he is credible in mine engineering.

Amusing that his graphic is "After Scotese"
who is a paleo-geologist.
"After..." That's a term used of works of art :-)

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/09/planetologist-o.html

Brian W

[delboy]

On 8 Jan, 11:20, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 7:59*am, delboy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
> > > While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> > > world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> > > local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> > > climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> > > progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> > > gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> > > would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> > > Mark Jardini
>
> > I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
> > being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
> > countries are also having a bad time.
>
> > The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
> > top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
> > content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
> > surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
> > cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
> > warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
> > Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
> > wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>
> > The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
> > airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
> > blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
> > temperate, south-west direction.
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> Don't forget Mark's second point, which appears to be the more
> significant in the long term. If the Gulf Stream shuts down then
> olar bears will roam London (same latitude as Churchill in
> Canada), presuming they haven't become extinct beforehand :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Dec 23 2009, 7:10 pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
> totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
> "hockey stick".

I don't believe that, but:

If the model is based on causality and not merely on correlation
then the long term prediction should be independent of the past
temperatures.

--

FF

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 17, 5:37*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 11:20, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 7:59*am, delboy > wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
> > > > While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
> > > > world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
> > > > local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
> > > > climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
> > > > progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
> > > > gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
> > > > would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
>
> > > > Mark Jardini
>
> > > I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
> > > being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
> > > countries are also having a bad time.
>
> > > The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
> > > top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
> > > content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
> > > surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
> > > cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
> > > warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
> > > Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
> > > wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>
> > > The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
> > > airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
> > > blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
> > > temperate, south-west direction.
>
> > > Derek Copeland
>
> > Don't forget Mark's second point, which appears to be the more
> > significant in the long term. If the Gulf Stream shuts down then
> > olar bears will roam London (same latitude as Churchill in
> > Canada), presuming they haven't become extinct beforehand :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
> normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
> So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
> British Isles yet!
>
> Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.

[delboy]

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner > wrote:

> > After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
> > normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
> > So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
> > British Isles yet!
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
> nor did I imply it.
>
> Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
> (not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
> is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.
>
> Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
> cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
> in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
> comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
> sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom? If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

Derek Copeland

[Tom[_10_]]

delboy > wrote in
:

> On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>> > After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
>> > its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
>> > working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
>> > extending to the British Isles yet!
>>
>> > Derek Copeland
>>
>> I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
>> nor did I imply it.
>>
>> Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
>> (not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
>> is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.
>>
>> Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
>> cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
>> in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
>> comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
>> sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".


> If you want to present AGW/Climate
> Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
> neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
> latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
> correlate with the theory, so that is why.
>
> Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
> they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
> emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
> based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
> object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Dec 23 2009, 7:10 pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
>> totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
>> "hockey stick".
Bruce, the "hockey stick" is not dependent on Dr. Mann or his program
(I'm not sure what program you are talking about, but it doesn't
matter). Dr. Mann was the first develop it, but others have corroborated
his work using different methods. A decent explanation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

If you want to delve into it more than that, search for "hockey stick"
on the same site.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

[delboy]

On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom > wrote:
> delboy > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> >> > After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
> >> > its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
> >> > working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
> >> > extending to the British Isles yet!
>
> >> > Derek Copeland
>
> >> I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
> >> nor did I imply it.
>
> >> Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
> >> (not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
> >> is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.
>
> >> Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
> >> cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
> >> in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
> >> comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
> >> sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?
>
> No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
> opinions/statements into my "mouth".
>
> > If you want to present AGW/Climate
> > Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
> > neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
> > latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
> > correlate with the theory, so that is why.
>
> > Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
> > they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
> > emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
> > based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
> > object to!
>
> I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
> between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.
Climate is surely just the long term average of weather events. Any
increase in atmospheric CO2 does not appear to have caused the
predicted increase in Global temperatures. Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference. In any case CO2 is food
for plants, so I would expect to see an increase in plant growth, as
long as there are no other limiting factors.

Derek Copeland

[Tom Gardner]

On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy > wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom > wrote:
>
>
>
> > delboy > wrote :
>
> > > On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > >> > After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
> > >> > its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
> > >> > working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
> > >> > extending to the British Isles yet!
>
> > >> > Derek Copeland
>
> > >> I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
> > >> nor did I imply it.
>
> > >> Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
> > >> (not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
> > >> is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.
>
> > >> Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
> > >> cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
> > >> in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
> > >> comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
> > >> sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
> > >> quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?
>
> > No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
> > opinions/statements into my "mouth".
>
> > > If you want to present AGW/Climate
> > > Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
> > > neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
> > > latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
> > > correlate with the theory, so that is why.
>
> > > Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
> > > they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
> > > emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
> > > based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
> > > object to!
>
> > I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
> > between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Eric,
>
> Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.

I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
opposing side!

[delboy]

On 18 Jan, 09:06, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom > wrote:
>
> > > delboy > wrote :
>
> > > > On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > > >> > After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
> > > >> > its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
> > > >> > working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
> > > >> > extending to the British Isles yet!
>
> > > >> > Derek Copeland
>
> > > >> I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
> > > >> nor did I imply it.
>
> > > >> Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
> > > >> (not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
> > > >> is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.
>
> > > >> Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
> > > >> cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
> > > >> in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
> > > >> comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
> > > >> sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
> > > >> quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?
>
> > > No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
> > > opinions/statements into my "mouth".
>
> > > > If you want to present AGW/Climate
> > > > Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
> > > > neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
> > > > latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
> > > > correlate with the theory, so that is why.
>
> > > > Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
> > > > they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
> > > > emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
> > > > based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
> > > > object to!
>
> > > I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
> > > between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Eric,
>
> > Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.
>
> I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
> opposing side!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not a professional climatologist, so I have no financial interest
in the topic of AGW, other than a desire not to be controlled and
taxed by my Government on the basis of CO2 emissions. I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

Derek Copeland