Al Gore's Private Jet [Archive] - Page 2?login=1

Jim Logajan

April 11th 07, 12:17 AM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
> nobody argues with:

I'm not an environmentalist, but I do in fact dispute some of the
following alleged facts:

> 1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).

Close enough - no argument.

> 2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.

Close enough - no argument.

> 3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.

Disputed. See sources [1][2][3]. It was ~0.03%. (~300 ppmv)

> 4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.

Disputed. See sources [1][2][3]. It is now ~0.038%. (~380 ppmv)

> From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion
> billion
> square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion
> billion pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04
> per cent is 2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is
> 1,200 billion tons. Let's call this fact #5:
>
>
>
> 5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950;
> 3,600 billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.

Disputed. Arithmetic based on erroneous input. Revision yields ~1,800
billion tons in 1950 and ~2,280 billion tons now. The _entire_ change is
~480 billion tons. A dispute of a factor of 2.5.

> 6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Disputed. See source [4]. It is currently around 25 billion tons of CO2
per year.

> 7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.)
> releases 200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Disputed - source and relevance?

> Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if
> every molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production
> stayed in the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the
> post-1950 change to be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus
> 200 years takes us back to before the Industrial Revolution, it means
> that if every CO2 molecule from every factory, car, steam engine,
> barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast that ever was since the first
> liberal climbed down out of a tree right up until today was still in
> the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the change in CO2 since
> 1950.

Disputed. See revisions in steps above. At current human production rates
the observed increase would take only ~20 years, not 200.

> Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any
> piddling 200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12
> yearsfor the average CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the
> atmosphere.

Disputed. See above revisions and reference [4]. The amount of CO2 dumped
into the atmosphere since 1950 appears to _exceed_ the amount of change
seen in atmospheric concentrations - not the other way around.

> Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with
> and still claim to be a reasoning creature:

Premises are in dispute so the conclusions are in fact arguable.

> 8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more
> than 12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the
> observed change in CO2 levels.

Disputed. See above corrections - human activity produced _more_ CO2 than
the increase observed in the atmosphere.

> 9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould
> only have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such
> thing--.

Disputed. Strawman. No sane participant is proposing to "shut off"
civilization or kill everyone.

> That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:
>
> Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want
> to end civilization?

Non sequitur. No previous mention or references were made of these crazy,
er, "sane" and "civilized" people. Names and sources?

> Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up,
> isn't it time to start wondering about what is?

Premise is disputed so the question is erroneously founded. See above.

> L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,
>
> Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

A Google search indicates the above quoted material probably originated
as a letter to the magazine "National Review" allegedly around 1992.
Proper and full attribution would be helpful since so many of the alleged
facts are reasonably disputed.

Sources:

[1] http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html
[2] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
[3] http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
[4] http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

Jose

April 11th 07, 12:27 AM

> 7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
> 200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Is that net? Trees also consume CO2, though I suppose on their demise
all that carbon goes =somewhere=.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Logajan

April 11th 07, 12:28 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>>>> 6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per
>>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above
>>>> claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and shouldn't that be 6GT of *carbon* each year? Has the
>>> professor confused CO2 with carbon?
>>
>> According to the U.S. EPA the claim seems to be in the right order of
>> magnitude, though is indicates the U.S. alone produces the equivalent
>> of ~6 billion tons of CO2 per year:
>>
>> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR6P5M5M/$File/06FastFacts.pdf
>
> But according to the USGS, the total global human contribution of CO2
> is 4 times that amount:
>
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference

No discrepancy, really, between ~6x10^9 tons/year for only the U.S. and
~22x10^9 tons/year worldwide.

> It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2,
> and his argument collapses, no?

There are many aspects of the copy-and-pasted material that are
disputable. I just posted elsewhere all the items that are in fact
arguable. The source of the errors is, to me at least, academic.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 11th 07, 02:22 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>> 6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and shouldn't that be 6GT of *carbon* each year? Has the professor
>>> confused CO2 with carbon?
>>
>> According to the U.S. EPA the claim seems to be in the right order of
>> magnitude, though is indicates the U.S. alone produces the equivalent of
>> ~6 billion tons of CO2 per year:
>>
>> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR6P5M5M/$File/06FastFacts.pdf
>
>
>
> But according to the USGS, the total global human contribution of CO2 is 4
> times that amount:
>
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference
>
>
> "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
> Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
> million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
> year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
> submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
> activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
> flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [
> ( Marland, et al., 1998)

Gee...where did it all go?

> - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
> CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
> emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes
> like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"
>
>
> It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
> his argument collapses, no?

Check a couple other sources.

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 02:51 PM

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:46:59 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> politicalization
>
>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
>

Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 02:55 PM

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:51:04 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>available by following the links from this page:
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 03:15 PM

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:04:42 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>The ratio of carbon isotopes C-12, C-13, and C-14 found in fossil fuels and
>the ocean are known and provide tell-tale "signatures". The ratio of those
>carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have been measured with respect to time
>and the isotopic evidence indicates the increase of carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere is most probably due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Carbon 14 comes into existence when Nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere
get zapped by neutrons from the sun. These Carbon atom isotopes are
incorporated into plant material by photosynthesis. But it breaks down
over time and there is little left over 40K years.

So, Carbon Dioxide from a volcano will have no C14. Carbon Dioxide
from coal and oil which are hundreds of millions of years old will
likewise have negligible amounts. You cannot tell one from the other
by C14 measurements.

CO2 from burning trees or rotting vegetation will have measurable
amounts.

So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
oil and volcanic CO2? The presence of C14 in CO2 can only tell us that
it did NOT come from either, but instead from something more recent.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Steve Foley

April 11th 07, 03:31 PM

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...

> So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
> oil and volcanic CO2?

Coal is solid.
Oil is liquid.
Volcanic CO2 is a gas.

(Sorry, that was too easy)

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 04:02 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>> politicalization
>>
>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
>>
>
> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
>
]

Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 04:05 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>>available by following the links from this page:
>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
>
> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
> to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
> motivate the public to act.
>
> Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.
>

Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source code
is available to anyone?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 05:00 PM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>>
>> "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
>> Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
>> million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
>> year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
>> submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
>> activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
>> flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [
>> ( Marland, et al., 1998)
>
>
> Gee...where did it all go?

The natural CO2? Where it's always gone. Natural CO2 emissions--including
volcanic sources--are kept in rough balance by the carbon cycle and plant
growth. If they weren't, we would all have suffocated long ago.

The human generated CO2? A lot of it is still up there, less than we have
emitted because natural systems--e.g. stimulated plant growth--have buffered
some of the excess.

In the last century or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing,
leading global temperature rise instead of trailing it as it has in natural
cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.

"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between
1000 and 1800 A.D."

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm
at the end of 2004...." (NOAA 2005-035)

Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?

>> - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
>> CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
>> emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes
>> like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"
>>
>>
>> It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
>> his argument collapses, no?
>
> Check a couple other sources.

I already have. It's your turn to show some backup.

Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's letter?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 05:04 PM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:24 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>
>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>>>available by following the links from this page:
>>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
>>
>> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
>> to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
>> motivate the public to act.
>>
>> Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.
>>
>
>Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source code
>is available to anyone?

When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
says is tainted.

The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.

In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
this topic to achieve his ends.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 05:07 PM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:31:04 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
>
>> So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
>> oil and volcanic CO2?
>
>Coal is solid.
>Oil is liquid.
>Volcanic CO2 is a gas.
>
>(Sorry, that was too easy)

OK

Please explain how one can tell the difference between CO2 from the
burning of coal or oil and Volcanic CO2?

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 11th 07, 05:19 PM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>
>>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>>
>>>> politicalization
>>>
>>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
>>>
>>
>> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
>> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
>>
>]
>
>Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
>that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?

The topic is politicizing the debate.

The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
political activists.

That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.

Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
from Regent University to be ad hominem?

How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
fuel companies?

Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
aware of the expert's rice bowl?

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Orval Fairbairn

April 11th 07, 05:33 PM

In article >,
Don Tabor > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Tabor" wrote:
> >
> >>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> politicalization
> >>>
> >>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
> >> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
> >>
> >]
> >
> >Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
> >that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?
>
> The topic is politicizing the debate.
>
> The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> political activists.
>
> That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
> be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.
>
> Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
> written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
> from Regent University to be ad hominem?
>
> How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
> caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
> fuel companies?
>
> Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
> aware of the expert's rice bowl?
>
> Don
>

To get back on the subject of aviation:

How about giving credence to reports on aviation benefits & impacts by
"jgrove," "skylune" or "Bill MulCahy"?

Jim Logajan

April 11th 07, 05:58 PM

Don Tabor > wrote:
> The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> political activists.

I don't recognize the names of the trustees but do recognize some of the
affliations. At least one entry contains a political organization I do
recognize and its leanings runs counter to your claims:

"Past Trustees

....

Mary Dent Crisp
Former Co-Chair, Republican National Committee"

From: http://www.tjcenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 06:50 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have
>>anything
>>that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?
>
> The topic is politicizing the debate.
>
> The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> political activists.

Did you read the other Muzzle Awards?

> That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
> be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.

It is not relevant to the factuality of the story, which you have not
materially challenged.

> Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
> written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
> from Regent University to be ad hominem?

No.

But TJ Center did not "write" the story of the Bush Adm.'s suppression of
science it didn't like. That is why *your* objection is ad hominem. I do
not believe you clearly understand the term.

> How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
> caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
> fuel companies?

In that case, a clear conflict of interest exists. Once again, not an ad
hominem. If I said that their work was invalid because they were Democrats
or Republicans or Catholics, that would be ad hominem.

> Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
> aware of the expert's rice bowl?

Always.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Jim Logajan

April 11th 07, 06:56 PM

Don Tabor > wrote:
> So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
> oil and volcanic CO2? The presence of C14 in CO2 can only tell us that
> it did NOT come from either, but instead from something more recent.

A good point. That's where the C-13 isotope comes into the picture. Both it
and C-12 are stable isotopes. Chemically C-12 and C-13 are almost, but not
quite, identical. The difference seems to cause plants to metabolize CO2
containing C-12 slightly more often than CO2 with C-13. As a result fossil
fuels have a lower ratio of C-13 to C-12 than that in volcanic emissions.

The ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere appears to be declining, so the
increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not appear to be due to volcanic
activity.

In any case, the USGS (which presumably should be one organization that
knows how to estimate such a number) estimates that average yearly
emissions of volcanic CO2 is 1/100 that produced by humans.

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 07:17 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>>>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>>>>available by following the links from this page:
>>>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
>>>
>>> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
>>> to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
>>> motivate the public to act.
>>>
>>> Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.
>>>
>>
>>Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source code
>>is available to anyone?
>
> When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
> necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
> opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
> says is tainted.
>
> The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
> an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
> of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
> just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.
>
> In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
> opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
> this topic to achieve his ends.

Source code can can be evaluated objectively for validity. In that sense it
cannot be "tainted" by association.

If you challenge Hansen's testimony on an issue because his integrity has
been shown to be questionable in the past, that is valid. A good example
would be the producer of TGGWS Martin Durkin's claim that he did not deceive
the scientist who complained about being quoted out of context. Since Durkin
has been caught doing just that before, causing Ch. 4 to have to make a
humiliating public apology, we might reasonably doubt his veracity this time.
However, Hansen's honesty has nothing to do with the scientific worth of his
source code, so attacking *this piece* of his work on those grounds is an ad
hominem.

Got it now?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Gig 601XL Builder

April 11th 07, 07:23 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Don Tabor > wrote:
>> The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
>> political activists.
>
> I don't recognize the names of the trustees but do recognize some of
> the affliations. At least one entry contains a political organization
> I do recognize and its leanings runs counter to your claims:
>
> "Past Trustees
>
> ...
>
> Mary Dent Crisp
> Former Co-Chair, Republican National Committee"
>
> From: http://www.tjcenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/

In her case hardly a main line Republican.

From 1984 to the mid-nineties, Ms. Crisp served as Senior Adviser and
National Political Director of BENS, Business Executives for National
Security. She serves on the advisory boards of the National ACLU, National
Political Women's Caucus, and the National Advocacy Board of Planned
Parenthood. Her life and political career have been featured in two recent
books, The Republican War Against Women by Tanya Melich and True to
Ourselves by the League of Women Voters.

Jim Logajan

April 11th 07, 07:43 PM

Don Tabor > wrote:
>>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>>> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is
>>> necessary to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in
>>> order to motivate the public to act.
....
>
> When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
> necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
> opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
> says is tainted.

Your assertion in the first paragraph is not the same as the assertion in
the second paragraph. The only way I can reconcile them is to assume that
alarmism is synonymous with deceptiveness. Since I can think of statements
that are alarmist yet non-deceptive, e.g. "The Titanic is sinking - we're
probably going to die!" or "The theater is on fire - run for your lives!"
(in a theater actually on fire) I do not consider the two terms synonymous.

Maybe you can dig up a source with the original quote so we can
individually make a decision on Hansen's integrity, rather than trust your
conflicting paraphrases?

By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.

Dan Luke

April 11th 07, 11:42 PM

"Jim Logajan" wrote:

>
> By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
> pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
> that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
> dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.

Bingo.

Right-wingers have been at war for so long with Left Wing environmental
extremists, they commit the logical error of presuming that anything Lefties
agree with must be false. This had led many of them to attack science when
the real enemy is bad policy.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

LWG

April 12th 07, 03:28 AM

You mean you really didn't detect the least little bit of sarcasm/cynicism
in my post?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:30:43 -0400, "LWG" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
>>each according to his need."
>
> Are you sure about that?

>\> Perhaps you're thinking of another country.

Don Tabor

April 12th 07, 12:42 PM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:00:54 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
>called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
>278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between
>1000 and 1800 A.D."

DO you ever wonder why the advocates of anthropogenic global warming
always choose that time period? The famous "Hockey Stick" graph used
the same time frame, why not 1000 years back instead of 800?

Could it be that they chose that time frame to exclude the Medieval
Warm Period which was coming to an end about 1000 to 1100AD?

They wouldn't do something that deceptive on purpose, would they?

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 02:55 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
>>> Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
>>> million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
>>> year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
>>> submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
>>> activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
>>> flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
>>> [ ( Marland, et al., 1998)
>>
>>
>> Gee...where did it all go?
>
> The natural CO2? Where it's always gone. Natural CO2 emissions--including
> volcanic sources--are kept in rough balance by the carbon cycle and plant
> growth. If they weren't, we would all have suffocated long ago.

Yeah, but 22 billion tonnes over what nature produces?

>
> The human generated CO2? A lot of it is still up there, less than we have
> emitted because natural systems--e.g. stimulated plant growth--have
> buffered some of the excess.
>
> In the last century or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been
> increasing, leading global temperature rise instead of trailing it as it
> has in natural cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.

Why did 60 % of global warming since 1850 occur before 1940, when 80 % of
the human-emitted carbon dioxide occurred after 1940? (1)

>
> "Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
> called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
> 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years
> between 1000 and 1800 A.D."

And during previous geological epochs, it ranged as high as several
_thousand_ PPM. (Nice cherry picking data - so typical.
>
> "Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378
> ppm at the end of 2004...." (NOAA 2005-035)
>
> Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?
>
>>> - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
>>> CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
>>> emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional
>>> volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"
>>>
>>>
>>> It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
>>> his argument collapses, no?
>>
>> Check a couple other sources.
>
> I already have. It's your turn to show some backup.
>
> Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's letter?

I've KF'ed him longgg ago. Are you going to answer Tabor's? How about my
question (1).

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:03 PM

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:24 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>>>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>>>>available by following the links from this page:
>>>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
>>>
>>> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
>>> to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
>>> motivate the public to act.
>>>
>>> Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.
>>>
>>
>>Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source
>>code
>>is available to anyone?
>
> When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
> necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
> opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
> says is tainted.
>
> The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
> an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
> of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
> just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.
>
> In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
> opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
> this topic to achieve his ends.
>
> Don
Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was Algore.

What Hansen DID assert was the the media was suppressing the GW hysterics
and promoting the GW skeptics.

The man is definitely unbalanced.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:04 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Tabor" wrote:
>
>>>>>By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
>>>>>available by following the links from this page:
>>>>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
>>>>
>>>> This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
>>>> to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
>>>> motivate the public to act.
>>>>
>>>> Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source
>>>code
>>>is available to anyone?
>>
>> When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
>> necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
>> opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
>> says is tainted.
>>
>> The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
>> an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
>> of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
>> just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.
>>
>> In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
>> opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
>> this topic to achieve his ends.
>
> Source code can can be evaluated objectively for validity. In that sense
> it cannot be "tainted" by association.
>
> If you challenge Hansen's testimony on an issue because his integrity has
> been shown to be questionable in the past, that is valid. A good example
> would be the producer of TGGWS Martin Durkin's claim that he did not
> deceive the scientist who complained about being quoted out of context.

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

> Since Durkin has been caught doing just that before, causing Ch. 4 to
> have to make a humiliating public apology,

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

> we might reasonably doubt his veracity this time. However, Hansen's
> honesty has nothing to do with the scientific worth of his source code, so
> attacking *this piece* of his work on those grounds is an ad hominem.
>
> Got it now?
>
Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:05 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>
>>
>> By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
>> pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
>> that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
>> dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.
>
> Bingo.
>
> Right-wingers have been at war for so long with Left Wing environmental
> extremists, they commit the logical error of presuming that anything
> Lefties agree with must be false. This had led many of them to attack
> science when the real enemy is bad policy.

You two pukes are unreal. Right up the post-modernist alley.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:07 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
>> oil and volcanic CO2?
>
> Coal is solid.
> Oil is liquid.
> Volcanic CO2 is a gas.
>
> (Sorry, that was too easy)

(In the absense of a smiley) Evidently not - he's talking about the SOURCE
of the CO2.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:07 PM

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> You mean you really didn't detect the least little bit of sarcasm/cynicism
> in my post?
>

ICYDK, Larry has "issues".

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:30:43 -0400, "LWG" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
>>>each according to his need."
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>
>>\> Perhaps you're thinking of another country.
>
>

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 12th 07, 03:11 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>
>>
>> By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
>> pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
>> that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
>> dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.
>
> Bingo.
>
> Right-wingers have been at war for so long with Left Wing environmental
> extremists, they commit the logical error of presuming that anything
> Lefties agree with must be false. This had led many of them to attack
> science when the real enemy is bad policy.

Considering that, from about the 60's on, every time the left raised a
hysterical whelp, they've been wrong. That doens't even go back 200 some
years to Bishop Malthus, perhaps the father of the environmentalist
"mind"-set.

Shall we talk about Paul Erlich, and a few others, perhaps?

Dan Luke

April 12th 07, 05:30 PM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
>>>> Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
>>>> million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
>>>> year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
>>>> submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
>>>> activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
>>>> flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
>>>> [ ( Marland, et al., 1998)
>>>
>>>
>>> Gee...where did it all go?
>>
>> The natural CO2? Where it's always gone. Natural CO2 emissions--including
>> volcanic sources--are kept in rough balance by the carbon cycle and plant
>> growth. If they weren't, we would all have suffocated long ago.
>
> Yeah, but 22 billion tonnes over what nature produces?

Are you referring to anthropogenic CO2? Umm.., yes Matt, that's what the
USGS says. Do you have a refutation?

>> The human generated CO2? A lot of it is still up there, less than we have
>> emitted because natural systems--e.g. stimulated plant growth--have
>> buffered some of the excess.
>>
>> In the last century or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been
>> increasing, leading global temperature rise instead of trailing it as it
>> has in natural cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.
>
> Why did 60 % of global warming since 1850 occur before 1940, when 80 % of
> the human-emitted carbon dioxide occurred after 1940? (1)

Why are you changing the subject? This is about that cut-and-paste you are
so fond of posting, remember?

>> "Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
>> called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
>> 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years
>> between 1000 and 1800 A.D."
>
> And during previous geological epochs, it ranged as high as several
> _thousand_ PPM. (Nice cherry picking data - so typical.
>>
>> "Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378
>> ppm at the end of 2004...." (NOAA 2005-035)
>>
>> Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?

Gonna answer this one?

>>>> - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
>>>> CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
>>>> emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional
>>>> volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
>>>> his argument collapses, no?
>>>
>>> Check a couple other sources.
>>
>> I already have. It's your turn to show some backup.

Well...?

>> Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's letter?
>
> I've KF'ed him longgg ago.

How convenient. Was he making you uncomfortable? Why don't you just kf me,
too?

> Are you going to answer Tabor's?

Tabor's what? Tabor appears to have disappeared after I asked him to
challenge the Bush Adm. story.

> How about my question (1).

Nice try. Quit dodging and defend your post, or retract it.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Larry Dighera

April 12th 07, 05:32 PM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:28:41 -0400, "LWG" >
wrote in >:

>You mean you really didn't detect the least little bit of sarcasm/cynicism
>in my post?

Personally, I prefer not to make uninformed inferences without benefit
of supporting information. It's presumptuous.

Apparently you don't hold the same opinion.

How was I to be sure you didn't believed what you wrote, or were being
facetious without benefit of hearing your inflections nor seeing your
body language, nor the convention of your providing a :-) to denote
sarcasm?

Dan Luke

April 12th 07, 05:40 PM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>> If you challenge Hansen's testimony on an issue because his integrity has
>> been shown to be questionable in the past, that is valid. A good example
>> would be the producer of TGGWS Martin Durkin's claim that he did not
>> deceive the scientist who complained about being quoted out of context.
>
> Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. Have you checked Durkin's credibility record?

>> Since Durkin has been caught doing just that before, causing Ch. 4 to
>> have to make a humiliating public apology,
>
> Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. Have you checked Durkin's credibility record?

>> we might reasonably doubt his veracity this time. However, Hansen's
>> honesty has nothing to do with the scientific worth of his source code, so
>> attacking *this piece* of his work on those grounds is an ad hominem.
>>
>> Got it now?
>>
> Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. It contains nothing to show that Wunsch is a liar besides Durkin's
assertion. This goes directly to Durkin's credibility, which you can check
for yourself.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

John T[_1_]

April 12th 07, 07:10 PM

What a load of BS!
Mankind has NOTHING to do with global warming, believe it or not!
global warming is real, but its NOT manmade, its a natural cycle which
happens to be on the upswing. I suggest you find and read the book
"Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 years". This book details
scientific research that shows global warming actually cyclic, and
points out the flaws in the various "scientific reports" that says
global warming is manmade and will cause drastic changes.

In fact, the more CO2, the better for nature!

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
>> that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
>> wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
>> "save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
>> haven't heard Bush making such claims.
>
> Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.
>
> Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.
>
> He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
> amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
> just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
> Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
> to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
> that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.
>
> If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
> now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
> doing.
>
> Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.
>
> -Jay-
>

John T[_1_]

April 12th 07, 07:25 PM

Please name some species that are threatened by global warming. Polar
bears don't count, since their population is actually UP.

The fact is, global warming is cyclic, and species will move to
environments that fit them. They won't stay in one place. Can you name
any species that have gone extinct due to global warming?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:31:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Perhaps you should suggest that to the myriad species that are
>>> threatened with extinction due to the warming climate. :-)
>>>
>> What about the presently threatened species that would flourish in a warmer
>> climate? :-)
>>
>
>
> Name a few.
>
> Are you suggesting that it's better to increase the numbers of a given
> species at the expense of reducing the total number of species
> currently living?
>

John T[_1_]

April 12th 07, 07:28 PM

More melt means more moisture in the air which means more snow falls on
the ice packs. Glaciers retreat and advance all the time. Why should
they be static just cause mankind is here?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:39:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> I think I'm better off sticking with objective sources.
>
> Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
> and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
> belt" ocean currents?
>

Jim Logajan

April 12th 07, 07:31 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
[ Dan Luke wrote: ]
>>> Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's
>>> letter?
>>
>> I've KF'ed him longgg ago.
>
> How convenient.

Dan, feel free to repost any or all of my responses to Matt if you think
it would help.

Also, Matt's claim that over 60% of the global warming from 1850 to the
present occurred before 1940 is roughly true - but that is because that
year was near a peak in average global surface temperature. Here are
links to some graphs showing the complete story:

http://climate.dot.gov/images/temp4.gif
(from: http://climate.dot.gov/warming.html )

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/climate_dynamics/fig1.gif
(from: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html )

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg
(from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html )

Now here's a graph showing temperatures, CO2, and sea levels for the
last 400,000 years to provide some longer term perspective:

http://www.toppa.com/photos/albums/misc/co2_levels.jpg

Don Tabor

April 12th 07, 07:54 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:30:16 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>>>
>>> Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?
>
>Gonna answer this one?

I will.

There are a number of new sources of CO2.

One part of it is that cause and effect are being reversed. As the
seas warm due to whatever process was in place prior to 1940 and still
continues, they will hold less CO2 in solution. Though it takes
decades because the sea is so massive, CO2 is coming out of the sea as
a result of warming rather than as the cause of it.

Another big source is third world agriculture. The typical method of
clearing land for farming in the tropics is called "slash and burn"
Trees are killed by hacking through the bark and first layer of wood,
a process called girdling. After the trees are dead, they are burned
in place, releasing all the carbon sequestered in the tree. The stumps
are left to be destroyed by bacteria and termites, which also release
a great deal of CO2, plus methane, which is 28 times as potent a
greenhouse gas as CO2.

While the stumps are rotting out, the land is used for grazing cattle,
contributing even more methane. Finally, the land can be plowed for
the first time, and CO2 trapped for centuries in the soil is released.

Third world agriculture actually contributes more to global warming
than all forms of transportation.

Of course, it would be politically incorrect to tell third world
people to not develop their land and leave it as rainforest instead.

Don

Don Tabor

April 12th 07, 08:01 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:03:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>> Don
>Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was Algore.

In an open letter in Natural Science in 2003, Hansen said that it had
been appropriate to do so in the past in order to get the public's
attention but that it was(in 2003) time to shift to more realistic
scenario's to avoid a backlash.

Don

Dan Luke

April 12th 07, 10:43 PM

>>>>> Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?
>>>
>>>Gonna answer this one?
>>
>> I will.
>>
>> There are a number of new sources of CO2.
>>
>> One part of it is that cause and effect are being reversed. As the
>> seas warm due to whatever process was in place prior to 1940 and still
>> continues, they will hold less CO2 in solution. Though it takes
>> decades because the sea is so massive, CO2 is coming out of the sea as
>> a result of warming rather than as the cause of it.
>
> Sorry, doesn't hold up. If it were responsible for the current remarkable
> levels of atmospheric CO2, similar CO2 spikes would be evident with each
> natural warming period going back 1000s of years. No such spikes occured.

Some clarification. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations *do* roughly follow
natural global temperature cycles. What is unprecedented in over 400K years
is the size of the current spike:

ABSTRACT

"The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has
allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and
climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of
changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and
atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds.
Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic
air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of
these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during
the past 420,000 years."

Nature 399, 429-436 (3 June 1999)

Jim Logajan

April 12th 07, 11:21 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Don Tabor" wrote:
>
>>>Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was
>>>Algore.
>>
>> In an open letter in Natural Science in 2003, Hansen said that it had
>> been appropriate to do so in the past in order to get the public's
>> attention but that it was(in 2003) time to shift to more realistic
>> scenario's to avoid a backlash.
>
> Got a link?

I found two items by Hansen using Natural Science's search function, one
of which is labeled an "Open Letter" but was published in 2000[1]. The
other is an article published in 2003[2] and contains a passage in an
appendix which may be what Don refers to:

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,
when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global
warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar
sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for
demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is
realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent
and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the
important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed
for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and
efficient options to stop global warming."

That's it. No mention of lying. The bulk of the article is primarily
technical where Hansen presents the evidence and reasoning for his case.
Back in 1988 Hansen specifically provided three scenarios (A, B, & C)
based on three possible future projections for CO2 concentrations.
Hansen's charts during his congressional testimony back then were based
on the midrange (B) scenario - _not_ the extreme scenarios. Ironically it
was critics of Hansen's work like Patrick Michaels and Michael Crichton
who emphasized the extreme scenario.[3]

[1] The open letter from 2000:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let25.html

[2] The complete article from 2003:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

[3] Hansen's account:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

Dan Luke

April 13th 07, 12:41 AM

"Jim Logajan" wrote:

>> "Don Tabor" wrote:
>>
>>>>Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was
>>>>Algore.
>>>
>>> In an open letter in Natural Science in 2003, Hansen said that it had
>>> been appropriate to do so in the past in order to get the public's
>>> attention but that it was(in 2003) time to shift to more realistic
>>> scenario's to avoid a backlash.
>>
>> Got a link?
>
> I found two items by Hansen using Natural Science's search function, one
> of which is labeled an "Open Letter" but was published in 2000[1]. The
> other is an article published in 2003[2] and contains a passage in an
> appendix which may be what Don refers to:
>
> "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,
> when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global
> warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar
> sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for
> demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is
> realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent
> and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the
> important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed
> for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and
> efficient options to stop global warming."
>
> That's it. No mention of lying. The bulk of the article is primarily
> technical where Hansen presents the evidence and reasoning for his case.
> Back in 1988 Hansen specifically provided three scenarios (A, B, & C)
> based on three possible future projections for CO2 concentrations.
> Hansen's charts during his congressional testimony back then were based
> on the midrange (B) scenario - _not_ the extreme scenarios. Ironically it
> was critics of Hansen's work like Patrick Michaels and Michael Crichton
> who emphasized the extreme scenario.[3]

Ah, the cold light of factual information.

Harsh, isn't it?

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Dylan Smith

April 13th 07, 10:18 AM

On 2007-04-12, Don Tabor > wrote:
> Could it be that they chose that time frame to exclude the Medieval
> Warm Period which was coming to an end about 1000 to 1100AD?

Well, my plants are certainly enjoying the modern warm period. In the
70s, if the temperature in Britain reached 80 degrees, the tabloids
would print a massive headline "80" with a front page article about the
heatwave.

They are forecasting 21 celcius for Liverpool tomorrow, in the cool
north of England - that's 70 deg. F. That was the usual temperature for
the north of England in July and August thirty years ago - and we've hit
that in mid-April. We are now disappointed if it doesn't touch 90
degrees during the middle of summer. Each summer now breaks records, and
the Met. Office's long range forecast gives us a 70% chance of breaking
temperature records again this summer.

As I said, my garden's enjoying it - that's because I have a juvenile
Washingtonia filifera (California desert fan palm, not normally seen
outside the southwestern United States). It's quite happy at 52 degrees
north - this winter we've not had a flake of snow, and it's grown two
inches of new leaf in the last two weeks. Indeed, most of what I've
planted is subtropical in nature and I think these plants will be
romping away this summer. At 52 degrees north, not 30 degrees north!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Bob Noel

April 13th 07, 12:24 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> >> >> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> Fundemental law of science.
> >
> > where is this proven or stated as an assumption?
> >
> Well, gee...starting with Aristotle's law of contradiction about 2500 years
> ago...

Given that I can prove at least one negative wrt Petri nets models, even when
the model has an infinite state space, I gather that there must be some
particular definition of "a negative" in the context of "it is impossible
to prove a negative"?

I assume people (mis)use the phrase "you can't prove a negative" when
they really mean the absence of a known contrary proof or example isn't
useful.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 13th 07, 03:23 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I said, my garden's enjoying it - that's because I have a juvenile
> Washingtonia filifera (California desert fan palm, not normally seen
> outside the southwestern United States). It's quite happy at 52 degrees
> north - this winter we've not had a flake of snow, and it's grown two
> inches of new leaf in the last two weeks. Indeed, most of what I've
> planted is subtropical in nature and I think these plants will be
> romping away this summer. At 52 degrees north, not 30 degrees north!
>

Feel lucky...very lucky.

We've set four record low temps and gotten slammed by three major and three
minor blizzards.

Next year is your turn in the barrel.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 13th 07, 03:26 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> >> >> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >> Fundemental law of science.
>> >
>> > where is this proven or stated as an assumption?
>> >
>> Well, gee...starting with Aristotle's law of contradiction about 2500
>> years
>> ago...
>
> Given that I can prove at least one negative wrt Petri nets models,

A whomawhat?

> even when
> the model has an infinite state space,

Theoretical model?

> I gather that there must be some
> particular definition of "a negative" in the context of "it is impossible
> to prove a negative"?

A concrete, rather than an absract entity.

>
> I assume people (mis)use the phrase "you can't prove a negative" when
> they really mean the absence of a known contrary proof or example isn't
> useful.

Properly, you cannot prove non-existance (ie, Santa Claus) - violates the
rule of non-contradiction.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 13th 07, 03:36 PM

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Please name some species that are threatened by global warming. Polar
> bears don't count, since their population is actually UP.
>
Further, considering that 99.999% of all species that ever lived went
extinct BEFORE Homo Sapiens even existed...

Oh, well...what's the use.

Don Tabor

April 13th 07, 03:55 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:49:43 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>> Third world agriculture actually contributes more to global warming
>> than all forms of transportation.
>
>Cite?
>

The IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Summary. The summary doesn't say it
outright, but the numbers are in there for you to put together. The
Summary for Policymakers leaves that data out.

Actually, cattle alone contribute more to the greenhouse gas effect
than transportation.

>Interesting that you have as much as said that humans contribute to global
>warming. I was quite unconvinced until I set myself the task of seriously
>digging into the subject.

I have long agreed that human activity adds marginally to an existing
warming trend from other causes. The net result is that human
activity, at most, accelerates that warming by perhaps 10 years out of
100.

So, we could, at the price of destroying the economy of the
industrialized world and starving hundreds of millions in the third
world, delay whatever will happen in 2100 until 2110.

Since at worst that will be a sea level rise of no more than a foot
and a half (more likely, less than 6 inches), longer growing seasons
and a longer bikini season, I don't see the point.

Don

DonSideB

April 13th 07, 04:01 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:59:22 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>
>
>>>Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was Algore.
>>
>> In an open letter in Natural Science in 2003, Hansen said that it had
>> been appropriate to do so in the past in order to get the public's
>> attention but that it was(in 2003) time to shift to more realistic
>> scenario's to avoid a backlash.
>
>Got a link?

I first heard him say it on CNN in the context of defending Al Gore's
movie, and I have heard it quoted from a Rolling Stone Article, but
the open letter was

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Don Tabor

April 13th 07, 04:08 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:21:39 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>I found two items by Hansen using Natural Science's search function, one
>of which is labeled an "Open Letter" but was published in 2000[1]. The
>other is an article published in 2003[2] and contains a passage in an
>appendix which may be what Don refers to:
>
>"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,
>when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global
>warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar
>sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for
>demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is
>realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent
>and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the
>important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed
>for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and
>efficient options to stop global warming."
>
>That's it. No mention of lying.

NO MENTION OF LYING??

Read that first sentence again. That is clever, almost Clintonian,
lying, but it is lying none-the-less.

We should be making decisions based on the best science, not boogey
men created to frighten the scientifically ignorant (read: politicians
and journalists) into doing as their betters think best.

Don

Don Tabor

April 13th 07, 04:22 PM

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:50:43 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>The MWP is frequently sited by AGW-deniers as a time when the earth was
>hotter than during the last 100 years. In fact, the MWP was not an excursion
>from normal temperatures comparable to the current unusual warming period, as
>shown by Osborn and Briffa (_Science_ Vol. 311, Issue 5762, pp. 841 - 844, 10
>February 2006; by subscription or at the library).
>
>ABSTRACT:
>"Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative
>deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive
>proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. *The most significant and
>longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical
>extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century.* [emphasis mine]
>Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to
>1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little
>Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial
>extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the
>medieval period."

That is perhaps the most twisted piece of writing I have tried to
decipher since I read the fine print on an insurance policy.

I think what he is saying is that the warming we have seen in the last
50 years is of greater significance because there were instruments to
measure it than a warming that lasted almost 400 years and changed the
worldwide pattern of agriculture, bringing temperate zone conditions
into Northern Scotland and Coastal Southern Greenland that no longer
exist, because they are only "proxy records."

Is that about it?

Don

Bob Noel

April 13th 07, 04:27 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > Given that I can prove at least one negative wrt Petri nets models,
>
> A whomawhat?

Petrinet. A mathmatical model.

>
> > even when
> > the model has an infinite state space,
>
> Theoretical model?

A model which can represent reality. For example, each line of a software
program written in Ada83 can be represented by portions of a petrinet model.
This model can then be used to prove that some states are unreachable even
if the model has an infinite state space (i.e., proving that the state space
does not contain specific states). One of the more usual aspects of this
occurs when the unreachable state represent a hazardous condition.

One problem with such petrinet models of software systems is that rendering
a software system into a petrinet and analyzing the model is, ahem, computationly
intensive.

>
> > I gather that there must be some
> > particular definition of "a negative" in the context of "it is impossible
> > to prove a negative"?
>
> A concrete, rather than an absract entity.
>
> >
> > I assume people (mis)use the phrase "you can't prove a negative" when
> > they really mean the absence of a known contrary proof or example isn't
> > useful.
>
> Properly, you cannot prove non-existance (ie, Santa Claus) - violates the
> rule of non-contradiction.

From my (admittedly limited) reading, it's that you can use non-existance to
prove something.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 13th 07, 05:42 PM

"DonSideB" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:59:22 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Don Tabor" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was
>>>>Algore.
>>>
>>> In an open letter in Natural Science in 2003, Hansen said that it had
>>> been appropriate to do so in the past in order to get the public's
>>> attention but that it was(in 2003) time to shift to more realistic
>>> scenario's to avoid a backlash.
>>
>>Got a link?
>
> I first heard him say it on CNN in the context of defending Al Gore's
> movie, and I have heard it quoted from a Rolling Stone Article, but
> the open letter was
>
> http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html
>
>

http://www.sepp.org (The Week That Was - March 31)

/excerpt

First warming alarmist Al Gore admits that he thinks it entirely valid to
over-represent (exaggerate) the dangers of global warming. Now another top
bishop in the Church of Anthropogenic Warming, Mike Hulme from the
University of East Anglia, says that we need to use a new kind of science to
understand the issue. He calls it post-normal science. And it allows them to
trade (normal) truth for influence.
Hulme's problem with regular science is that: Self-evidently dangerous
change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking....
So, we won't get the exact scare-mongering out of the normal scientific
process; so we need a new process in order to get the correct inspiration
for public policy.
Under this post-normal science, scientists -- and politicians -- must
trade (normal) truth for influence. That's what Al Gore said when he
admitted to exaggerating the dangers of warming. He said it appropriate to
have an over-representation of factual presentation of how dangerous it is
in order to open up his film audience to his ideas. One of the granddads of
warming hysteria, Stephen Schneider, suggested this tactic years ago, in
1989, when he said, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. He calls
this distortion of the facts a right balance between being effective and
being honest. All three are saying it's appropriate to distort facts in
order to gain political influence, i.e. power.

/end excerpt

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/03/warming-advocates-trading-truth-for.html

Points to:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 13th 07, 05:45 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> > Given that I can prove at least one negative wrt Petri nets models,
>>
>> A whomawhat?
>
> Petrinet. A mathmatical model.
>
>>
>> > even when
>> > the model has an infinite state space,
>>
>> Theoretical model?
>
> A model which can represent reality. For example, each line of a software
> program written in Ada83 can be represented by portions of a petrinet
> model.
> This model can then be used to prove that some states are unreachable even
> if the model has an infinite state space (i.e., proving that the state
> space
> does not contain specific states). One of the more usual aspects of this
> occurs when the unreachable state represent a hazardous condition.
>
> One problem with such petrinet models of software systems is that
> rendering
> a software system into a petrinet and analyzing the model is, ahem,
> computationly
> intensive.
>
>>
>> > I gather that there must be some
>> > particular definition of "a negative" in the context of "it is
>> > impossible
>> > to prove a negative"?
>>
>> A concrete, rather than an absract entity.
>>
>> >
>> > I assume people (mis)use the phrase "you can't prove a negative" when
>> > they really mean the absence of a known contrary proof or example isn't
>> > useful.
>>
>> Properly, you cannot prove non-existance (ie, Santa Claus) - violates the
>> rule of non-contradiction.
>
> From my (admittedly limited) reading, it's that you can use non-existance
> to
> prove something.
>
Prove the absence of something (ie, a bullet hole entry wound, no exit
wound, but no bullet found).

Morgans[_2_]

April 13th 07, 06:44 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Further, considering that 99.999% of all species that ever lived went
> extinct BEFORE Homo Sapiens even existed...
>
> Oh, well...what's the use.

That is the most insightful statement on the current state, here, yet.

The warming hysteria nuts are not going to change their position, one iota,
and you won't either, because you are the one that is right! <g>

Being as no major policy changes are going to be made from the content on
this forum, I would say about all has been said that needs to be said.

Your debate does not bother me at all, not like the MX debacle (which I am
currently totally ignoring) so go on if you wish. I do sense that it is
pointless, though.
--
Jim in NC

Dan Luke

April 13th 07, 07:17 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>The MWP is frequently sited by AGW-deniers as a time when the earth was
>>hotter than during the last 100 years. In fact, the MWP was not an
>>excursion
>>from normal temperatures comparable to the current unusual warming period,
>>as
>>shown by Osborn and Briffa (_Science_ Vol. 311, Issue 5762, pp. 841 - 844,
>>10
>>February 2006; by subscription or at the library).
>>
>>ABSTRACT:
>>"Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or
>>negative
>>deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive
>>proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. *The most significant and
>>longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical
>>extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century.* [emphasis mine]
>>Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to
>>1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a
>>Little
>>Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial
>>extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the
>>medieval period."
>
> That is perhaps the most twisted piece of writing I have tried to
> decipher since I read the fine print on an insurance policy.

Do you really expect a scientific paper to read like sound bites on a TV
show? There is nothing "twisted" about it. If you want to see the meat of
this peer-reviewed paper, pay to subscribe to _Science_ as I did, or go down
to the library and read it.

> I think what he is saying is that the warming we have seen in the last
> 50 years is of greater significance because there were instruments to
> measure it than a warming that lasted almost 400 years and changed the
> worldwide pattern of agriculture, bringing temperate zone conditions
> into Northern Scotland and Coastal Southern Greenland that no longer
> exist, because they are only "proxy records."
>
> Is that about it?

Wow, you really did have trouble with that paragraph, didn't you?

No, Don, that is not it. Read the sentence I emphasized again, carefully
this time:

"The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years
is *the geographical extent* of warmth in the middle to late 20th century."

The authors are saying, quite plainly, that a comparison of the present
*worldwide* warming period with those of recent geological time shows that
the current warming is more significant. If you want to know the details of
*why* this is so, read the whole paper.

The MWP is an old talking point. It has been refuted as an argument that
modern warming is "really nothing new." It is not analogous to what is
happening now; it was not a worldwide event on the scale we see today.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke

April 13th 07, 07:23 PM

"Don Tabor" > wrote:

>>> Third world agriculture actually contributes more to global warming
>>> than all forms of transportation.
>>
>>Cite?
>>
>
> The IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Summary. The summary doesn't say it
> outright, but the numbers are in there for you to put together. The
> Summary for Policymakers leaves that data out.
>
> Actually, cattle alone contribute more to the greenhouse gas effect
> than transportation.

Interesting. I will spend some more time on this.

>>Interesting that you have as much as said that humans contribute to global
>>warming. I was quite unconvinced until I set myself the task of seriously
>>digging into the subject.
>
> I have long agreed that human activity adds marginally to an existing
> warming trend from other causes. The net result is that human
> activity, at most, accelerates that warming by perhaps 10 years out of
> 100.

What research can you cite to support this?

> So, we could, at the price of destroying the economy of the
> industrialized world and starving hundreds of millions in the third
> world, delay whatever will happen in 2100 until 2110.

That sure sounds like a strawman.

Who is proposing to destroy the economy of the industrialized world and
starve hundreds of millions in the third world?

> Since at worst that will be a sea level rise of no more than a foot
> and a half (more likely, less than 6 inches), longer growing seasons
> and a longer bikini season, I don't see the point.

At worst? What research can you cite to support this?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

ManhattanMan

April 13th 07, 07:59 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
> Prove the absence of something (ie, a bullet hole entry wound, no exit
> wound, but no bullet found).

Old stuff.. Dick Tracy ran into that back in the 50's - an arch villian was
shooting people with ice projectiles, which melted, leaving no trace
evidence for Tracy to track. :)

Can't believe I remembered that..........

Don Tabor

April 13th 07, 08:54 PM

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:23:51 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>>
>> I have long agreed that human activity adds marginally to an existing
>> warming trend from other causes. The net result is that human
>> activity, at most, accelerates that warming by perhaps 10 years out of
>> 100.
>
>What research can you cite to support this?
>

The ten to one ratio is my best guess of the relative importance. For
research supporting the concept that the most we can do is delay and
not reverse or stop the trend, see the IPCC Working Group 1 Technical
summary and look for the section on "Commitment."

Whether you accept their notion that the current trend is man mostly
man caused, or agree with me that it is mostly other with a marginal
increase due to man, they are pretty confident that we are already
committed no matter what we do.

>> So, we could, at the price of destroying the economy of the
>> industrialized world and starving hundreds of millions in the third
>> world, delay whatever will happen in 2100 until 2110.
>
>That sure sounds like a strawman.
>
>Who is proposing to destroy the economy of the industrialized world and
>starve hundreds of millions in the third world?
>

Unless China and India agree to the same sort of restriction as
proposed for Europe and the USA, and remember that Kyoto is regarded
as only a first step, we won't make a significant dent in fossil fuel
burning, as their growth in fossil fuel use cancels out any reduction
we can make. Those restrictions would cause world wide recession as
long as they are in place.

In the third world, there is primitive agriculture, which is a huge
contributor to greenhouse gas or there is industry. If our economy is
even slightly slowed, industry ceases to be an option in the third
world. If Americans decide to make their sneakers last a few months
longer on average, children go hungry in the third world.

So, if they can't farm as they do now because of greenhouse gases, and
can't sell us products because we are in a recession, they die.

>> Since at worst that will be a sea level rise of no more than a foot
>> and a half (more likely, less than 6 inches), longer growing seasons
>> and a longer bikini season, I don't see the point.
>
>At worst? What research can you cite to support this?

IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Summary, section on sea level rise. The
23 inch rise reported in the Summary for Policymakers is the A1F1
scenario, which the scientists rejected as unrealistic, but the
bureaucrats put back in. The TS gives a worst case 100 year rise as 17
inches.

Further, the forever rise, the maximum without melting the Central
Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets, is only a meter. Since those ice
sheets are above the snow line for any plausible temperature rise, it
ain't gonna happen.

Melting those would take a 68 degree F rise in temps, and the worst
case temp prediction is only 11 degrees. Even at the 68 degree rise,
it would take thousands of years to melt them.

But an 11 degree rise in average temps would get the bikini's out a
month earlier around here and keep them out till October.

Unless, of course, the Islamists take over.

Don

Don Tabor

April 13th 07, 09:06 PM

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:17:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>The MWP is an old talking point. It has been refuted as an argument that
>modern warming is "really nothing new." It is not analogous to what is
>happening now; it was not a worldwide event on the scale we see today.

We know it happened in China as well as Europe and North America. How
worldwide does it have to be?

We can't know about the southern hemisphere because there is no
recorded history of the era there. but we don't know that it didn't
happen there either.

I have seen NO refutations of the MWP that don't rely on asking for
proof of a negative.

The MWP is the real inconvenient truth that Gore and his allies would
like to explain away.

Don

Jim Logajan

April 13th 07, 09:20 PM

Don Tabor > wrote:
> I have seen NO refutations of the MWP that don't rely on asking for
> proof of a negative.

"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even
hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high
degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no
multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same
or warmer than in the 20th century.
....
In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late
20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200
years."

From:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Supporting references:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/references.html#medieval

Jose

April 13th 07, 09:49 PM

>> Further, considering that 99.999% of all species that ever lived went
>> extinct BEFORE Homo Sapiens even existed...
>>
>> Oh, well...what's the use.
>
> That is the most insightful statement on the current state, here, yet.

(in the face of a rapidly spreading disease epidemic) "What's to worry
about? 99.99% of people who have ever lived have died before this
disease even got started."

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan Luke

April 13th 07, 10:06 PM

[Note to anyone with the patience to still be reading this thread:

Now that I've spent a few days doing some research and double-checking, I'll
revisit this one last time.

It's amazing that the absurdity of some of this post didn't jump out at me
the first time I read it. I guess that shows how plausible some glib talking
points can seem before one does a little verifying.]

===================

"Tony Cox" wrote:

> The first thing you can dismiss is the doom-mongering
> headlines about species extinction, rampant disease,
> and apocalyptic hurricanes. These are *corollaries*,
> and would be true (assuming the science is exact) if
> the earth were to warm in any manner, not just through
> human actions.

Your point does not take into account effects of the compressed timeframe of
the current warming episode vs. historic warming periods.

> They might make alarmist headlines, but they
> should form no part in anyone's opinion as to the validity
> of man-made global warming itself. The fact that these
> corollaries are given prominence in the IPCC report should
> throw up a red flag that they are being touted to deflect
> detailed analysis of the underlying science.

No. The underlying science cannot be hidden from detailed analysis; it is
peer reviewed and available to anyone to check. This is an absurd charge.

[snip computer modeling credentials]

> Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
> all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
> that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
> effect are alarmist claptrap.

Non sequitur; elemental logical fallacy.

> Not impossible, but very
> very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
> which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
> without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
> Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
> of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
> that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.

Sorry, no. The claim that volcanic CO2 emissions, including Pinatubo, have
exceeded anthropogenic emissions is simply false. See cites in other posts on
this thread.

> Second, the climate has been changing and appears
> always to have done so. The direct evidence for this
> goes back only 200 years or so. Before that, evidence
> is less certain than simply looking at the thermometer --
> it is based upon extrapolations from the historical
> record (rivers freezing, crop yields etc.) Before that,
> one can extrapolate from species range and tree rings.
> Assess recent evidence carefully -- one Cambridge
> professor spent a weekend looking a "global warming"
> and decided recent warming could be explained by
> man-made "heat" generated in the cities where the
> measurements were taken. Cities are typically 5 degrees
> hotter these days, and all this must be corrected for
> carefully if one is looking for increases in the 0.5 degree
> range.

You've got to be kidding. 'one Cambridge professor spent a weekend looking
at "global warming..." ' That's science to you?

The instrumented evidence for global warming comes from all over the planet,
as a very little checking would show.

> Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
> currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
> correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
> Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
> climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
> today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
> of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
> degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
> differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
> as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
> went unreported by historians.

Refuted elsewhere in this thread. The MWP was not on the geographical scale
of modern warming.

> With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
> TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.

Gore's movie may be over-simplified and patronizing, but it is not
fundamentally inaccurate.

> The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
> should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
> that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
> CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
> is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
> the claims upon which their theory rests.
>
> 1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
> enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
> observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

False and--probably deliberately--dishonest. Especially interesting because
it features no-MMGW gadfly J. R. Christy of the U. A.-Huntsville. Christy
apparently "forgot" that his name is on the report that revealed the early
observations were wrong due to faulty measurement, and corrected observations
support MMGW theory.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Abstract:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the
surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the
reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming.
Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while
early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming
above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because
errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and
corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such
discrepancies."

Christy is either a paid liar, suffers from severe memory loss, or, like
Wunch, was quoted out of context in TGGWS.

> 2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
> CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former.

True, but orthogonal to the issue. Naturally, temperature and CO2 are
mutually influencing forcers. What's different this time is the rapid,
artificial addition of significant CO2 beyond what is being buffered by
natural systems.

Remember, the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is higher than at any
time in over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. The increase has happened in the
last 200 years, the geological blink of an eye.

> If true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
> man made or natural.

I'm surprised people could believe this unless they desperately wanted to.

The idea that CO2 could have "no measurable effect on climate" is ridiculous
on the face of it. It is an undisputed fact that CO2 traps IR in the
atmosphere; the quantitative heat trapping properties of CO2 are known;
therefore the amount of heat trapped by a given PPM concentration is a simple
calculation.

>
> 3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
> activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
> CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
> mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
> are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
> which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
> number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
> clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
> form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
> around which water droplets can condense.

The relationship between sunspot activity and climate is poorly understood at
best. Also the fact that the sun has an 11-year radiance cycle that
coincides with sunspot activity is well known, and included in the data and
models of the IPCC reports.

In short, this part of the program offers no evidence that MMGW is a
"swindle."

> Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.

There's more, but I've done enough and I'm tired of spending time on that
nonsense. I stand by my charge that the program "The Great Global Warming
Swindle" was a load of bs.

Furthermore, I now agree with the IPCC 4AR that it is a 90% probability that
recent and near-future anomalous climate changes can be explained by human
contributons to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."

- John Derbyshire

Morgans[_2_]

April 13th 07, 10:09 PM

"ManhattanMan"> wrote
>
> Old stuff.. Dick Tracy ran into that back in the 50's - an arch villian
> was shooting people with ice projectiles, which melted, leaving no trace
> evidence for Tracy to track. :)
>
> Can't believe I remembered that..........

Mythbusters did that as a segment on TV, and could not replicate the ice
bullet penetrating a ballistic dummy, and using high speed photography,
found an interesting thing.

The heat of the charge that sends the bullet down the barrel, melted the
bullet before it ever left the barrel.

They tried and tried, many different methods, only to come to the same
conclusion. No ice bullets, except in the works of Dick Tracy. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Tony Cox

April 13th 07, 10:47 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>
> > A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
> > One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
> > in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
> > climate variation which can't be measured until after
> > the proponents have conveniently retired. This
> > doesn't give one much confidence.
>
> Um, Dr. James Hansen is not yet retired.

There's obvious controversy about Hansen discussed below
this post. It seems from his work (which you quote) that he
believes that the "emphasis on extreme scenarios may have
been appropriate". Right there, thinking people ought to start
wondering why a scientist -- supposedly objective -- thinks it
right to overstate his case. Clearly, he *believes* in GW as a
cause that needs to be presented even if the science doesn't
support it.

Further, he apparently decided (20 years ago) to extrapolate
the data along several possible future paths and now pulls
the least inaccurate one out from his metaphorical hat in a
presentation before Congress as proof that somehow he was
right all along. Ought I to be impressed?

Perhaps he should retire. It seems that he has missed
his calling as a stage magician.

> How do you account for the
> correlation between observations and the temperature changes his model
> predicted some 20 years ago?

You mean how do I account for the correlation between CO2
and temperature changes in _one_ of the several possible future
extrapolations developed by Hansen?

Well, the first thing I'd say is that "correlation" doesn't imply
"causation", as I"m sure you're aware. That they are linked is
interesting. That they were counter-correlated between 1940
and 1975 is also interesting. That temperature also correlates
with solar wind activity I also find fascinating. This indicates to
me that the mechanisms for global warming are not yet well
understood, despite the harangues of various self-aggrandizing
Scientainers claiming otherwise.

Jim Logajan

April 13th 07, 11:50 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote:
> Well, the first thing I'd say is that "correlation" doesn't imply
> "causation", as I"m sure you're aware.

When analyzing two sets of observations? Obviously. But I should point out
your statement is not meaningful when applied to an analysis of a predicted
outcome with an observed outcome. For example, if my mathematical model of
gravity says an object dropped from 6 ft will hit the ground in ~0.6 secs,
and my measurement shows it hit the ground in ~0.61 secs, I'd hardly say
there is any causation at work between my mathematical model and gravity!

> That they are linked is
> interesting. That they were counter-correlated between 1940
> and 1975 is also interesting. That temperature also correlates
> with solar wind activity I also find fascinating. This indicates to
> me that the mechanisms for global warming are not yet well
> understood, despite the harangues of various self-aggrandizing
> Scientainers claiming otherwise.

I think that there is a lot of "hot air" about "global warming" from many
people on both sides of the issue. I had no interest in stating my opinion
on the subject on this newsgroup and appealed for to people to drop the
subject. Instead some people actually used my post as a starting point to
continue the debate! Okay - so I decided since neither side had the mental
discipline to take their arguments to relevant newsgroups (like
alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology,
sci.math.num-analysis, and sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics) that I
couldn't make the situation any worse.

I'll make this is my last posting on global warming since I am not trained
on the subject and all I add is one more opinion on a subject that is off
topic for this group. (In any case it would take years of study to become
expert at the subject and contribute meaningful advancements and insight.
After all that it would then take hours for others to impugn any
contributions I might make.)

(By the way, what the heck is a "scientainer"?)

Dan Luke

April 13th 07, 11:51 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

> We should be making decisions based on the best science, not boogey
> men created to frighten the scientifically ignorant (read: politicians
> and journalists) into doing as their betters think best.

Boogey men?

Haw-haw!

So says Don "destroying the economy of the industrialized world and starving
hundreds of millions in the third world" Tabor.

That's rich.

--
Dan

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
--The Amazing Randi

Tony Cox

April 14th 07, 03:01 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> (By the way, what the heck is a "scientainer"?)

A combination of a "Scientist" and an "Entertainer". Sort
of how these days one doesn't find any journalists on the
television or elsewhere; they are all in the "Infotainment
industry".

Just as a journalist is supposed to seek the truth regardless
of any personal bias, so is a scientist. Both are dying breeds.
I've observed the latter first hand, and although I find it
personally very offensive, it's not clear that it is detrimental
to society overall. It just rubs me the wrong way.

ManhattanMan

April 14th 07, 03:20 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "ManhattanMan"> wrote
>>
>> Old stuff.. Dick Tracy ran into that back in the 50's - an arch
>> villian was shooting people with ice projectiles, which melted,
>> leaving no trace evidence for Tracy to track. :)
>>
>> Can't believe I remembered that..........
>
> Mythbusters did that as a segment on TV, and could not replicate the
> ice bullet penetrating a ballistic dummy, and using high speed
> photography, found an interesting thing.
>
> The heat of the charge that sends the bullet down the barrel, melted
> the bullet before it ever left the barrel.
>
> They tried and tried, many different methods, only to come to the same
> conclusion. No ice bullets, except in the works of Dick Tracy. <g>

Compressed air?? For some reason (maybe a half century memory lapse?), I
can't recall how old Dick solved that case, but by god he did! Even
predicted wrist 2-way radios, wrist 2-way tv, etc., a few decades ahead of
time...

Tony Cox

April 14th 07, 03:23 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I think that there is a lot of "hot air" about "global warming" from many
> people on both sides of the issue. I had no interest in stating my opinion
> on the subject on this newsgroup and appealed for to people to drop the
> subject. Instead some people actually used my post as a starting point to
> continue the debate! Okay - so I decided since neither side had the mental
> discipline to take their arguments to relevant newsgroups (like
> alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology,
> sci.math.num-analysis, and sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics) that I
> couldn't make the situation any worse.

Well, I doubt that you'll find much relevance in those
groups either! Like you, I've no particular interest in
stating my opinion, since I've not studied the problem in
detail. But I *do* have an interest in helping people work out
how to analyze the problem for themselves -- particularly since
pilots are not only more intelligent than average but also
more influential. It's a sorry commentary that people are ill-
equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff. I'd go further than
you, however. Most comments on "global warming" are not
so much "hot air" as simply "bull ****".

Jose

April 14th 07, 04:22 AM

> particularly since pilots are not
> only more intelligent than average but also
> more influential.

Snicker.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Don Tabor

April 14th 07, 11:10 AM

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:20:13 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Don Tabor > wrote:
>> I have seen NO refutations of the MWP that don't rely on asking for
>> proof of a negative.
>
>"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even
>hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high
>degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no
>multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same
>or warmer than in the 20th century.
>...

So, because there were no instruments, the MWP did not happen?

Norsemen raised cattle and grains in coastal Greenland. Grapes were
grown in Scotland and higher in the Alps than is now possible. China
enjoyed longer growing seasons and higher food production. None of
those things is possible unless there was a prolonged period of much
warmer weather.

>In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late
>20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200
>years."

And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
there is no sound.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 02:02 PM

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:20:13 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>>Don Tabor > wrote:
>>> I have seen NO refutations of the MWP that don't rely on asking for
>>> proof of a negative.
>>
>>"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even
>>hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high
>>degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no
>>multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same
>>or warmer than in the 20th century.
>>...
>
> So, because there were no instruments, the MWP did not happen?

Strawman. No one says this.

> Norsemen raised cattle and grains in coastal Greenland. Grapes were
> grown in Scotland and higher in the Alps than is now possible. China
> enjoyed longer growing seasons and higher food production. None of
> those things is possible unless there was a prolonged period of much
> warmer weather.

No one disputes this.

, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late
>>20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200
>>years."
>
> And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
> there is no sound.

Correct, but irrelevant.

The issue is the whether the MWP provides a valid argument that the rapid
warming of the last 50 years could be just a repeat of a natural phenomenon
that happened a thousand years ago. This argument is not supported by
research (no HTML; pardon the missing graph):

=============================
Climate in Medieval Time

Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Climate in Medieval time is often said to have been as warm as, or warmer
than, it is "today." Such a statement might seem innocuous. But for those
opposed to action on global warming, it has become a cause célèbre: If it was
warmer in Medieval time than it is today, it could not have been due to fossil
fuel consumption. This (so the argument goes) would demonstrate that warming
in the 20th century may have been just another natural fluctuation that does
not warrant political action to curb fossil fuel use.

Careful examination of this argument must focus on three issues: the timing of
the purported temperature anomaly, its geographical extent, and its magnitude
relative to temperatures in the 20th century. The latter issue is especially
important, because advocates of a warm Medieval episode commonly argue that
solar irradiance was as high in Medieval time as in the 20th century. They
maintain that 20th-century global warming was largely driven by this solar
forcing, not by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

The concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch (MWE) was first articulated by Lamb in
1965 (1). Lamb based his argument almost exclusively on historical anecdotes
and paleoclimatic data from western Europe. Using these data to construct
indices of "summer wetness" and "winter severity," he found evidence for warm,
dry summers and mild winters centered around 1100 to 1200 A.D. (the "High
Medieval") (2). In Europe, such conditions would have been associated with a
prevailing anticyclonic circulation in summer and persistent westerly airflow
in winter.

Lamb's studies predated modern quantitative paleoclimatology in which proxy
records of climate change are calibrated against instrumental observations.
The temperature change that he attributed to the MWE (1º to 2ºC above average)
was based largely on his own estimates and personal perspective. Lamb alluded
to a few studies in other parts of the world where conditions appeared to have
been warm at this time, but never attempted to estimate the magnitude of a
global or even hemispheric Medieval temperature anomaly. His estimates pertain
only to western Europe.

Lamb compared past temperatures with mean temperatures from 1900 to 1939,
which he referred to as the "modern normal" period (3). Because of the
pronounced rise in temperature in the late 20th century, the period that Lamb
considered "normal" was ~0.3ºC cooler over Europe than the past 30 years.
Since Lamb's analysis, many new paleotemperature series have been produced.
However, well-calibrated data sets with decadal or higher resolution are still
only available for a few dozen locations (see the figure). Only a few of these
records are from the tropics, and only a handful from the Southern Hemisphere.
Furthermore, some records provide estimates for a particular season, making
comparisons with other (seasonally different) records problematic.

[missing graph]

When was it warm? The warmest 30-year periods prior to 1970 A.D. from a
variety of ice core, tree ring, speleothem, sedimentary, and documentary
records. Gray diamonds denote first year of record. 1: 18O from Quelccaya Ice
cap, Peru. 2: 18O from Sajama, Bolivia. 3: 18O from Huascaran, Peru. 4:
Inverted mean of eight tree-ring indices from northern Patagonia (Argentina
and Chile). 5: Speleothem 18O from South Africa. 6: Austral summer
temperatures from a New Zealand tree-ring series. 7: Tree-ring indices,
Tasmania. 8: D Talos Dome, Antarctica. 9: 18O from Guliya, W. China. 10: 18O
from Dunde, W. China. 11: 18O from Dasuopu, W. China. 12: Summer temperature
from three tree-ring series in the Sierra Nevada, California. 13: Speleothem
annual layer thickness, Beijing, China. 14: Winter temperatures from
historical documents, E. China. 15: Lamination thickness in lake sediments,
Baffin Island, N. Canada. 16: Tree-ring indices from a site in Mongolia. 17:
Mean annual temperature of Northern Hemisphere from multiproxy composite. 18:
Regional curve-standardized (RCS) temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronology
from the Polar Urals. 19: RCS temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronology from
the Taimyr Peninsula. 20: RCS temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronology from
Tornetrask, Northern Sweden. 21: Lake sediments, Ellesmere Island, N. Canada.
22: 18O from Summit (GISP2), C. Greenland. 23: Solar activity from 10Be. For
sources of data, see (16).

With such a limited database, it is difficult to determine whether there was a
globally extensive warm period in Medieval time. The problem is confounded by
numerous studies that have used the term "Medieval Warm Period" for any
climatic anomaly that occurred at some time in the historical Medieval period
(500 to 1500 A.D.)--even if the record is unrelated to temperature (4, 5). As
a result, ill-defined evidence for a range of climatic anomalies occurring
over a wide time interval has created the notion that the MWE was a definitive
global phenomenon.

But how warm was the High Medieval (2)? Comparison with modern conditions is
difficult because only a few paleoclimatic records covering the past 1500
years extend to the present; many were collected before the most recent period
of warming. It is clear, however, that temperatures in High Medieval time were
warmer than during the subsequent Little Ice Age (~1400 to ~1900 A.D.), one of
the coldest periods in the past ~12,000 years. Large-scale reconstructions of
mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline
in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt
rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of
reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200
A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7,
8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of
the 20th century. Data from the Southern Hemisphere are too sparse to draw
reliable conclusions about overall temperatures in Medieval time.

Recent modeling studies show that increased solar irradiance does not cause
surface warming in all locations. Enhanced solar irradiance leads to increased
ultraviolet absorption by ozone, warming the stratosphere; this warming alters
circulation patterns in the atmosphere below. If solar irradiance was enhanced
in the 12th century (9), conditions in northern and western Europe may indeed
have been relatively warm because of changes in large-scale circulation
patterns associated with the Arctic Oscillation (10). This mechanism may
explain why some regions were relatively warm in Medieval times whereas others
were not.
The period from 1100 to 1260 A.D. was also characterized by high levels of
explosive volcanism (11, 12). In the 20th century, such volcanic events
commonly led to very warm winters in northern Europe and northwestern Russia
(13). Thus, volcanism may also have influenced the frequency of mild winters
in this region during High Medieval time.

There is evidence for widespread hydrological anomalies from 900 to 1300 A.D.
Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States
(especially eastern California and the western Great Basin) (14). Other parts
of the world also experienced persistent hydrological anomalies (15). For this
reason, Stine (14) argues that a better term for this period is the Medieval
Climatic Anomaly, removing the emphasis on temperature as its defining
characteristic.

Prolonged droughts in some areas and exceptional rains in others suggest that
changes in the frequency or persistence of circulation regimes (such as La
Niña or El Niño) may account for the climate in this period (15). However, the
causes of such persistent anomalies remain unknown. A repetition of such
anomalies today, with more than 10 times as many people on Earth as in High
Medieval time, could be catastrophic. Elucidating the underlying mechanisms
must therefore be a priority.

The balance of evidence does not point to a High Medieval period that was as
warm as or warmer than the late 20th century. However, more climate records
are required to explain the likely causes for climate variations over the last
millennium and to fully understand natural climate variability, which will
certainly accompany future anthropogenic effects on climate.

===========================

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 14th 07, 02:27 PM

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>> Prove the absence of something (ie, a bullet hole entry wound, no exit
>> wound, but no bullet found).
>
> Old stuff.. Dick Tracy ran into that back in the 50's - an arch villian
> was shooting people with ice projectiles, which melted, leaving no trace
> evidence for Tracy to track. :)
>
> Can't believe I remembered that..........
Me either.

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 02:35 PM

This paper is related because it gives convincing data that the current
warming is not a natural event, as opposed to the MWP, which *had* to be
natural:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8370?ck=nck

"The probability of the observed [modern] changes occurring through natural,
as opposed to anthropogenic, causes appears to be exceedingly small. First,
although a major ice age causes a larger temperature change than has happened
so far in response to CO2, the temperature increase that occurred between 1920
and 1990 would have taken more than 2,000 years even at the historically rapid
rate of the last deglaciation. During deglaciation, transient warming in the
North Atlantic after a Heinrich event was faster (35), but there is no
evidence for a Heinrich event during the last few centuries. Second, internal
climate oscillations, shifts in storm tracks, and the like obviously can
change local and regional climate by much larger amounts than observed in the
hemispheric averages. These regional fluctuations appear to be superimposed on
the general global trend. Additionally, such internal oscillations produce
warm and cool regions that interchange over decade to century time scales (32,
36), but whose effects largely cancel in hemispheric averages. Third, while
there is reasonable evidence for greater climate variability during the
Holocene than has been observed during the period where instrumental data are
available (37, 38), there is no evidence in the statistics that a major
unidentified source of natural variation is present during the instrumental
record. Such a source would have to mimic, perversely, either solar irradiance
changes or the changes in atmospheric CO2 to cause the observed temperature
changes and to be mistaken for them. Similarly, while mindful of the many
caveats on data quality, spatial coverage, etc. given in ref. 1, the
appearance of possible leap-year artifacts at a level below 10 mK in the
residuals suggests that the data cannot be as untrustworthy as is occasionally
implied. The residual temperature variation remaining once the known effects
of precession, solar irradiance changes, and atmospheric CO2 concentration are
removed bound unknown effects to about 200 mK peak-to peak in the hemispheric
average series during the last century.

Consider the null hypothesis that the observed temperature fluctuations and
atmospheric CO2 levels are independent: The probability that the hemispheric
temperatures would fluctuate purely by chance in such a way to produce the
observed coherences with CO2 is exceedingly low. Given that the records
encompass more than a century, the probability is so low that one would not
expect to see such an event by chance during the age of the earth. The
probability of the observed coherence between atmospheric CO2 and changes in
the timing of the seasons shown in figure 13 of ref. 2 without a causal
connection is similarly low. Consequently one must strongly reject the
hypothesis of independence between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. The
alternative hypothesis, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 plus a
slight change in solar irradiance are causally responsible for the observed
changes in temperature, in contrast, results in test statistics that are
ordinary in every way. Because major changes in climate as a response to human
use of fossil fuels have been predicted for more than a century (39, 40),
their detection can hardly be considered surprising. "

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 14th 07, 02:54 PM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 14th 07, 02:56 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>>
>> > A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
>> > One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
>> > in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
>> > climate variation which can't be measured until after
>> > the proponents have conveniently retired. This
>> > doesn't give one much confidence.
>>
>> Um, Dr. James Hansen is not yet retired.
>
> There's obvious controversy about Hansen discussed below
> this post. It seems from his work (which you quote) that he
> believes that the "emphasis on extreme scenarios may have
> been appropriate". Right there, thinking people ought to start
> wondering why a scientist -- supposedly objective -- thinks it
> right to overstate his case. Clearly, he *believes* in GW as a
> cause that needs to be presented even if the science doesn't
> support it.
>
> Further, he apparently decided (20 years ago) to extrapolate
> the data along several possible future paths and now pulls
> the least inaccurate one out from his metaphorical hat in a
> presentation before Congress as proof that somehow he was
> right all along. Ought I to be impressed?
>
> Perhaps he should retire. It seems that he has missed
> his calling as a stage magician.
>
>> How do you account for the
>> correlation between observations and the temperature changes his model
>> predicted some 20 years ago?
>
> You mean how do I account for the correlation between CO2
> and temperature changes in _one_ of the several possible future
> extrapolations developed by Hansen?
>
> Well, the first thing I'd say is that "correlation" doesn't imply
> "causation", as I"m sure you're aware. That they are linked is
> interesting. That they were counter-correlated between 1940
> and 1975 is also interesting. That temperature also correlates
> with solar wind activity I also find fascinating. This indicates to
> me that the mechanisms for global warming are not yet well
> understood, despite the harangues of various self-aggrandizing
> Scientainers claiming otherwise.

What's more, there is no correlation between Hansen's model and the
subsequent 20 years, anymore than Jean Dixon predicted JFK getting shot.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 14th 07, 02:58 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> I think that there is a lot of "hot air" about "global warming" from many
> people on both sides of the issue. I had no interest in stating my opinion
> on the subject on this newsgroup and appealed for to people to drop the
> subject. Instead some people actually used my post as a starting point to
> continue the debate! Okay - so I decided since neither side had the mental
> discipline to take their arguments to relevant newsgroups (like
> alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology,
> sci.math.num-analysis, and sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics) that
> I
> couldn't make the situation any worse.

What a pompous, presumtious chump...and a fraud to boot.

Geez...right down the path with Mike Hulme.

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 03:51 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>> Since at worst that will be a sea level rise of no more than a foot
>>> and a half (more likely, less than 6 inches), longer growing seasons
>>> and a longer bikini season, I don't see the point.
>>
>>At worst? What research can you cite to support this?
>
> IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Summary, section on sea level rise. The
> 23 inch rise reported in the Summary for Policymakers is the A1F1
> scenario, which the scientists rejected as unrealistic, but the
> bureaucrats put back in. The TS gives a worst case 100 year rise as 17
> inches.
>
> Further, the forever rise, the maximum without melting the Central
> Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets, is only a meter. Since those ice
> sheets are above the snow line for any plausible temperature rise, it
> ain't gonna happen.
>
> Melting those would take a 68 degree F rise in temps, and the worst
> case temp prediction is only 11 degrees. Even at the 68 degree rise,
> it would take thousands of years to melt them.

Cite? Graphs I've seen show it could take as little as a thousand years at an
8 deg. C rise, even if poorly understood melting acceleration processes are
not included.

"Models for continental ice melting are not yet capable of capturing the
complex features that NASA satellites are now discovering in these ice fields.
Important processes may be missing from models."

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer.pdf

"Instead of melting slowly, like a giant ice cube, ice in Greenland and
elsewhere seems capable of melting much more rapidly. Reports back from the
field are noticing disturbing trends in this regard."

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=173

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 04:03 PM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>...and a fraud to boot.

Says the guy who posted a bogus cut-and-paste, and then wouldn't respond when
called on it.

Say, Matt, didn't you just claim that you'd KF'd Logajan a lonnngggg time ago?

Fraud, indeed.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Whiting

April 14th 07, 04:14 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message

>> And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
>> there is no sound.
>
> Correct, but irrelevant.

No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.

Matt

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 04:25 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
>
>>> And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
>>> there is no sound.
>>
>> Correct, but irrelevant.
>
> No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
> irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.

I've always read that "sound" is the result of the brain processing vibrations
transmitted by the aural organs, and that vibrations are nothing more than
that: waves in the medium.

There are plenty of these vibrations around us all the time that we don't
perceive. When do they become sound?

It's mostly a semantic argument, I suppose.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Whiting

April 14th 07, 05:26 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
>>>> And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
>>>> there is no sound.
>>> Correct, but irrelevant.
>> No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
>> irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.
>
> I've always read that "sound" is the result of the brain processing vibrations
> transmitted by the aural organs, and that vibrations are nothing more than
> that: waves in the medium.
>
> There are plenty of these vibrations around us all the time that we don't
> perceive. When do they become sound?
>
> It's mostly a semantic argument, I suppose.
>

Sound has many definitions, but most include something like this which
speaks of vibrations in some medium. Detecting the vibrations isn't
required in order for them to exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

If you close your eyes so that you can't see the sun, does that make the
sun disappear from existence?

Matt

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 05:33 PM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> Sound has many definitions, but most include something like this which
> speaks of vibrations in some medium. Detecting the vibrations isn't
> required in order for them to exist.
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound
>
> If you close your eyes so that you can't see the sun, does that make the sun
> disappear from existence?

No, but light is a physical thing entire of itself. It has photons.

Anyway, you win. I can't think of a defensible exclusion of sound existing in
the absence of a listener.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Don Tabor

April 14th 07, 06:20 PM

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:31 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>Cite? Graphs I've seen show it could take as little as a thousand years at an
>8 deg. C rise, even if poorly understood melting acceleration processes are
>not included.
>
>"Models for continental ice melting are not yet capable of capturing the
>complex features that NASA satellites are now discovering in these ice fields.
>Important processes may be missing from models."
>
>http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer.pdf
>
>"Instead of melting slowly, like a giant ice cube, ice in Greenland and
>elsewhere seems capable of melting much more rapidly. Reports back from the
>field are noticing disturbing trends in this regard."

The IPCC working group 1 Tech Summary mentioned those and rejected
them.

It is in the sea level rise section that the report gave the 20 degree
C requirement for melting the Antarctic Ice Sheets over millennia.

You really should read it.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 14th 07, 06:26 PM

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:26:51 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>> "Don Tabor" > wrote in message
>>>>> And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
>>>>> there is no sound.
>>>> Correct, but irrelevant.
>>> No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
>>> irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.
>>
>> I've always read that "sound" is the result of the brain processing vibrations
>> transmitted by the aural organs, and that vibrations are nothing more than
>> that: waves in the medium.
>>
>> There are plenty of these vibrations around us all the time that we don't
>> perceive. When do they become sound?
>>
>> It's mostly a semantic argument, I suppose.
>>
>
>Sound has many definitions, but most include something like this which
>speaks of vibrations in some medium. Detecting the vibrations isn't
>required in order for them to exist.
>
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound
>
>If you close your eyes so that you can't see the sun, does that make the
>sun disappear from existence?

That was my point. The absence of thermometers and meteorologists is
not a reason to deny the Medieval Warm Period occurred, there is
plenty of archeological and other proxy evidence that it did, and that
it was throughout the Northern Hemisphere, not just a local European
event.

There is also no evidence that the rise was any slower than the
current increase. That is just assumed.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Dan Luke

April 14th 07, 07:31 PM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>"Instead of melting slowly, like a giant ice cube, ice in Greenland and
>>elsewhere seems capable of melting much more rapidly. Reports back from the
>>field are noticing disturbing trends in this regard."
>
> The IPCC working group 1 Tech Summary mentioned those and rejected
> them.

I cannot seem to find a document with that exact name. Can you provide a
link?

> It is in the sea level rise section that the report gave the 20 degree
> C requirement for melting the Antarctic Ice Sheets over millennia.
>
> You really should read it.

I've read this:

_IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report_

p. 17

"Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute
to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest ice mass losses
increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and
that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming
(relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative
surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to
virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting
contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future
temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last
interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests
reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise."

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Don Tabor

April 15th 07, 02:04 AM

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:31:19 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>>
>> The IPCC working group 1 Tech Summary mentioned those and rejected
>> them.
>
>I cannot seem to find a document with that exact name. Can you provide a
>link?

The official version has not yet been released as it is being
rewritten to conform to the Summary for Policymakers (No, I am not
kidding.)

You can find a link to the leaked second order draft at
www.junkscience.com

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Don Tabor

April 15th 07, 02:06 AM

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:31:19 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>The corresponding future
>temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last
>interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests
>reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise."

Was that caused by the giant ground sloths driving SUV's?

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Dan Luke

April 15th 07, 02:20 AM

"Don Tabor" wrote:

>>The corresponding future
>>temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last
>>interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information
>>suggests
>>reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise."
>
> Was that caused by the giant ground sloths driving SUV's?

Funny. You should be on talk radio.

The whole point of the current alarm over AGW is that human input may force
the climate to mimic natural paleoclimatic extremes in the near future.

But you knew that, right?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[email protected]

April 15th 07, 02:35 AM

Dan Luke > wrote:

> "Don Tabor" wrote:

> >>The corresponding future
> >>temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last
> >>interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information
> >>suggests
> >>reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise."
> >
> > Was that caused by the giant ground sloths driving SUV's?

> Funny. You should be on talk radio.

> The whole point of the current alarm over AGW is that human input may force
> the climate to mimic natural paleoclimatic extremes in the near future.

> But you knew that, right?

As far as I can tell the current alarm over AGW is to obtain additional
funding for more studies.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dan Luke

April 15th 07, 02:52 AM

> wrote:

>
> As far as I can tell the current alarm over AGW is to obtain additional
> funding for more studies.

Really?

Gosh!

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Dylan Smith

April 16th 07, 08:38 AM

On 2007-04-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> Next year is your turn in the barrel.

No, we had it last year, which was the coldest in years (although still
significantly warmer than the winters prior to 1976).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith

April 18th 07, 10:52 AM

On 2007-04-13, Don Tabor > wrote:
> world. If Americans decide to make their sneakers last a few months
> longer on average, children go hungry in the third world.

Gosh, I must be a really terrible person then for trying to make things
I own last longer, and buying locally made or grown goods wherever
practical...

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Don Tabor

April 19th 07, 07:01 PM

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:52:58 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2007-04-13, Don Tabor > wrote:
>> world. If Americans decide to make their sneakers last a few months
>> longer on average, children go hungry in the third world.
>
>Gosh, I must be a really terrible person then for trying to make things
>I own last longer, and buying locally made or grown goods wherever
>practical...

I hope not, I do the same thing myself, but everything we do has
consequences.

Those who casually toss off ideas that would bring down the US economy
often see it as part of some zero sum game, that by bringing down the
US, the rest of the world gets a bigger share.

The truth is the complete opposite, a small hurt inflicted on the US
economy, enough to make us delay retiring a year or two, is a
catastrophe to the developing world.

Don

[email protected]

April 26th 07, 11:25 PM

On Apr 11, 11:33 am, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
> Don Tabor > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > > wrote:
>
> > >"Don Tabor" wrote:
>
> > >>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
> > >>>> politicalization
>
> > >>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
>
> > >> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
> > >> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
>
> > >]
>
> > >Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have anything
> > >that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee?
>
> > The topic is politicizing the debate.
>
> > The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> > political activists.
>
> > That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
> > be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.
>
> > Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
> > written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
> > from Regent University to be ad hominem?
>
> > How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
> > caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
> > fuel companies?
>
> > Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
> > aware of the expert's rice bowl?
>
> > Don
>
> To get back on the subject of aviation:
>
> How about giving credence to reports on aviation benefits & impacts by
> "jgrove," "skylune" or "Bill MulCahy"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

More shows added on Northerly Island:)
Wed 07/25/07 Incubus
Thu 07/26/07 O.A.R.
Sat 08/11/07 311
Sat 08/11/07 Matisyahu

Goodness gracious, look at all the new condos:
http://www.museumpark.com/home.asp

Orval Fairbairn

April 27th 07, 04:14 AM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On Apr 11, 11:33 am, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Don Tabor > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >"Don Tabor" wrote:
> >
> > > >>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> politicalization
> >
> > > >>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
> >
> > > >> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
> > > >> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
> >
> > > >]
> >
> > > >Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have
> > > >anything
> > > >that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform
> > > >Committee?
> >
> > > The topic is politicizing the debate.
> >
> > > The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> > > political activists.
> >
> > > That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
> > > be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.
> >
> > > Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
> > > written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
> > > from Regent University to be ad hominem?
> >
> > > How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
> > > caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
> > > fuel companies?
> >
> > > Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
> > > aware of the expert's rice bowl?
> >
> > > Don
> >
> > To get back on the subject of aviation:
> >
> > How about giving credence to reports on aviation benefits & impacts by
> > "jgrove," "skylune" or "Bill MulCahy"?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> More shows added on Northerly Island:)
> Wed 07/25/07 Incubus
> Thu 07/26/07 O.A.R.
> Sat 08/11/07 311
> Sat 08/11/07 Matisyahu
>
> Goodness gracious, look at all the new condos:
> http://www.museumpark.com/home.asp

So, is that a good thing? Please tell us what is unique about Northerly
Island that makes it more attractive as a "park" than as an established
airport that had to be demolished in the middle of the night?

Why couldn't those concerts (with their associated drugs and disorderly
conduct) perform anywhere else?

[email protected]

April 30th 07, 07:01 PM

On Apr 26, 10:14 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:33 am, Orval Fairbairn >
> > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Don Tabor > wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:02:55 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >"Don Tabor" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> politicalization
>
> > > > >>>http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01
>
> > > > >> Do you ever bother to read the About Us tab on a website before citing
> > > > >> it? Check the Board of Trustees for the TJ Center.
>
> > > > >]
>
> > > > >Do you have anything besides ad hominem as a response? Do you have
> > > > >anything
> > > > >that refutes the testimonies before the House Government Reform
> > > > >Committee?
>
> > > > The topic is politicizing the debate.
>
> > > > The Board of the TJCenter is made up of anti capitalist, left wing
> > > > political activists.
>
> > > > That is definitely relevant when an article is cited that purports to
> > > > be motivated solely by interest in freedom of speech.
>
> > > > Would you consider doubts about an article on the topic of evolution
> > > > written by a supposedly neutral expert who's funding came exclusively
> > > > from Regent University to be ad hominem?
>
> > > > How about dismissing the credentials of scientists skeptical of man
> > > > caused global warming who receive all of their funding from fossil
> > > > fuel companies?
>
> > > > Or would you feel it was necessary to be at least a bit skeptical when
> > > > aware of the expert's rice bowl?
>
> > > > Don
>
> > > To get back on the subject of aviation:
>
> > > How about giving credence to reports on aviation benefits & impacts by
> > > "jgrove," "skylune" or "Bill MulCahy"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > More shows added on Northerly Island:)
> > Wed 07/25/07 Incubus
> > Thu 07/26/07 O.A.R.
> > Sat 08/11/07 311
> > Sat 08/11/07 Matisyahu
>
> > Goodness gracious, look at all the new condos:
> >http://www.museumpark.com/home.asp

Oral BrainFart wrote:

>
> So, is that a good thing? Please tell us what is unique about Northerly
> Island that makes it more attractive as a "park" than as an established
> airport that had to be demolished in the middle of the night?
>
> Why couldn't those concerts (with their associated drugs and disorderly
> conduct) perform anywhere else?- Hide quoted text -

Safety and Cost Efficiency and billions $$ in development:
http://www.onemuseumpark.com/news.html

MDW provides many commercial grade foam trucks for those with shakey
or no landing skills ( 911 Atta Crew, trained by US GA industry ).

A lake landing is surely fatal for wreck occupants, (WOs). WOs have a
better change with the trees and open rail yards around MDW. CFD
backup response is also quicker at MDW, along with the nearby world
reknown trama skills at Stroger Cook Co. hospital...Better Faster
Cheaper...JG