contrails

On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

On Jan 18, 5:44*am, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
*I am a trained

and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

Or more a more recently example would be eminent scientists cooking
the books in their own field for personal reasons or the CAUSE. It
played out like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. You start with a pile of
factual seemly unrelated pieces and try to put them together. Some fit
but others resist assembly and for those you get out the scissors. The
pieces the scissors can't handle you hide under the rug. Anyone poking
about under rugs is subject to swift attack and if they were not part
of the assembly team it isn't going to be pretty.
Only a fool would question that there has been global warming. You
only need to check the earths temperature history over the last
400,000 years to see that it has gone up 5 times. Hmm but wait that
means it has also gone down 4 times. Never mind that lets just change
the name from global warming or cooling to climate change. Now who
could argue with that since climate has been changing for as long as
records exist. Problem solved now we can get on with imposing limits
on everyone and redistributing wealth. Its for the kids you know.
Thank God the scientists came up with this one or the politicians
would have had to invented it. Now they only have to mix the cool-
aid..

On 18 Jan, 13:29, Gary Evans wrote:
On Jan 18, 5:44*am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
*I am a trained

and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

Or more a more recently example would be eminent scientists cooking
the books in their own field for personal reasons or the CAUSE. It
played out like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. You start with a pile of
factual seemly unrelated pieces and try to put them together. Some fit
but others resist assembly and for those you get out the scissors. The
pieces the scissors can't handle you hide under the rug. Anyone poking
about under rugs is subject to swift attack and if they were not part
of the assembly team it isn't going to be pretty.
Only a fool would question that there has been global warming. You
only need to check the earths temperature history over the last
400,000 years to see that it has gone up 5 times. Hmm but wait that
means it has also gone down 4 times. Never mind that lets just change
the name from global warming or cooling to climate change. Now who
could argue with that since climate has been changing for as long as
records exist. Problem solved now we can get on with imposing limits
on everyone and redistributing wealth. Its for the kids you know.
Thank God the scientists came up with this one or the politicians
would have had to invented it. Now they only have to mix the cool-
aid..

You can statistically prove almost anything you want to by carefully
selecting your data, and ignoring any data that doesn't fit your
model. Politics and science are a dangerous mix. Hitler's Germany used
genetics to justify mass murder.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 18, 2:46*pm, delboy wrote:
... Hitler's Germany ...

Phew. End of topic. Far too much entropy around here anyway

On Jan 18, 2:44*am, delboy wrote:

... Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference.
...

Clearly no.

Consider Venus.

--

FF

Just had a look at Rutan's site. He gives prominent display to the
Oregon Institute of Science in Cave Junction or some such. I am sure
it exists, but Cave Junction has a population of ~3000. And the 3
authors have no credentials at all.

There are lots of charts and graphs in the article though.

Mark

On Jan 18, 12:44*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
*I am a trained

and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

History is also littered with quaint and misguided groups and
individuals who have held all sorts of strange beliefs which have
later been proved to be mistaken. There was a large group of people
(and still are I understand) who believed the earth was flat and
produced scientific avidence to prove it. A large number of people,
surported by the church believed the sun orbited the earth, King
Canute believed he could order the tide to stop coming in. The
scientific community at one time believed that you could tell if a
woman was a witch by throwing her into water. All these views are now
considered crazy. The modern equivalent is of course the climate
scientists who ignore the fact that this planet has been heating up
and cooling down for millions of years without our help, and also seem
unable to understand that all life is carbon and there is no way to
get rid of it. I have just realised that these scientists are crazy
earlier than most, everyone else will of course catch up if the Mayan
End of the World does not get them.
Breaking news, our climate is driven by the sun, which we now know
does not orbit the earth, quite how the climatic scientist propose to
fit a switch on something 93 million miles away defeats me, but I
suppose it keeps them in work, good job to have, one where you can
never suceed.

On 18 Jan, 23:38, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:44*am, delboy wrote:

... Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference.
...

Clearly no.

Consider Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun, so much hotter for that reason. Its
atmosphere is 97% Carbon Dioxide with smaller concentrations of
sulphuric acid, and chlorine and fluorine compounds. The concentration
of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently only 387 ppm (parts per
million), even with carbon emissions. The atmosphere of the Earth may
have had much higher levels of CO2 in its early history, but the
evolution of plant life tied most of the Carbon up in biomass, and
converted CO2 to Oxygen in the atmosphere, fortunately for us oxygen
breathing animals. Even with these higher CO2 levels, the Earth most
have been cool enough to allow Carbon and water based life to form.

Just a worrying thought. We humans breathe in the oxygen in the air
and breathe out CO2. We also give out methane (CH4) which is also a
potent greenhouse gas. Will Governments want to close us down as well
as the fossil fuel power stations? Or will we be taxed on our entire
carbon footprint? Frightening!

Derek Copeland

Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, delboy wrote:

... Hitler's Germany ...


Phew. End of topic. Far too much entropy around here anyway

Yep, "game over" when Hitler comes up. I'm out of here. People
interested in my views can contact me privately.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

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

On Jan 17, 7:42*am, delboy wrote:
On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:



After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom? If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Not according to people who actually track that sort of thing:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global#gtemp

Possibly you were thinking of data sets that begin with the El Nino
event of 1998-99?

If you use that as your starting point then it biases the result to
show
fairly flat temperatures from 1998 - 2008, just like you could use it
to exaggerate increasing temperatures from 1989 1999.

I think some people call that 'cherry picking' the data.

For myself, I don't put much stock in the currently available database
of
direct temperature measurements, and less stock in proxies. In both
cases the sampling problem looms large.

I do trust the measurements of atmospheric gases from Mauna Loa and
the measurements of solar activity. Those are much easier to sample.

If one does accept direct temperature measurement and pre-Mauna Loa
atmospheric gas measurements and proxies like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png

What we see is a temperature rise of ~ 0.7 degrees Celsius during the
20th century.

One can explain that as follows:

Temperatures rose quickly at the end of the 19th century due to
methane
released by oil exploitation (early on there was no market for natural
gas
so gas wells were typically left uncapped). As methane has a fairly
low
half life in the atmosphere (12 years) temperatures dropped quickly
until 1910 or so at which point carbon emissions from industrial
growth
caused a continuous rise through WWII.

Then very rapid industrial growth and coal burning in particular,
especially
to power the world's electrical grids loaded the atmosphere with
aerosols
that offset the increased greenhouse effect of the coincurrently
released
carbon dioxide until pollution abatement came into vogue in the
1970s.
This pollution abatement concentrated on particulates and sulfur
compounds,
but ignored carbon dioxide.

As particulates continued to drop out of the atmosphere and carbon-
dioxide
rose so did temperatures from then until now, with a noted
acceleration after
German reunification produced a cleanup of East German Industry.

Other explanations are possible.


--

FF