Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Ash Wyllie" wrote:


There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.

Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.

Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
in the direct production of fuels.

And this thread ALMOST died....

Let it go, man...just let it go....

Not yet. Not yet! Denny started something that must be running close
to a record. We owe it to him.



Dan Mc



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 18, 8:54 pm, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:



On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Ash Wyllie" wrote:

There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.

Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.

Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
in the direct production of fuels.

And this thread ALMOST died....

Let it go, man...just let it go....

Not yet. Not yet! Denny started something that must be running close
to a record. We owe it to him.



Dan Mc

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

OK, ok...

I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.


NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe
during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was
the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter
precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large
parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome
runoff this spring.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was
33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average
- yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest
winter since national records began in 1895.

February Temperature Highlights
February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest
globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average,
0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which
was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the
20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...feb/feb08.html

"Dan" wrote:


OK, ok...

I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.

Dammit, Dan!



NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

So?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...oldWeather.pdf

"Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean
global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has
little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more.
The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
Nina cycle),"

On Mar 19, 8:40 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
OK, ok...
I can't let it die... it must continue, for the sake of the Cause.

Dammit, Dan!

NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

So?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...oldWeather.pdf

"Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean
global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has
little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more.
The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
Nina cycle),"

The NOAA article specifically mentioned Global as well as NA
temperatures....

(I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)


Dan Mc

(I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)


OK uses foot to slide the beer closer to prostrate Dan

denny

On Mar 20, 9:53 am, Denny wrote:
(I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)

OK uses foot to slide the beer closer to prostrate Dan

denny

Unconsciousness -- there's the ticket!


Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote:

NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

So?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...oldWeather.pdf

"Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on
monthly-mean
global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather
has
little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or
more.
The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few
years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino - La
Nina cycle),"

The NOAA article specifically mentioned Global as well as NA
temperatures....

It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend. Weather
is fast; climate is slow.



(I can't help myself -- somebody hep me!)

Don't look at me.

This is all Denny's fault.

On Mar 20, 10:16 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

It's a sickness...

Oh well, here we go (for the Cause)....


It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend. Weather
is fast; climate is slow.

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?

A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
"crisis":

-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see referenced
report)

-- UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)

-- Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)

-- Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)

-- Call for new taxes

-- Appeal for new bureaucracies

-- It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")

-- Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)

-- Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")

-- Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")

-- "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")


These are just a few thoughts that came to mind. Of course, there is a
counter to every one, but don't be surprised that I don't heartily
embrace the latest "crisis."

Dan Mc



This is all Denny's fault.

Agreed.

"Dan" wrote:


It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend.
Weather
is fast; climate is slow.

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?


There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
variability.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ure_Record.png

But what's the overall trend since 1900?


A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
"crisis":

-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see referenced
report)


I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

-- UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)

-- Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)

-- Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)

-- Call for new taxes

-- Appeal for new bureaucracies

-- It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")

-- Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.


-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)


Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.
The IPCC said as much in its first report in 1990:

"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by
0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is
broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the
same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase
could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this
variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger
human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced
greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.


-- Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")


-- Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")


-- "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")


You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.


These are just a few thoughts that came to mind. Of course, there is a
counter to every one, but don't be surprised that I don't heartily
embrace the latest "crisis."

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.

On Mar 20, 12:08 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?

There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
variability.


But what's the overall trend since 1900?

If we're using 1900 as the benchmark, we have to conclude that Climate
change cannot possibly be the result of only man's activities -- the
level of industrialization, proliferation of the IC engine, and other
claimed generators of Co2 et al were minuscule in 1900, 1910, 1920,
1930 -- even 1940 -- compared to today's numbers. Shouldn't we see a
steep curve since, say, 1950 with the mass marketing and mass
industrialization?


-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see
referenced
report)

I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?


-- UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)
-- Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)
-- Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)
-- Call for new taxes
-- Appeal for new bureaucracies
-- It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")
-- Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.

Well, in our system, empirical evidence needs to be sifted, weighed
and then proferred to reach consensus. Only after consensus provides
political will do laws change and bureaucracies move.


-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)

Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.

Thus inconclusive, thus hardly a mandate.

-- Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")
-- Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")
-- "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")

You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.

Oops! You're right -- Fox News .. Let's chuck in NPR as well (where we
can always tune in to learn about some asexual rabbit's habitat being
swept away by some nasty human...)

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.

"Consensus science" is an oxymoron.



Dan Mc.