contrails

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that.

-Evan

On Jan 10, 6:22*am, Doug Hoffman wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:57*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
place or on the way, and so on. Check he

Eric,

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

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

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

Regards,

-Doug

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

On 10 Jan, 06:25, Eric Greenwell wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:

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

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

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.

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

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

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

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

http://skepticalscience.com/

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

http://www.realclimate.org/

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

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

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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

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

Derek Copeland

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

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

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

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

Brian W

His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
logical fallacies.
Exactly! A good rebuttal of his major arguments, scientific and (often)
otherwise is he

*http://tinyurl.com/chwffj*

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

Doug Hoffman wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:57 am, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Doug, Gore's home is also his office, and his wife's office, so it's not
just a large home. It's been heavily weatherized, solar panels are in
place or on the way, and so on. Check he


Eric,

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


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


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

I didn't say ALL his money, just the money that comes from books,
movies, and clean energy investments, which is substantial (millions).
He has other income (living on a government pension after being a
senator and vice president for decades isn't exactly being destitute),
as does his wife.

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

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

On Jan 10, 2:11*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

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

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

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

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

If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus;

Eric, that's nonsense worthy of Al Gore.

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

Yes, that's part of the story.

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

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

This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_...?Argument0=133

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

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Scott wrote:
delboy wrote:


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


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

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...-emissions.htm

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

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

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

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

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

-Evan Ludeman / T8

T8 wrote:

This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_...?Argument0=133


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

-Evan Ludeman / T8

It's broken, alright. Use the direct link:

http://skepticalscience.com/empirica...use-effect.htm

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

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

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

I now return you to your regular programming...

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