community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Winter not coming
by pat n
Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Colorado mountains have lots of snow this year, but people can forget about having a good time at the winter carnival and other cold season events in the Upper Midwest this year ... winter isn't coming.
Mild weather since Dec 21 has made for weak ice on lakes and little or no snow in the fields and woods.
Annual temperatures at Minneapolis have been above "normal" since 1997.
What needs to be done about this?
In 2001, the National Weather Service increased it's "normal" annual temperature at Minneapolis from about 44.7 F to about 45.3 F, reflecting the average for the latest 30 year period.
Increasing the "normals" isn't the answer is it?
What is?
groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveDiscussion/
Forget football ...
by hot head
Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006 at 2:51 PM
... save the world!
The answer
by hot head
Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 at 2:35 AM
we might be a able to slow the rise a bit by not being so stupid.
No winter yet, none in sight!
by pat n
Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 at 11:04 AM
This January's mean temperature in Minneapolis will be the warmest since daily temperature records began at Fort Snelling in 1820. You can bet the farm on that, and have better odds than your team has to win the Super Bowl. Don't waste your time poking fun of the Vikiqueens, I'm from Wisconsin.
Go Seattle!
by hot head
Monday, Jan. 23, 2006 at 1:10 AM
Should be no contest (actually i'd like to see the Steelers win).
My comment at Polar Amplification (realclimate.org)
by pat n
Monday, Jan. 23, 2006 at 1:38 AM
95. re 94.
...
The annual mean temperature plots at stations(19) which I created and show at my link below extend from 1931 all the way through Dec 2005.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
My temperature plots in AK are based on data that I downloaded from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) website, updated for Dec 2005 based on NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center Dec avg mean daily temperature data.
The WRCC station location map for AK stations is at:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmak.html
Your interpretation of work by Tom Rees and the attempts to subtracted out influences due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO) on the AK upward trends in temperatures has overestimated the PDO effects and downplayed the stronger global warming effects in background. I.E based on my analysis of the 19 station temperature plots, your assumptions exaggerate PDO effects in relation to stronger global warming influences which now appear to be on the way to acceleration in 2006, and beyond. Although I can see there have been PDO shifts and influences on station temperatures from time to time, the magnitude of PDO shifts has been relatively minor and short lived. Some people may be perceiving the shifts to be longer lasting than they are in reality, because global warming is not allowing the temperatures to drop back down to pre-shift levels, and in so doing, the next to come PDO shift starts at higher and higher plateaus of
station temperature starting conditions.
Tom does not account for the sharp upward turn to higher temperatures in recent years which is evident at the majority of my 19 stations in AK, especially the stations located inland from the ocean waters.
The station temperature data shows jumps to higher and higher levels, not "cycles" at all. The upward jumps (a few years or couple decades at most) and the overall upward trends (periods of record for the stations) in observed temperature data shown on my station plots are consistent with rapid greenhouse warming. I have the Excel data sheets and my analysis here at home (if you or anyone else would like to discuss the detailed input data used in my station temperature plots.
Polar Amplification
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
Comment 95. by Pat Neuman — 21 Jan 2006 @ 12:37 pm
www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
global warming is a scam
by global warming is a scam
Monday, Jan. 23, 2006 at 7:13 AM
Only morons believe in it. Pat Neuman is a special kind of moron, since it comes from a state that hit 54 below last year.
yomoma
by yomoma
Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 at 6:12 PM
PB's on OC's
by Perdue Pharma
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 7:51 AM
We did not test OxyContin on polar bears, but maybe the trials carried out by Mr. Limbaugh, a Hollywood entertainment elite figure with an eating disorder is close enough. His program of drug interdiction by eating up all the pills (and Little Debbies) before they could fall into the hands of young childern is noble and admirable
Rush Limbaugh
by Tango Delta
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 1:01 PM
what does demonizing rush limbaugh have to do with this. if global warming is real then address it.
"Save the bears, ignore Greenhouse Platformers".
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
It is very obvious that the sprawl of Humanity in construction of its habitat, as trended to Population increases, is of significant consequence to the materials presented TO the surface incident energy of the bombarding Solar Radiation.
In the last 400 years, Human population has gone frm 500 Million to over 5 Billion with a reproduction rate from 0.1% to around 2% now. By 205O the population COULD reach 15 Billion (the lower limit of 8 Billion is within sight already), with near 60% living in (large sprawl) 'cities' with Human longevity moving up to near 40 years from the present average of around 25 years to 'pump' population increase rates.
"Humanity will be like locusts upon the face of the Earth."
In short, 'greenhouse science' is little more than a justification of study of false positives, ignoring the real and actual properties of CO2 (as an example) and attempts to FACTUALISE opinionation regarding a 'greenhouse effect'.
The 'Greenhouse Hypothesis' failed its effort to be validated within SCIENCE three times within the 20th Century and was then 'run into' the political arena, where it has lodged for its (vocal) support. Air pollution is what is a concern, and all it (greenhouse) needs to be treated as.
"Humanity will be like locusts upon the face of the Earth."
"Save the bears, ignore Greenhouse Platformers".
Peter K. Anderson has been banned from realclimate (by real scientists)
by pat n
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM
To view articles by real climate scientists, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/
but learn to ignore those (like Peter from down under) who have an agenda or axe to grind.
"Save the Bears, ignore Greenhouse Platformers"
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 3:25 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
I would point out also for the general information of all tha the group 'climtearchive' group listed offers only a censored discussion to avoid scrutiny of the 'greenhouse' platform and the plausibility of its 'presentation'.
You might get a clearer and more open discussion free of perpetual propaganda in other Yahoo group, either the 'climate-change' or 'powertothepeople' offering discusiion free of editing, alteration and censorship related to any 'preferenced position'.
I would add that Pat 'runs' the 'climatearchive' group and is also prone to censorship of discussion there contained to foster particular views (also in other groups Pat 'runs').
I am sorry to bring this to this forum, but people who behave as Pat is are generally those you try to avoid in discussion, and so i offer this as a 'community service' warning.
You can speak to Pat in this group (with others), free of 'editorial interference', in an open and free discussion:-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/
If climate is NOT the greatest concern, you can also engage in free and open discussion in this group:-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/powertothepeople/
"Save the Bears, ignore Greenhouse Platformers"
PS: I personally do NOT run and 'self promote' groups, just to make it clear, just enjoy open and free discussion.
"Save the Bears, ignore Greenhouse platformers"
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Again i am asorry to bvring this 'discussion' to this forum, but Pat is having trouble in Yahoo when his ideology is placed under scrutiny.
You will find that 'discussion' on the website 'realclimate.org' is run on the same basis as Pat runs discussions. Much pretense of 'science', but little real content of such, and little ability to respond to scrutiny except by preventing it.
There is also much innendo from Pat which i will be chasing down now as the individual is false and prone of fabrication.
Pat is in the most basic terms a platformer of propaganda. The 'realcliamte' site is of the same style, attempting to portray contents as 'science' and as a 'reference' for the 'general public and media'.
You need only look at United Nations plots of population to understand the reality of what i mention.
You only need to understand the actual behaviors of the involved materials to realise the false ideologies behind 'greenhouse platformers'.
"Save the Bears, ignore Greenhouse Platformers" .
Regarding 'Polar Amplification' and other nonscience.
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 3:53 PM
Here you see the style of nonsense platformed in a manner of 'seeming' to be 'scientific' but contains little viable 'science'.
Simply taking 'temperature' Pat, but then moving directly to infering any and all alterations in 'trend' is due ONLY to 'greenhouse' effects is the great failing of 'cliamte science' with its over attention to the invalid 'greenhouse' hypothesis.
It is very easy to see why 'greenhouse science' is incorrect and has trouble producing validly functional 'models' (that actually include 'greenhouse concepts'), the concepts are as far from describing the actual behaviors of the materials it would involve as could be considered even possible, most certainly beyond any concepts related to SCIENCE.
All the 'data' in the biggest 'super computer' cannot overcome the flaws in what is referred to as 'climate science' theory that tries to incorporate 'greenhouse concepts', nor can 'stern platforming' of such 'material'
improve its lack of validity.
Nor can the fabrication of 'imposing nomenclature'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Beware Hartlod (P.K.Anderson) has an axe to grind
by pat n
Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006 at 12:22 PM
As Hanks at realclimate.org said, you know when you've had a successful year on the web, because success attracts attention. This also means you attract trolls, and that people with a political agenda will be directing trolls to your site.
There will have to be similar ways worked out for weblogs. Sometimes people are set up to ask old debunked questions.
The FAQ suggests ways of looking at the attacks.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq/
Comment #80 under subject article titled,"One year on… ": http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=233
Embarrass
by pat n
Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006 at 4:45 PM
The temperature records at Embarrass MN are short. It's well known in Minnesota that the temperature measurements at Embarrass are not representative for the state or district due to local conditions (biased to cold). Have you looked at the station temperature plots for climate stations in Minnesota and other states, 1890s-2005) at:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
BTW, I think Pittsburgh is a nice place.
Nightmare vision of a world 200 years on
by IAN JOHNSTON
Friday, Jan. 27, 2006 at 4:26 PM
Nightmare vision of a world 200 years on
IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
ONE of Britain's leading environmentalists will today sound a doomsday warning to the world: humanity's very existence is under threat from climate change and, even if we survive, the population will crash to about a third of its current level.
Sir Crispin Tickell, the man who convinced former prime minister Margaret Thatcher that global warming was a real problem, predicts that, in 200 years, there could be as few as 2.3 billion people because rising sea levels and temperatures will make some areas uninhabitable and, coupled with social factors, depress birth rates.
But he also says our survival is "not guaranteed" and that the presence of humans on the planet could be "no more than a somewhat messy episode in the history of the Earth".
Advances in genetics, he believes, could possibly result in the creation of different sub-species of humans, conjuring up the HG Wells nightmare of the Eloi and the Morlocks.
Sir Crispin, a former British ambassador to the United Nations who is now chancellor of Kent University and director of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding, is the third major figure in the field this month to sound a warning of massive changes in the years ahead. The others were James Lovelock,
who developed the Gaia theory of the planet as a living organism, and Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey.
Sir Crispin, who is due to give a lecture on this subject tonight, said:
"The human impact on the Earth has slowly and then rapidly increased, most of all in the last 250 years.
"The resulting transformation of the environment is unsustainable. The main factors are human population increase, degradation of land, consumption of resources, water pollution and supply, climate change, destruction of other species ...
"Most of the solutions to the problems we have created, including the widening division between rich and poor, are well known but few want to confront them, singly or together. To do so we have to rethink our value system."
He pointed to recent droughts in Mediterranean countries and the increasing severity of hurricanes in the Caribbean - caused by a rise in sea temperature - as some of the signs that global warming is starting to get out of hand.
Sir Crispin has tried to forecast what is in store for humanity "supposing we can cope with the natural hazards" over the next two centuries.
But he warned: "Our survival in one form or another is not guaranteed."
If humanity survives, what could emerge will be far removed from the US-dominated world of today. "We will find the hubs of power, wealth and culture are very different with a greatly reduced human population," Sir Crispin said.
"Sea levels will rise, meaning coastlines will be different.
"I don't think climate change by itself is going to do anything [politically], but it is one of a number of factors that will alter the balance of power."
There are about 6.3 billion people on the planet and this is predicted to rise to nine billion this century.
"I think we just cannot go on like that. Perhaps the ideal number would be 2.3 billion," he said. "Population growth has now stopped in parts of the world. Other parts are going to be affected by climate change. People's propensity to breed will be much less."
Perhaps his most startling claim is that geneticists may in the future create different types of humans to do different tasks.
"All I mean is we could genetically improve people. That's one of the possibilities," Sir Crispin said. "It's like the HG Wells nightmare of the Eloi and the Morlocks. I'm not saying it's going to happen [but] we might have different varieties or sub-species of humans."
'Change travel habits or ruin air quality'
BRITONS must face a big shake-up in their travel behaviour or risk having the air they breathe dangerously and irreversibly polluted within 15 years, a report warns today.
It calls for more cycling and walking, greater use of public transport, a boost for home-working, more local facilities to reduce journey lengths and incentives to use eco-friendly cars.
The report, by the University College London Bartlet School of Planning and the Halcrow Group, was commissioned by the Department for Transport.
Professor David Banister of the Bartlet school, said: "For governments not to act is becoming increasingly irresponsible. We need major change in the way people travel."
The report said there were 370 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this was growing at two parts per million towards the danger level of 400, giving 15 years to turn this around. It found changing lifestyles and travel patterns was more effective than concentrating on technological advances such as alternative fuels.
Meanwhile, Australian scientists have warned global warming would cause sea levels to rise by up to 34cm by the end of the century.
news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=132492006
Doom from the sky
by Chicken Little
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 at 11:18 AM
People laugh about the story of Chicken Little who cries out that the sky is falling. But a group of astronomers has warned that something like that may very well happen before this half-century is out. They have discovered an asteroid nearly a quarter-mile wide that they think might slam into the earth 30 years from now and are urging immediate action by governments around the world to start planning programs to avert that happening.
The group is made up of people who are experts in near-Earth objects, for which they make the acronym NEO. They had a conference in London recently and compared notes on their findings.
The asteroid in question was identified in 2004 and studied in 2005 for its trajectory. At first they were scared enough to believe that it could hit the earth in 2029. Then they did some more fine-tuning of their computer data and decided that it would come close to the earth in 2029, but wouldn't be on a possible collision course until 2036.
They're worried. As one of the conferees said: "It's question of when — not if — a near-Earth object collides with Earth."
The conference pointed out that the geologic record shows that an object a half-mile or more in width has collided with the earth every few hundred thousand years. An object three miles wide, which could cause mass extinction, has hit the earth every hundred million years.
Given the geologic record of the last time something like that happened, one scientist at the conference said: "We are overdue for a big one."
This particular asteroid orbits the sun every 324 days. It will be visible enough to be studied by radar in 2006, and the next time that condition will come about will be 2013. But the conference said nations should start planning on counter-action soon, because the strategy for such counter-action is sketched out in theory but no hardware is ready to do the job.
Computer technology has given immense help to the study of this asteroid. It can simulate where its orbit will take it in space, by comparison to where the earth will be, and the scientists in the study have come up with this scenario:
In 2029 the asteroid will be closer to the earth than the moon is. It will be seen in the sky with the naked eye. And that will bring it close enough to Earth's gravity to cause its orbital trajectory to alter. The next time it gets that close to our neighborhood will be 2036, and the scientists think its trajectory change could well have put it on a collision course with Earth.
While most objects that fall from the sky burn up in the earth's atmosphere, often appearing as brilliant meteors, there have been some major collisions in the past. Something big brought an end to the Cambrian geologic era. The later Permian era came to an end when an object as big as Mount Everest slammed into the earth at a spot that is now off the northwest coast of Australia. And scientists now generally agree that the age of the dinosaurs was ended by the crash of a large object off what is now the Caribbean off Yucatan.
Smaller strikes have been recorded frequently. One descended with a fiery streak into the Atlantic in the 1930s. In the early 1900s one hit an uninhabited spot in Siberia, leveling forests for miles around. There's a big crater in Arizona that is the record of a hit in that spot in ancient times.
So what to do to keep the present danger from hitting? The European Space Agency has designed a plan to send two missiles to a space object large enough for practical study, probably another asteroid. One satellite will hit the object at high speed, and the other will measure any change in the orbit of the object.
Those at the London conference didn't think it would be a good idea to try to blow the asteroid up. If an object a quarter-mile wide were broken into 10 or a dozen pieces, they said, those pieces would still be big enough to slam into the Earth over a wider area. There's no technology for reducing an entire asteroid to sand particles that would burn up before hitting the ground.
Computer studies show that if the asteroid hits in 2036, it will be somewhere in the eastern hemisphere, releasing energy 100,000 times the energy released by the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Debris and dust kicked up by this blast would cloud the entire earth, probably for months.
Since discovering this potential danger, the scientists sought to find a name for the asteroid. They settled on "Apophis." The ancient Egyptian myths gave that name to a demon seeking to plunge the earth into darkness — a very appropriate name for this heavenly body.
www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/NEWS/601040303/1039
Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
by Michael McCarthy
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006
The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.
In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.
news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece
Warmer seas will wipe out plankton, source of ocean life
by Steve Connor
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 at 11:30 AM
by Steve Connor
The microscopic plants that underpin all life in the oceans are likely to be destroyed by global warming, a study has found.
Any plankton haul near the surface of the sea brings in a huge variety of life forms. Plants animals larvae adults vertebrates invertebrates carnivores and herbivores are all represented in the plankton community.
Scientists have discovered a way that the vital plankton of the oceans can be starved of nutrients as a result of the seas getting warmer. They believe the findings have catastrophic implications for the entire marine habitat, which ultimately relies on plankton at the base of the food chain.
The study is also potentially devastating because it has thrown up a new "positive feedback" mechanism that could result in more carbon dioxide ending up in the atmosphere to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
Scientists led by Jef Huisman of the University of Amsterdam have calculated that global warming, which is causing the temperature of the sea surface to rise, will also interfere with the vital upward movement of nutrients from the deep sea.
These nutrients, containing nitrogen, phosphorus and iron, are vital food for phytoplankton. If the supply is interrupted the plants die off, which prevents them from absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
"Global warming of the surface layers of the oceans reduces the upward transport of nutrients into the surface layers. This generates chaos among the plankton," the professor said.
The sea is one of nature's "carbon sinks", which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and deposits the carbon in a long-term store - dissolved in the ocean or deposited as organic waste on the seabed. The vast quantities of phytoplankton in the oceans absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide. When the organisms die they fall to the seabed, carrying their store of carbon with them, where it stays for many thousands of years - thereby helping to counter global warming.
"Plankton... forms the basis of the marine food web. Moreover, phytoplankton consumes the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide during photosynthesis," Professor Huisman said. "Uptake of carbon dioxide by phytoplankton across the vast expanses of the oceans reduces the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere."
Warmer surface water caused by global warming causes greater temperature stratification, with warm surface layers sitting on deeper, colder layers, to prevent mixing of nutrients.
Professor Huisman shows in a study published in Nature that warmer sea surfaces will deliver a potentially devastating blow to the supply of deep-sea nutrients for phytoplankton.
His computer model of the impact was tested on real measurements made in the Pacific Ocean, where sea surface temperatures tend to be higher than in other parts of the world. He found that his computer predictions of how nutrient movement would be interrupted were accurate.
"A larger temperature difference between two water layers implies less mixing of chemicals between these water layers," he said. "Global warming of the surface layers of the oceans, owing to climate change, strengthens the stratification and thereby reduces the upward mixing of nutrients."
Scientists had believed phytoplankton, which survives best at depths of about 100 metres, is largely stable and immune from the impact of global warming. "This model prediction was rather unexpected," Professor Huisman said.
"Reduced stability of the plankton, caused by global warming of the oceans, may result in a decline of oceanic production and reduced sequestration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the oceans."
Vital link in the food chain
Microscopic plankton comes in animal and plant forms. The plants are known as phytoplankton. They lie at the base of the marine food chain because they convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into organic carbon - food for everything else.
Smaller animals such as shrimp-like krill feed on plankton and are themselves eaten by larger organisms, from small fish to the biggest whales. Without phytoplankton, the oceans would soon because marine deserts. Phytoplankton are also important because of the role they play in the carbon cycle, which determines how much carbon dioxide - the most important greenhouse gas - ends up in the atmosphere to cause global warming. Huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which dissolves in the oceans, are absorbed by phytoplankton and converted to organic carbon. When the phytoplankton die, their shells and bodies sink to the seabed, carrying this carbon with them.
Phytoplankton therefore acts as a carbon "sink" which takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and deposits the carbon in long-term stores that can remain undisturbed for thousands of years. If the growth of phytoplankton is interrupted by global warming, this ability to act as a buffer against global warming is also affected - leading to a much-feared positive feedback.
www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0119-01.htm
the Left?
by what are you talking about?
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Margaret Thatcher is convinced global warming is a real problem.
Is she a Leftist?
Re: Fwd: Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
by pat n
Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 at 5:03 AM
--- In fuelcell-energy@yahoogroups.com, janson wrote:
>
> Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
>
> The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. ...
> http://tinyurl.com/8uf5y
---
I wonder how many other government scientists have encountered similar problems in the last 5-6 years?
Excerpts from public comments (18 Jan 2003)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
"The state of California takes climate change quite seriously. We
are concerned about the potential costly impacts of climate change
on water, energy, and other key economic and environmental systems
in the state. In recent decades, for example, stream flow records
show a trend toward earlier snowmelt in the principal water supply
for the state, the snow pack for the state, the snow pack of the
Sierra Nevada: a likely early manifestation of climate change." ...
NOAA's CLIMATE MONITORING AND DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY (NOAA-CMDL)
"We need to make clear to all readers what is certain". ... "We
know that major greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere
over the past century at rates higher than anytime in the historical
record. We know that the increase in CO2 is related mostly to fossil
fuel emissions. We know that a diverse group of global models cannot
replicate the 20th century increase in temperature without involving
the observed greenhouse gases."
SIERRA CLUB (Craig)
"Human-forced global climate change is a problem of steadily growing
importance that calls for responsible action now. There is so much
momentum inherent in the several components of the Earth system that
respond to greenhouse gas forcing, and so much momentum inherent in
the socioeconomic system that is responsible for steadily increasing
greenhouse gas emissions, that there is no room for the luxury of
another decade of the scientific studies to finely tune response
measures"
WYNDAM, CITIZEN
"This issue (global warming) has been studied to death. It is time
to act. Stop stalling and start listening to scientific reports
already compiled."
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERALS FOR MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, MAINE,
AND
NEW YORK "The Strategic Plan Emphasizes Research Efforts Geared
Toward Adaptation Policies and Fails to Address Adequately the
Immediate Need for Mitigation Policies, which Should Be Implemented
Simultaneously with the Strategic Plan." ... "After decades of
research and debate, there is now a clear consensus among
scientists, which has been accepted by the United States, that
climate change is occurring and that the combustion of fossil fuels
by humans is the primary contributor. See e.g., U.S. Climate Action
Report 2002, U.S. Dept. of State, Washington, D.C., May 2002
("Climate Action Report") at 5." ... "Most scientists also
agree, as
discussed in detail by the United States in the Climate Action
Report, that global climate change will cause devastating,
disruptive, and wide-ranging impacts to climate, ecosystems, and
public health and welfare. Climate Action Report at 81, et seq.,
(Chapter 6). See also, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some
Key Questions, National Research Council ("NRC"), National Academy
of Sciences (2001) ("NRC"2001") at 18-21 Chapter )." ...
"Regardless
of what the specific, regional changes will be, and despite some
potentially beneficial localized changes, it is beyond dispute that
harmful environmental and climate changes will occur. Among the
types of likely changes that the United States has projected are the
loss of sensitive ecosystems such as barrier islands, altered
agricultural patterns, increased droughts and flooding, and
increased infectious and heat-related diseases and illnesses."
CRISTINE CORWIN, BLUEWATER NETWORK
"Time is of the essence and it would be irresponsible to substitute
unnecessary research for implementation of commonsense solutions. If
we begin reducing our greenhouse gas emissions now, it will take a
lot less time to stabilize the climate."
http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/
RAYMOND PIERREHUMBERT, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
[Statement from the CCSP: "radiative balance and cloud structure
from increased upper tropospheric water vapor is potentially quite
large and could be positive or negative." ] ... "This statement is
incorrect. The feedback from increased tropospheric water vapor is
invariably positive."
DAVID L. WAGGER, PH.D., SELF
"This is a misleading statement at best, especially if the intent is
to divert attention from CO2 as the main driver of anthropogenic
climate change. Unlike CO2, water has a short atmospheric lifetime,
can coexist in three phases, and has a highly variable atmospheric
distribution. While water vapor provides baseline greenhouse
heating, CO2 and other GHGs supply the perturbation driving climate
change."
MICHAEL MACCRAKEN, LLNL (RETIRED)
"There is really very little basis for thinking that the upper
troposphere water feedback process could be negative, despite what
Lindzen suggests. Were it negative, it would be very hard to have
had an ice age (as it would have induced a warming influence to
prevent it), we never could have had an ice ball Earth (as there
would be to much water aloft), we could never have had Cretaceous
warmth as the cooling effect would have countered that, plus the
amount of water vapor in the upper troposphere increase from pole to
equator (so from cold to warm conditions). The IPCC has reviewed
studies of this and there is just very little reason to indicate it
is possible, and it may well create important inconsistencies with
past climates. Phrasing this as if there is an equal chance or
positive versus negative is irresponsible. I think that there is a
high level of certainty that: "While water vapor provides baseline
greenhouse heating, CO2 and other GHGs supply the perturbation
driving climate change."(DAVID L. WAGGER, PH.D., SELF)
PATRICK NEUMAN
"All dewpoint and relative humidity data from historical records
should be made available in digital format for modeling and
analysis." ... " Please, add: Temperature data by itself is
inadequate in monitoring changes in climate. Changes in enthalpy
(temperature, humidity, phase change - latent heat exchanges) are
very important. It can be misleading to look only at temperature
measurements without considering changes in humidity (dewpoints).
Near surface humidity is very important in determining the rate of
snowmelt, and ice thaw due to the latent heat exchange from the
condensation of water vapor on cold surfaces. Also see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/5889
"Increasingly warm conditions at the start of the Eocene caused the
extinction of some prominent species of the prior epoch." .. " The
forests that had housed numerous primate relatives were replaced
with denser, often tropical, forests. Species either adapted to the
new climate and environments or died out".
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/gt/cenozoic/paleocene.h
t
m
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
"Land cover change is not only a product of direct human disturbance
and modification, but may arise as a consequence of climate change.
The effects of changing seasonality of precipitation, temperature
regimes, or disruption of hydrologic processes (e.g. the loss of
perched soil water when permafrost melts) may have important effects
on carbon uptake, biogenic emissions, dust, or other direct effects
on the atmosphere in addition to potential changes in surface
albedo."
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY
"While it is important to understand the past, it is not always a
good guide to the future. Increased globalization is likely to drive
land use change in ways not easily predictable from past history.
One could infer from language in several places in this chapter that
globalization is a key driver but it deserves more explicit
recognition."
MCCLAIN, NASA
"Descriptions of the atmospheric and terrestrial knowledge, needs,
products, and payoffs are more detailed than for the oceans.
However, it is thought that the oceans regulate about half of the
CO2 uptake and global primary production (some recent publications
have reduced the sequestration numbers). Therefore, the oceans role
should be represented in a more balanced manner."
JEFFREY GAFFNEY, ARGONNE NAT'L LABORATORY
"the carbon cycle includes the emissions of isoprene and monoterpene
hydrocarbons as well as a number of other trace gas species..." These
emissions are quite large and are now known to play a role in
determining the atmospheric composition of the troposphere on
regional and global scales. Indeed their presence in areas where
there are anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxide, can lead to increased levels or regional
ozone and fine aerosols that are important in radiative balance
considerations" >snip< Ozone is a potent plant phytotoxin. Increased
tropospheric ozone (a greenhouse gas) levels will lead to the
stomatal resistance being increased leading to reduced uptake of
carbon dioxide, less water emitted through evapotranspiration, and
less emission of volatile organic carbon (i.e. isoprene) from
plants. Carbon sequestration under ozone exposures have been shown
to reduce carbon uptake in FACE experiments even at moderate
levels ...". "At 60 ppb levels carbon dioxide uptake even under high
carbon dioxide exposure was reduced significantly due to this
interaction. This type of feedback is not really addressed in this
document."
NED FORD, SIERRA CLUB
"A reasonable estimate of the rate of ocean saturation suggests that
by the end of this century under BAU, we will have effectively
saturated the ocean. Further air/ocean transfer will occur, but it
will require proportionally larger increases in atmospheric levels
and much more time."
NOAA/CMDL
"What's missing is that climate change itself could significantly
affect our predictions for the carbon cycle even if we understand
carbon dynamics pretty well. CH4 is specifically mentioned here and
Human Dimensions pops up."
End of excerpts from public comments to a draft U.S. Strategic Plan
CCSP 18 Jan 2003
--- In fuelcell-energy@yahoogroups.com, "janson2997"
<janson1997@y...> wrote:
>
> Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has
> tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last
> month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse
gases
> linked to global warming.
>
> The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that
> officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs
staff
> to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web
> site and requests for interviews from journalists.
>
> Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their
> job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,"
he
> said.
>
> Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at
the
> space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr.
Hansen. "That's
> not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We
promote
> openness and we speak with the facts."
>
> He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National
> Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that
> government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings,
but
> that policy statements should be left to policy makers and
appointed
> spokesmen.
>
> Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to
review
> interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out
of
> a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any
> individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's
about
> coordination."
>
> Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying
such
> procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping
> recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.
>
> "Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he
> said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable
of
> overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."
>
> Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967,
> directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the
> Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.
>
> Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-
term
> threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide,
> that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other
> fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their
appointees
> in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first
> Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.
>
> In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick
> Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House
> officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up
> soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far
> easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.
>
> He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a
> speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election,
in
> which he complained that government climate scientists were being
> muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
>
> But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made
> since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he
> says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon
> dioxide.
>
> In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr.
> Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out,
particularly
> because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to
understand
> and protect our home planet."
>
> He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come
> through telephone conversations and not through formal channels,
> leaving no significant trails of documents.
>
> Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no
> official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi
> added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being
applied."
>
> The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series
of
> calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of
the
> American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said
> that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing
> technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that
> without leadership by the United States, climate change would
> eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
>
> The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow,
but
> not reverse, the growth of emissions.
>
> After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15
> showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a
> century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency
repeatedly
> phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr.
Hansen
> that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements
continued,
> those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
>
> Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal
draft
> memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors
could
> stand in for him in any news media interviews.
>
> Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers
> were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules.
He
> said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news
media.
>
> But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were
> canceled as a result.
>
> In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs
> officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer
at
> National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie
McCarthy,
> a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
>
> Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms.
McCarthy
> said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in
the
> country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said
his
> job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White
House
> appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
>
> But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a
> scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The
inference
> was that Hansen was disloyal."
>
> Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such
> conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview
after
> Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would
not
> face any retribution for doing so.
>
> Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch
was
> asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of
> the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr.
Acosta.
>
> Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to
go
> out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have
a
> dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"
>
> Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who
was
> telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr.
> Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what
she
> told them when the conversations occurred.
>
> "He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D.
Travis,
an
> astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really
feels
> very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal
> scientists, to inform the public."
>
> Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-
December
> at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr.
> Hansen be better controlled.
>
> In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric
chemist
> and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the
nation's
> leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's
scientific
> contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public
> statements clearly as his personal views.
>
> "He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists
in
> the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many
times
> and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every
> single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always
> clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the
> administration, whichever administration it's been."
>
> The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes
> other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many
scientists
> who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do
so
> only if the interview is approved by administration officials in
> Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present
or
> on the phone.
>
> Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with
those
> of the administration, however, there are few signs of
restrictions
> on extracurricular lectures or writing.
>
> One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and
> technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department.
> For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has
> written in papers and books that it may be better not to force
cuts
> in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered
> economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of
> warming and adapt to problems.
>
> In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the
Clinton
> administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but
added
> that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he
> identified the views as his own.
>
> "One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular
stuff,"
he
> wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I
plan
> on saying or writing."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?
>
ei=5094&en=0a858f5230677507&hp=&ex=1138510800&partner=homepage&pagewa
n
> ted=print
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8uf5y
>
> j2997
Stark warning over climate change
by BBC
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 9:44 AM
Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.
The report, published by the UK government, says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels.
It fears the Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) over 1,000 years.
The poorest countries will be most vulnerable to these effects, it adds.
The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.
The conference set two principal objectives: to ask what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is too much, and what the options are for avoiding such a level.
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."
Vulnerable ecosystems
The report sets out the effects of various levels of temperature increase.
The European Union (EU) has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius.
But that, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees perhaps enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of 7m.
Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries".
'Without delight'
The report asked scientists to calculate which greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would be enough to cause these "dangerous" temperature increases.
Currently, the atmosphere contains about 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, compared to levels before the industrial revolution of about 275ppm.
To have a good chance of achieving the EU's two-degree target, levels should be stabilised at 450ppm or below, the report concludes.
But, speaking on Today, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, said that was unlikely to happen.
"We're going to be at 400 ppm in 10 years' time, I predict that without any delight in saying it," he said.
"But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem - we have to accept that.
"To aim for 450 (ppm) would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
Margaret Thatcher
by answer
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Is Thatcher a Leftist? No, she's a politician. Next question....
I'm not a Chicken Little, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying anyway....
What about the BBC?
by what are you talking about?
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Are they leftists?
RE: Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 5:27 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Again the concept of this planets climate having an overall 'control mechanism' is quite valid.
The flaw in this 'profoundly pessimistic' opinion, it is again seen that the non-existent 'greenhouse effect' is placed as the 'basis of formation' of the ''profoundly pessimistic opinion".
Again, there are NO actual materials present within the biosphere that possess as their natural behavior the imposed 'greenhouse behavior'.
The 'greenhouse effect' attempts to impose that photonic remittance by the molecules of the atmosphere somehow represents a 'blackbody radiation' and proscribe the molecules a 'temperature' on the basis OF this supposed 'blackbody radiation'.
The REALITY is that the energy REEMITTED as a secondary Photon is that energy involved in interaction that is NOT being converted into a kinetic gain by that molecule.
There is still the attempt to factualise a supposed 'consensus' to platform 'greenhouse' concepts from and a supposed 'validation' of the opinionation forming the 'base' of 'greenhouse science'
To outline the simplest 'greenhouse' flaws, by adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the NATURAL process is to intercept MORE energy before it is surface incident and so REDUCE the rate of kinetic energy induction IN the materialing of the planetary surface.
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
b) Alternatively these Photons MIGHT become surface incident, the LESS likely trend.
Due to INCREASES in atmospheric density, more Cascade interactions will ensueand with that lower a 'rate' of surface incidnece will be maintained for secondary photons.
As well as the higher atmospheric density, the cascade terminator H2O is at its HIGHEST 'concentration' so you find the opportunities for cascade Photons to reach the surface with any statistically SIGNIFICANT energy load is indeed minimal.
The photon has to run a very real 'gauntlet' to become surface incident.
Even if some secondary Photons DO make the surface from within the Atmosphere, these 'lucky few' secondary Photons will not retain much energy and so have little appreciable effect towards kinetic energy induction within the surface.
The only energy that can beceom directly surface incident is within the visible red and blue spectrums and in the lower third of the UV spectrums range. Photosynthesis is most active in removing the energy within the visible red and blue spectrums for its own uses.
This leaves the energy incident within the lower third of the UV spectrum.
The natural cycle involved within the last 130,000 years is most certainly NOT a theory; it is evidenced and known in an undisputable manner and style, as real as the "Ice Ages".
The natural covering of Europe (now mostly removed) would indicate that the planetary climate is near a tipping point back to a reduction in kinetic energy induction at this point in time. This would make 'now' a relatively unstable (in short time frames) climate period.
The 'change' is upon us; the issue is if Humanity has altered TOO MUCH of the surface to allow the balance to be tipped within a 'natural' period, we seem to have been only responsible for an extension of this 'turbulent'
period in planetary climate .tipping'.
The related and continuing oscillation of planetary climate containing these events is ongoing.
WE know the sea level HAS been rising within the past few thousand years, there are numerous ancient Human infrastructures (fixed structures like
ports) now submerged to indicate this.
WE know also the Sahara WAS a verdant plain within the last few thousand years, there is still a remnant antelope population in some parts and Human art and relics highlight the hunting of game in such a surrounding.
By altering the material coverings of the planetary surface, in the large and evidenced manner already seen, Humanity is 'tipping the balance' towards increased kinetic energy induction. This is factual SCIENCE and this is the basal process driving present MILD alterations to turbulence as observed.
There is little point in attempting to overlook the real impacts in reality and SCIENCE of the rematerialing of this planets surface so far in the past 400 years, and the acceleration to be expected within the next 100 years.
The impact on kinetic energy induction is real, actual and validly shown, and it is this kinetic energy induction driving the unnatural alterations to climate as they exist at present.
I have given documentation to this situation in the Yahoo group
< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/ >
Re: Fwd Message: Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 5:32 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
It seems the lack of actual science is making the continuance of presentations of opinion regarding a supposed 'greenhouse effect' more difficult to make. If the gentleman would ignore 'restriction' the there is also the observation that the gentleman is also ignoring SCIENCE.
These are not 'restrictions' or a 'problem' Pat, there is nothing to actually justify the opinions these few are trying to present in a misinformed and misinforming manner.
They are not standing up for anyone's 'rights', there is a responsibility to make fair comment and the platforming of 'greenhouse' concepts is not even rating high in the honesty ratings even.
This 'scientist' and others like him should be made to justify their stated opinions; it is that the past has made it too easy for the 'greenhouse'
rhetoric to be platformed with little validation of the contained opinion.
To example, the concepts related by the 'carbon cycle' where devised to trace the energy utilised by photosynthesis, especially within the energy that is actually incident to the planetary surface.
If you will regard 'Figure 1' (below) you will note that the only Energy that can be surface incident is within the lower third of the UV spectrum, in the 'blue visible' and the 'red visible' spectrums.
The process of Photosynthesis is principally active within this range.
Figure 1
<
http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQ1Kan1yvbQ2cG96BCkQjnjuTtlFHpjRpUYJ7BzgLEAs
EaXJspXOjksrXQyyzD151ZUSg-3iJwnwY9EKWpvXythlV/Picture1.jpg
>
The 'carbon cycle' was infact using CARBON as a convenient trace of the energy removed by the Photosynthetic process. There was no, and still is no, link to carbon directly in relation to this energy as it is NOT removed by 'carbon' and neither CO2 OR CH4 has any effect within these spectrums.
So too are the remediations suggested within the "Kyoto Treaty', being no better placed in reality to produce any beneficial outcomes. Political aspirations have no place in SCIENCE.
In regard to the recent CLAIM that plants produce methane, as it has never been seen in any of the studies over all the decades and is idol speculation at its very worst. The 'reports' are NOT based on any actual behaviors seen IN plants, but based solely on a 'convenient numeracy' shown within the
quote:-
["In our study, we have linked global methane emission estimates to plant growth, which is generally quantified as net primary productivity.."]
Simply reading a rhetorical presentation that is presented in a manner of being 'scientific' by phrase and word, does NOT make the contents of the article SCIENCE regardless of which magazine the article is printed in.
This 'methane from plants subject' is still very much seen as an attempt to 'fill in' excuse lists titled under 'please explain' memos. No production path within the plant, no methane production can be made BY the plant, regardless of how much methane is in the atmosphere, or what volume the "Planck Institute" would like to claim.
The 'greenhouse' concepts became the current problem they are due to being 'played up' in a similar manner, there never was any retro attempt to validate the supposed link and it just became spoken of as 'actual', becoming opinion factualised but never validated.
To outline the simplest 'greenhouse' flaws, by adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the NATURAL process is to intercept MORE energy before it is surface incident and so REDUCE the rate of kinetic energy induction IN the materialing of the planetary surface.
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary
photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
b) Alternatively these Photons MIGHT become surface incident, the LESS likely trend.
Due to INCREASES in atmospheric density, more Cascade interactions will ensue. With that lower 'rate' of incidence, as the higher atmospheric density increases, and the cascade terminator H2O is at its HIGHEST 'concentration' you find the opportunities for cascade Photons to reach the surface with any statistically SIGNIFICANT energy load is indeed minimal.
The photon has to run a very real 'gauntlet' to become surface incident.
Even if some DO make the surface, these 'lucky few' Photons will not retain much energy and so have little appreciable effect towards kinetic energy induction within the surface.
You will see the ONLY section of the overall spectrum (figure 1) 'untouched'
is the 'upper visible' (with some of the 'lower visible') and the bottom 'third' of 'UV'.
This IS where the energy inducting kinetic energy into the surface is. It is in this area that photosynthesis predates energy for its own processes as mentioned previously.
BY reducing photosynthetic mass Humanity has availed the process of kinetic energy inductance with extra energy. The surface becomes more 'heated' from interaction with this incident energy and conducts this energy to the gases of the Atmosphere and into the Oceanic waters increasing turbulence.
This is NOTHING to do with 'extra CO2 or CH4' as infact these will be reducing the induction rate of kinetic energy (what is measured as 'heat'), not increasing such.
It is plainly straight forward; there cannot be a 'greenhouse effect' (as it is presently outlined) in either LOGIC or SCIENCE and WISDOM makes even more certain and obvious the rudimentary mistakes made in the formation of these 'greenhouse concepts'.
The effect however on planetary inductance of kinetic energy by rematerialing of the surface by the sprawl of humanity as trended to population is far more obvious.
Figure 2
<
http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQwfboQuvbQ2cwz-SSrb7cex2-fD-1N0NSRaLa0QnMHM
_YdTDWLcdlU8IV4tNGU03iFIusNDhN2gKGIN-97Fji6Ox/popgrowth.gif
>
And notice the similar profile of the 'plot' to that of CO2 and realise surface rematerialing is related closely to the population plot, with any residual kinetic energy measured as a 'temperature rise' is only that not yet conducted to the contacting atmospheric gases or oceanic waters (including outpourings of river system water).
Then to continue the trending of surface materialing with population expectations, consider file 'pop1' in the files section:-
'Relative rates of population growth between Less Developed Countries and More Developed Countries in millions of people (Source: United Nations).'
Figure 3
<
http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQ7VISNevbQ2cL5szfGosyQYEoN8BCd7Z5B_F0Z0Qkv3
3wrRh1gpLvCsVz2eIEkE96MZXYx4h52QFSAStK7m8j29x/pop1.gif
>
And notice that the trend to rematerialing will be to cater to the growth of population in the presently 'lesser' developed nations (LDC's).
The median 'age' of present populations will also split from 1999:-
'Percentage of people age 60 years and older, 1999 (Source: United Nations - Population Ageing 1999).'
Figure 4
<
http://f5.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQ938d6CvbQ2cVnufNr2bKy289dLppu6d-nc3L46X5Dj
2K_RET3zQ52c6y9sLFt51JCBO0JVo02QAcHYdqZcPSSXw/pop99.gif
>
to the expectations for 2050:-
'Percentage of people age 60 years and older, 2050 (Source: United Nations - Population Ageing 1999).'
Figure 5
<
http://f5.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQ1foPa2vbQ2cNM1zeBHeBTFiq0K0IgBncQrO7nCzsPX
lQeYCvqe1TDlNB74K-GrmTKovSL4inV1pgkE0QOv4DQTb/pop205.gif
>
It is realised that expectations are only that, but the improvement in medicine has already seen the population boom over the past 400 years predominately in what would now be considered 'Developed Regions'.
These improvements are only now becoming obvious in effect within the 'leaders' amongst those regions presently now considered as 'lesser developed'.
"Everyone will become wealthy, some will have to go first" is very much the well spring of the overall effect.
If you consider the next image, 'population density (geographical) you see density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN). (Yellow = low density
- dark red = high density)
Figure 6
<
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQyGOxqKvbQ2cBQNgKn2UkRnKnfpUQnJ99wzI-6IPw8a
O3zd6qNkk4mPe_do1pk0L6dsa-V4KlEGRKV_ehJTM0zwK/popdensity.gif
>
which can be overlaid with geographical data of marginal terrains, and if you then extrapolate growth of the fringes of the 'red zones' to accommodate the shift in population growth given in file 'pop1' then the image given
in:-
'Actual and estimated human population growth 0 - 2050 AD'
Figure 2
<
http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YMrcQwfboQuvbQ2cwz-SSrb7cex2-fD-1N0NSRaLa0QnMHM
_YdTDWLcdlU8IV4tNGU03iFIusNDhN2gKGIN-97Fji6Ox/popgrowth.gif
>
Can be rendered as indicative of the REAL alterations to inputs of kinetic energy inducted into the surface and Conducted to the gases of the atmosphere and oceanic waters.
If left unattended, with greater attention to the methods of construction and materials involved, the turbulence will be SEEN to worsen, even if the AVERAGE surface temperature is only increased by 1 degree C (up from the present 0.6 degree C).
It is NOT the residual surface temperature that is in itself RELEVANT, but that kinetic energy added BY the planetary surface TO the Oceanic waters and Atmospheric gases, and to THESE processes that drive turbulence linked events Humanity IS making LARGE and REAL alterations by production of its habitat, in sprawl across the surface, with 'unsuitable' materials and methods with an increasing rate.
It is this process of Humanity that is producing any ACTUAL 'unnatural'
alterations to 'climate', and 'greenhouse' concepts simply cannot validly be seen capable.
As such 'greenhouse' concerns are only relatable to 'air pollution' and that is how the 'emissions' should be considered.
The alterations to 'turbulent effects', as they presently are, are due the last 200 to 400 years of surface rematerialing, most intensive within the past 100 years. These basal affects are now beginning to accumulate effect in a directly noticeable manner.
Rejuvenation of photosynthetic mass is NOT needed with concern to 'greenhouse' or 'carbon' issues but to rematerial surface in an energy USING material to lower kinetic energy inductance rates by reducing the energy available to induct such kinetic gains.
Note that photosynthesis is most strongly interacting with energy in the visible blue (and lesser in manner with energy in visible red), then again notice 'picture1':-
Figure 1
<
http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cNjcQ5snP80VOiv-isGvFka5hmdIzEMf8xBTdAa9-KtJrRN
1ezz4oFH-Fijoi_VLSoO3-iZ8U4OdSxQvnAXdjvFKMtIy/Picture1.jpg
>
Enough is enough for the 'greenhouse' platform.
There is a real issue; it is simply NOT involving of any 'greenhouse effect'.
It is time Pat for the politically intent to remove themselves from 'climate science' and allow the REAL science that should have been implemented all those decades ago to restart WITHOUT the innuendo of knowledge that is platformed as 'greenhouse science'.
The 'scientist' you mention below should really consider if the 'foot stamping' he is making is infact for his benefit, for it is most surely NOT on behalf of those with real interest in the real environment. The other 'situations' you cite place the same onus on those other 'scientists'.
I think I saw a number of references to 'heat trapping gases' in the mass of 'opinion' you posted Pat, which is of course the complete non-science at the base of 'greenhouse' opinionation. Those making such claims should simply resign; they are clearly incompetent, it has been simply too easy for them to continue in the past to cite opinion, and not produce SCIENCE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
RE: Stark Warning Over Climate Change
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 5:46 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
"Stark warning" time again is it?
There is nothing anymore relevant or valid within the BBC article than any other attempt to scare monger on the basis of supposed 'greenhouse behaviors or effects'.
The natural cycle involved within the last 130,000 years is most certainly NOT a theory; it is evidenced and known in an undisputable manner and style, as real as the "Ice Ages".
The natural covering of Europe (now mostly removed) would indicate that the planetary climate is near a tipping point back to a reduction in kinetic energy induction at this point in time. This would make 'now' a relatively unstable (in short time frames) climate period.
The 'change' is upon us; the issue is if Humanity has altered TOO MUCH of the surface to allow the balance to be tipped within a 'natural' period, we seem to have been only responsible for an extension of this 'turbulent'
period in planetary climate.
The related and continuing oscillation of planetary climate containing these events is ongoing.
WE know the sea level HAS been rising within the past few thousand years, there are numerous ancient Human infrastructures (fixed structures like
ports) now submerged to indicate this.
WE know also the Sahara WAS a verdant plain within the last few thousand years, there is still a remnant antelope population in some parts and Human art and relics highlight the hunting of game in such a surrounding.
By altering the material coverings of the planetary surface, in the large and evidenced manner already seen, Humanity is 'tipping the balance' towards increased kinetic energy induction. This is factual SCIENCE and this is the basal process driving present MILD alterations to turbulence as observed.
There is little point in attempting to overlook the real impacts in reality and SCIENCE of the rematerialing of this planets surface so far in the past 400 years, and the acceleration to be expected within the next 100 years.
The impact on kinetic energy induction is real, actual and validly shown, and it is this kinetic energy induction driving the unnatural alterations to climate as they exist at present.
It is time for the politically intent to remove themselves from 'climate science' and allow the REAL science that should have been implemented all those decades ago to restart WITHOUT the innuendo of knowledge that is platformed as 'greenhouse science'.
There is NO ability of 'greenhouse based' modeling to be preemptive, so those attempting to platform these concepts simply attempt to fabricate scenarios and present them in a 'scary manner'.
Most certainly this article is not worthy of the BBC, and there is NO reason to consider that anything prophesised within the article (to which I
respond) it is real, accurate or even SCIENCE.
Tony Blair is not exactly swimming in credibility regarding 'environmental science' of and within the UK. He is the Prime Minister, a political figure nad is being used in an obvious manner a just another 'face', a facade to cover the paucity within 'greenhouse science' to related directly to teh REAL environment.
How was the scenario presented within the quote produced? IT was contrived. There is nothing valid in any manner to produce 'greenhouse' based 'calculation' to give a 'temperature' rise in any manner. There seems still to be little realisation of what 'temperature' is even within 'greenhouse science'.
To quote:
-----
[""It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
The consensus view among scientists, the document warned, is of large-scale and irreversible disruption to the planet's climate system if temperatures rise by more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) above current levels."]
-----
There is still the attempt to factualise some supposed
'consensus' to platform 'greenhouse' concepts from, along with such supposed 'concensus' being a supposed
'validation' of the factualised opinionation forming the 'base' of 'greenhouse science'
To outline the simplest 'greenhouse' flaws, by adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the NATURAL process is to intercept MORE energy before it is surface incident and so REDUCE the rate of kinetic energy induction IN the materialing of the planetary surface.
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary
photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
b) Alternatively these Photons MIGHT become surface incident, the LESS likely trend.
Due to INCREASES in atmospheric density, more Cascade interactions will ensue. With that lower 'rate' of incidence, as the higher atmospheric density increases, and the cascade terminator H2O is at its HIGHEST 'concentration' you find the opportunities for cascade Photons to reach the surface with any statistically SIGNIFICANT energy load is indeed minimal.
The photon has to run a very real 'gauntlet' to become surface incident.
Even if some DO make the surface, these 'lucky few' Photons will not retain much energy and so have little appreciable effect towards kinetic energy induction within the surface.
Another concept is already being platformed in the manner similar to that seen in the beginnings of 'greenhouse' in the mentions of 'methane production in plants', which is based in numeracy and 'estimate supported' opinion.
The 'reports' are NOT based on any actual behaviors seen IN plants, but based solely on a 'convenient numeracy', not in the actual detailing of plants ably producing methane, indicated within the quote:-
["In our study, we have linked global methane emission estimates to plant growth, which is generally quantified as net primary productivity.."]
After decades of close study of Photosynthesis, the structures invovled and the inputs and outputs, all made DRIECTLY with living plant studies, none have seen Methane prodcution '10 to 1000 times' that of known decompositional processes.
CO2 was mooted to produce warming, and we are still all waiting to hear how this is possible in valid manner, within all known properties of CO2.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
No need to 'beware Hartlod (P.K.Anderson)' in reality.
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 6:14 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
The fact that i only made one attempt to post a single reply to 'realcliamte.org' undermines the pretensious style of rot you and those other propagandists running 'realcliamte.org' present themselves with Pat.
Also Pat, i have NO politics about me, or within my material. This again marks you as being highly disassociated with reality, or are simply trying to present blatant lies not only regarding climate issues, but directly towards those (including myself) who have highlighted the paucity of SCIENCE within the opinionations you platform within your propaganda.
The same can be validly said regarding the 'presentations' within 'realcliamte.org' and by those presenting themselves as 'managing' that website.
The justifications for, and suggested actions to take, regarding 'trolls' seem to be inline with what in the FREE WORLD would be plans of attacks against the freedom of speech of others.
There are not trolls Pat (and Hank), it seems your definition is made to cover those who present information you cannot overcome, have only ever tried to avoid, and still have no answers to.
Realcliamte.org has had a general warning made citing it as it is nothing more than a site of propaganda attempting to misrepresent itself as a place of open discussion, whilst trying to maintain a facade of being run by 'competant scientists', simply it does not proffer actual openness of discussion, or references to the production of competant SCIENCE.
Much in the style you present your blogs Pat, no wonder you like to run your campaigns from with the 'protected' environs so produced Pat.
Again i am sorry to those within this forum. Pat is 'on the run' at present, and is trying hard to find corners to insinuate himself in to avoid scrutiny of his opinionations.
Hence his attempts at innuendo and belittlement towards myself, rather than trying to comment on what i am saying. Pat IS a member of the Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/
and his opinions in a wide range of issues seem as disassociative as are his presentation regarding myself.
You can see my outlines within the Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/
and make your own comments, it is a freeely joinable group.
Certainly Pat's outputs are not only of little worth, usually 'cut&pastes' whilst his comments usually are direct personal attacks, beneath contemptible levels of behavior and are now seemingly reaching for the gutter.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
the BBC
by answer
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 6:47 PM
Yes, the BBC leans Left. What a dumb question. And don't ask about the Guardian, alright?
sheesh....
I'm not an Unbathed highly suggestive hippie, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and if you don't believe me then you're not who I'm talking to.
re: the left
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 9:00 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Ms Thatcher was convinced, by a presentation that did not involve much SCIENCE in the late 1980's, which is different than saying she IS convinced.
Infact, the presentations OF 'greenhouse issues' within the 1980's are little different to those of the present.
There is a great deal of scare mongering, a large amount of pretentious sermonising regarding supposed 'wastage within affluence' associated with a demanding 'whine' that we should all travel less, fly less and seemingly enjoy life less.
You have a group of individuals (including Pat) attempting to pollute the public information channels (like the internet) with complete fabrications and bullying of opinion including belittlement of individuals by presentation of complete lies.
This was the tactic used by the political parties of the mid 1900's that where to become associated with concepts of fascism.
Then there are those claiming that a ["collectivist anarchist green revolution"] is the only way out of ["our dilemma"].
What those taking part in such 'revolutions' will need to begin to realise, and they need to comprehend a bit more of, what is real, and spend less time in insular and circular recitations of opinion-ese or the 'revolution' (or 'movement') will suffer the same as all those other ["collectivist anarchist"] revolutions.
Nor is it a matter of comparing interest in 'alien existence', simply as such opinions alter the behavior of members of the Human population, with platforming of 'greenhouse' concepts.
It is NOT a matter of altering Human behavior, it is about providing remediations to REAL problems produced by Humanities interaction with the ENVIRONMENT as it really is.
Thus the opinionation of these two apparent extreme 'polarisations' of POLITICS have simply overlooked the ENVIRONMENT altogether and focused, as POLITICAL interests do, on HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
Members of these 'political movements' can ONLY perceive those others speaking in these interests as members OF other 'political groups' and seldom have a sufficient grasp of SCIENCE to understand what they are hearing as being in the manner it is being delivered, as SCIENCE.
This is best seen in the attempts by Pat to belittle myself in this place (with his 'beware Peter' dribble) as he would try to portray a dissertations of SCIENCE as 'political' in some manner, whilst being himself unable to overcome my scrutiny within SCIENCE of his 'opinions'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Sea level rise 'is accelerating'
by BBC
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Global sea levels could rise by about 30cm during this century if current trends continue, a study warns.
Australian researchers found that sea levels rose by 19.5cm between 1870 and 2004, with accelerated rates in the final 50 years of that period.
The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used data from tide gauges around the world.
The findings fit within predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, projected that the global average sea level would rise by between 9 and 88cm between 1990 and 2100.
In an attempt to reduce the scale of uncertainty in this projection, the Australian researchers have analysed tidal records dating back to 1870.
The data was obtained from locations throughout the globe, although the number of tidal gauges increased and their locations changed over the 130-year period.
These records show that the sea level has risen, and suggest that the rate of rise is increasing.
Over the entire period from 1870 the average rate of rise was 1.44mm per year.
Over the 20th Century it averaged 1.7mm per year; while the figure for the period since 1950 is 1.75mm per year.
Although climate models predict that sea level rise should have accelerated, the scientists behind this study say they are the first to verify the trend using historical data.
Floods and surges
If the acceleration continues at the current rate, the scientists warn that sea levels could rise during this century by between 28 and 34cm.
Dr John Church, a scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation based in Tasmania and an author of the study, said that higher sea levels could have grave effects on some areas.
"It means there will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges," he told the Associated Press.
"It means increased coastal erosion on sandy beaches; we're going to see increased flooding on island nations."
There is now a consensus among climate scientists that rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are the major factor behind rising temperatures.
Increased temperatures can lead to higher sea-levels through several mechanisms including the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water.
Through the 1997 Kyoto protocol, industrialised countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. But the US and Australia have withdrawn from the treaty.
Dr Church urged: ""We do have to reduce our emissions but we also have to recognise climate change is happening, and we have to adapt as well."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm
British government warns of climate change
by physorg.com
Monday, Jan. 30, 2006 at 11:24 PM
British government warns of climate change
The British government has issued a report warning of the effects of global warming, saying there's only a small chance of avoiding serious affects.
The report estimates seal levels could rise by 23 feet as a result of global warming caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases, the BBC reported Monday. The report says the world's poorest nations will be most vulnerable.
Entitled "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," the report summarizes evidence presented by scientists during a conference put on by Britain's Meteorological Office last February.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people. "The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public ... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told the BBC.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."
British government warns of climate change
by physorg.com
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006 at 12:04 AM
global warming caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people. we will have to ban all the green houses and gardens in most countries. we need to stop all farming at once. only then can the earth start to heal it's self.
To silence the "BBC".
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006 at 3:04 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Just to put the 'Greenhouse concepts' to bed let us consider the oft mentioed 'Venus" issue.
Let it be remembered that Venus has no perceived magnetic field of any consequence (at present), therefore has no permanent creation of a planetary ambient plasma (as does the Earth) to give interdiction to photons within the Gamma and X-ray Spectrums.
TO quote:-
["Venus is sometimes characterized as Earth's 'twin' because of its close proximity in solar system location (~ 0.72 AU heliocentric distance compared to 1.0 AU) and its similar size (~ 6053 km radius compared to - 6371 km radius), but other close resemblances are few. Besides the more obvious atmospheric composition and pressure differences, and the related extreme temperatures at the surface described elsewhere in this volume, events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an 'induced' magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind."]
Which continues after some use of non essential (for this discussion) material into:-
["The observed fields for the most part could be explained as solar wind interaction-induced features, to be described below. The new upper limit on the dipole moment obtained from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter wake measurements placed the Venus intrinsic magnetic field at ~ 10-5 times that of Earth."]
Then there is the discussion that brings forth the issues so often related by 'greenhouse platformers' with the "there was 'life' on Venus but greenhouse...";
To quote:-
["Of course, the weakness of the present measurement does not imply that Venus has always been bereft of an intrinsic field. =>THEORIES OF THE DYNAMOS OPERATING IN THE LIQUID CORES OF THE NEWLY ACCRETED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS A MAGNETIC MOMENT OF VENUS OF THE SAME ORDER AS EARTH'S FOR ABOUT THE FIRST BILLION YEARS OF VENUS' LIFE. <= .........."]
Thus the 'shield' fell and an enormous amount of energy rapidly began to stream into the 'biosphere' of Venus.
It was NOT 'greenhouse behavior' that created 'Venus' as it is today, but the failure of its magnetically induced shield.
As an aside, the “~100%” Albedo quoted for Venus is indicative of the density of the atmosphere of Venus and the temperature is driven by the differing materials and energy interactions.
Just to remind the reader
-----
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
b) Alternatively these Photons MIGHT become surface incident, the LESS likely trend.
Due to INCREASES in atmospheric density, more Cascade interactions will ensue. With that lower 'rate' of incidence, as the higher atmospheric density increases, and the cascade terminator H2O is at its HIGHEST 'concentration' you find the opportunities for cascade Photons to reach the surface with any statistically SIGNIFICANT energy load is indeed minimal.
-----
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted relating to the platforming of 'greenhouse' concepts:-
["The albedo of the earth is approximately 39% while the moon's albedo is about 12%.']
-:are infact relating the removal of photons from the atmospheric cascade, as the lack of a Lunar atmosphere allows no interdiction of incident photons and so the only remittance you will record is secondary photonic remittance from the actual Lunar surface materialing. There is more energy being intercepted and suspended within the Atmosphere of this Planet, than becomes surface incident, and once suspended the STATISTICALLY trended direction of ESCAPE is towards higher altitudes, as in (a) above. Remember Photosynthesis interdicts and consumes the incident energy predominately in the lower and upper visible spectrum.
(below figure in the FILES section of the Yahoo climate-change group)
<
http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gKjeQ_8kmJO4O2LlTeK8CJHmXVMKCUebvpJjC4NE0WJENFZU9eYemelcoFqDEyYGO0EQK-_wYpM3K3oVTTs7C_6ber8K/Picture1.jpg
>
There is little to deflect the energy within the Gamma and X-ray spectrums within the atmospheric structure of Venus, as exists here with Earth's ambient plasma, hence the temperatures observed on Venus is due to the energy within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrum that would not be expected to enter a cascade within the atmosphere present on Venus and so becomes surface incident.
Thus the 'runaway' effect was infact that of increasing availability of energy, not at all related to any supposed 'Greenhouse Effect'.
There was more material concerning the actions of planetary dynamos, but does this material relate the situation as seen by SCIENCE in a suitably reasonably manner?
"Save the environment, ignore Greenhouse platformers".
Perhaps the "BBC" cut&paste will quiten a little now.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Arctic summer
by aftenposten.no
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006 at 7:59 AM
It may still be January, but the arctic region is seeing record temperatures of a level usually seen during the summer.
Summer has come to the arctic island Jan Mayen - in January.
PHOTO: SCANPIX
Related stories:
Spring comes early up north - 16.01.2006
Warmest autumn in ages - 07.11.2005
Tropical Tafjord - 31.10.2005
July warmth set new record - 29.07.2005
Farmers in despair over warm weather - 14.07.2005
Norway's Meteorological Institute reported that the ice line on Svalbard is extremely far north for the season. The waters around Svalbard are nearly free of ice and there are large areas of open sea up to near 84 degrees north.
The reason is that the usual winter wind from the east or northeast has been replaced by winds from the south or southwest more usually seen in the summer. As the sea becomes freer of ice, this in turn helps warm up the air.
The average temperature on Svalbard in January so far this year has been -1.6C (29F), fully 13C (24F) higher than normal.
A record temperature was recorded by the Meteorological Institute on the arctic island of Jan Mayen (71 degrees north) on Wednesday evening. The reading of 9.4C (49F) was easily the warmest in all of Norway and typical of summer on the island.
www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1207247.ece
Record warm January at Minneapolis MN
by pat n
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006 at 4:22 PM
Thank you for postint Arctic Summer. I fwded it to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Record warm January at Minneapolis MN
See 1820-2006 temperature plot - Brand-new at:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
Regarding "Arctic summer"
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 12:05 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Remember that over the past 130,000 years, the climate of this planet has cycled into and out of ‘Ice Ages’, and this planet is at a point where the possible confirmation of its natural material covering (including a naturally forested European Continent as seen prior to the 1500’s) would indicate a nearness of a point of ‘tipping of balance’ from a general increase in rate of kinetic energy induction to a reduction in kinetic energy induction, hence a ‘cooling’ towards the ‘dip’ that surrounds an “Ice Age”.
At this point the poles will show warming and ice loss.
This ‘tipping period’ is thought to always be showing short time frame alterations to turbulence (increases and decreases), which is what we are observing. The question is whether the alterations made to the surface materialing, by Humanities sprawl across the planetary surface, will only extend this ‘tipping period’ or move the oscillation up (that is present the oscillation a modulation opportunity) so that the ‘dip’ will no longer surround an ‘Ice Age, and the ‘peak’ will surround a ‘Wind Age’ instead. The indicator of this ‘modulation’ will the amount of ice lost at the poles.
In the next 50 year period the Human population will be expected to reorganise its distribution to have ~60% of near 12 billion people living in cityscapes, with the related rematerialng involed in this construction.
The percieved reproduction rate (not the birth rate) will be accentuated by increases in longevity to near a 40 year average from the present of ~25 years. More people will remain 'alive' from year to year.
Medicine and health improvements in presently 'Lesser Developed Nations' will drive this as the average longevity in many of these Nations is less than ~15 years at present.
There is nothing to cite for a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any events associated with warming of polar regions, it is expected infact.
The trend of the past 5000 years is indicating a rise of temperature, traced with increases in sea level (seen in submerged 'permanent' human infrastructure) and the transition of previously verdant plains into present day deserts (still showing remnant animal populations from those past days of 'plains').
A different climate is NOT necessarily bad, it is infact a natural progression. The apparent 'speed' of transition is mostly coincidental with the present location of the planetary climate within its current oscillational behavior.
What is needed is for Humanity to begin to show regard and concern for what is being done to the planetary surface by way of rematerialing, and the consequences to be faced in the next 50 years if attention is NOT directed to such.
Remember that ‘Temperature’ is a scaled measure of ‘heat’ and ‘heat’ is but an average measure of the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms within the observed sample. Differentials of this inductance, due to variations in surface materialing across the planetary surface produce the diffentials in pressure that drive climate and its included weather patterning.
It is the 'extra' kinetic energy being induced by the materialing made to the surface by Human actions that is driving any alterations to the natural climate oscillations.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding Minneapolis, Minnesota.
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 12:16 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
I wondered where you ran with these 'measurements' Pat.
We have already mentioned the paucity of any valid use in these '10 year' numbers Pat, many times over the past few years, in regard to global climate 'trends'.
Remember:-
-----
["It was in 1724 that Gabriel Fahrenheit, an instrument maker of Danzig and Amsterdam, used mercury as the thermometric liquid. Mercury's thermal expansion is large and fairly uniform, it does not adhere to the glass, and it remains a liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Its silvery appearance makes it easy to read.
Fahrenheit described how he calibrated the scale of his mercury thermometer:
"placing the thermometer in a mixture of sale ammoniac or sea salt, ice, and water a point on the scale will be found which is denoted as zero. A second point is obtained if the same mixture is used without salt. Denote this position as 30. A third point, designated as 96, is obtained if the thermometer is placed in the mouth so as to acquire the heat of a healthy man." (D. G. Fahrenheit, Phil. Trans. (London) 33, 78, 1724) On this scale, Fahrenheit measured the boiling point of water to be 212. Later he adjusted the freezing point of water to 32 so that the interval between the boiling and freezing points of water could be represented by the more rational number 180. Temperatures measured on this scale are designated as degrees Fahrenheit (° F).]"
-----
The point raised (again) is that an accurate method of MEASURING and recording TEMPERATURE in a reasonably reproducable manner was only produced in the mid 18th Century.
So at the best Humanity only has 200 to 250 years of GOOD recorded measurements with a consistent scale with reasonable 'error'.
At best.
As you have shown little tendency in the past to actually discuss these 'measurements' or their validity within teh framework you would present them, why do you parade them Pat, why broadcast them?
A discussion is only worth its inputs Pat and your 'blogs' (that you advertise so often) do NOT allow reasonable inputs, just the usual 'opinioned monologue' of the 'greenhouse diatribe' censored to present 'shaped and styled' presentations.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding Sea Levels
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 10:21 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
There is no surprise in rising sea levels, as previously mentioned, and there is not shown that such rises have been at any particular constant rate.
One can look at indicated shore lines (marked by past 'permanent' human infrastructure) to note relative shorelines over the past 5000 years.
Certainly, there is no reason to mention the IPCC with any commendation, this 'committee' has began to make 'predictions' in such a vague manner with very generous 'margins' that near any observation could be made to 'fit within' the IPCC 'predictions'.
If you mention that the 'sun will rise in the morning' you would be able to relate any observed event to be 'within your prediction'. Such is the IPCC.
It is time that misrepresentation with numeracy attached, made to appear as 'climate science' is given more close scrutiny, accompanied by far less whining of 'cover-ups' and innuendo of 'silencing' within and by the political 'greenhouse barrow pushers'. It has been far too easy in the past to cite 'greenhouse rhetoric' and it seems the shock of being required to give validation OUTSIDE of 'climate science circles' within aspects of SCIENCE is too much to the more pretentious and 'media attentive' of the 'greenhouse science' fraternity.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
sea levels
by Inlandian
Friday, Feb. 03, 2006 at 1:01 PM
Hey, about this whole sea-level rising thing: Isn't the ice at the polar ice caps floating in the water already? Doesn't ice expand when it freezes?
If so, then wouldn't the sea-level actually be dropping as the floating ice melts? (At least to the degree that the ice bergs are displacing water right now, which is a lot -- you know, the whole "it's just the tip of the ice-berg" thing?)
I don't really care because I'm an Inlandian
re sea level
by pat n
Friday, Feb. 03, 2006 at 6:12 PM
The ice on land , mainly Greenland and Antarctic, wis becoming unstable. Listen to:
Imminent Danger
NASA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Jim Hansen
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/ecotalk/node/84
Shorts in Maine in January? Yes...
by MALCOLM RITTER, AP
Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 at 8:39 AM
Updated: 02:45 AM EST
Shorts in Maine in January? Yes...
Much of Nation Experiencing a Balmy Winter
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP
NEW YORK (Feb. 3) - Let's put it this way: People played golf this winter in Maine. In shorts. Buttercups have been blooming in Montana. In Ohio, an ice-free Lake Erie allowed an early start to seasonal ferry service. And the sap started running early in Vermont.
While January plunged much of Europe and Russia into the deep freeze, it appeared to be remarkably mild across the United States. Federal scientists haven't calculated yet whether it ranks as the warmest January on record nationwide, but "it's certainly going to be right up there," said Michael Halpert, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center.
The balmy weather will soon end for much of the country, he said.
Just how warm was January?
Warmest on record in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Green Bay, Wis., Kansas City, Mo., Riverton, Wyo., and Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Neb. It barely missed tying the record for Iowa.
· Second-warmest in Maine and in Milwaukee, Wis.
· Third-warmest in Memphis, Tenn., and Detroit.
· Fourth-warmest in New York's Central Park (tied with January 1913), in Greensboro, N.C., and Louisville, Ky.
· Eighth-warmest in Denver, and the warmest since 1986.
· 10th warmest in Baltimore.
· Warmest since 1950 in Buffalo, N.Y., and Nashville, Tenn.
· 12th-warmest in New Mexico.
Minneapolis and St. Paul had the warmest January in 160 years. Ice sculptures at the St. Paul Winter Carnival melted and broke up nearly as quickly as they were carved, and several big ice-fishing contests in Minnesota were canceled or moved because of thin ice.
Temperatures in Bismarck, N.D., stayed above zero the entire month, a balmy signal not seen since 1875.
The unusual weather has been a problem for some businesses but good for others.
At Ski Beech in Beech Mountain, N.C., "our snowmakers have worked themselves silly," says Gil Adams, marketing and ski patrol director. "It's been a continuous battle to build things back after a thaw spell."
In southern Wisconsin, warm weather and rain meant cemetery workers using heavy equipment at grave sites had to put down plywood to avoid damaging the turf, not something they normally do in winter. "It's like spring here in the southern part of the state," said Clyde Rupnow, secretary of the Wisconsin Cemetery Association.
In Vermont, mild weather made sap run early and let maple syrup producers go to work ahead of schedule, especially in the southern part of the state. Sales rose about 40 percent at Toyota dealerships in Columbus, Ohio, as warm weather got people thinking about cars.
The Nonesuch River Golf Club in Scarborough, Maine, hosted 250 players on Jan. 21 and had to turn away 200 more. And Alan Rockhold, who owns Four Mile Car Wash in Des Moines, Iowa, said the warm spell in January has provided "one my best months in a long time."
For much of the nation, however, meteorologist Halpert says the warm weather is on its way out.
"Probably by next week we will be seeing much colder weather over the eastern half to two-thirds of the country," he said Wednesday. The West will probably remain warm on average, he said.
Why? The current warmth is caused by the unusual position of the jet stream, the high-altitude river of air that flows west-to-east across North America. It divides warm air from cold, with colder temperatures to its north and warmer temperatures to its south.
Usually in the winter, it follows a lazy zigzag across the United States and Canada, allowing cold air into the U.S. where it dips south, Halpert said. But for the past month or so, it has instead flowed east in almost a straight line across the northern part of the country, basically forming a fence that has kept cold air out and allowed in milder air masses from the Pacific Ocean instead.
Over the coming week, Halpert said, the jet stream is expected to return to its usual wavy pattern, bringing cold air to the eastern U.S. once again.
articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060202141609990002&_ccc=6&cid=842
Whatever
by personal
Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 at 9:12 AM
At http://www.realclimate.org Michael Seward wrote ... Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, and Steve Milloy, on the one hand, and Hansen, Thompson and Keeling on the other; NASA, NOAA, and the IPPC, versus SEPP, Envirotruth, and CO2 science; ...
Well, to me personally, it would make a lot more sense to break some of the agencies into pieces then put the pieces into categories of "SCIENCE" vs "WHATEVER", on climate change.
I'd group NOAA's NCDC and CMDL with GISS in NASA into the SCIENCE category.
I'd group NOAA's NWS, including NWS' National Hurricane Center (NHC), Climate Prediction Center (CPC), and Climate Diognostics Center (CDC), in with SEPP, Envirotruth, the American Association of State Climatologists(AASC) and CO2 science into the WHATEVER category on climate change. I'd put NOAA headquarters into WHATEVER too.
global warming is a scam
by global warming is a scam
Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 at 10:25 AM
http://www.tracypress.com/voice/2006-01-31-our-voice.php
Ask the citizens of Fairbanks, Alaska, if their earth is warming. January is expected to be the third coldest month in a century. The average high for the past week has been 40 degrees below, and the low, 48 below.
Both are about 10 degrees below normal.
People in Minneapolis are warming to the other extreme.
They’ve been jettisoning their parkas, mittens and mufflers lately in the spring-like 50-degree afternoons.
Something crazy is happening to the world’s climate.
Global warming? There are just too many anecdotes pointing to it making Fairbanks an anomaly. An abnormally large number of polar bears is dying in the Arctic as sheets of ice melt, destroying their habitat.
Chicagoans are playing golf this winter, and they don’t have to fly to Las Vegas to do it.
And how about Detroit? Civic leaders are hosting dog-sled races during Super Bowl week on the city’s normally snowy streets. But they have had to manufacture the snow because there wasn’t any already on the ground.
And there are too many crazy statistics. James Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, confirmed last week that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. The Earth’s average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree during the past 30 years. If that continues during the next century, he predicts the Earth will be a different planet.
The reason behind all of this? In spite of his opinion being filtered by the government, Hansen points to greenhouse gas emissions. He advocates our government doing more than it has to curtail them.
Other experts have a more chilling forecast: Soon, the world may pass the point of no return in avoiding dangerous climatic change.
Does that include frozen Fairbanks?
That's for one station for one month
by pat n
Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 at 11:13 AM
That's for one station for one month. You need to view annual temperatures for many climate stations for all years of record.
See:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
Ice Bowl: NFC title game - real winter in the Upper Midwest
by pat n
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 8:30 AM
Ice Bowl: NFC title game stirs memories
This is a first-person story by Bud Lea, who covered the Ice Bowl game in Green Bay on Dec. 31, 1967. ... By Bud Lea Packer Plus columnist
Vince Lombardi, on the sub-zero temperatures: "The weather's beautiful. The sun is shining! It's a great day!!!"
Green Bay -- Nobody could possibly have been prepared for what happened on Dec. 31, 1967, at Lambeau Field. Not the Green Bay Packers, not the Dallas Cowboys, and certainly not the 50,861 fans who paid $10 a ticket, a capacity crowd which has since grown 100 times if you believe everyone who claims he was there.
After all, the temperature at game time was 13 degrees below zero with a wind chill of 49 below. ...
The original Lambeau Field press box, built in 1957, was cold and drafty, and you used the Sunday paper as a floor mat to keep your feet from freezing. Every time the door opened to allow another accredited person inside that day, you swore as a blast of icy air hit you like a 2-by-4.
... Coffee was served. But if you didn't drink it quick enough, it froze in the plastic cup. Typewriters placed too close to the window ledge also froze up. So did the toilets.
...
With 16 seconds left in the game, the Packers had the ball on the Dallas 1. ...
But Starr knifed into an opening as guard Jerry Kramer and center Ken Bowman drove Pugh back. And when he landed into the Dallas end zone, Lambeau Field went crazy.
Thousands of fans swarmed the field after the 21-17 Packer victory. They attacked the goal post, and it crumbled. ...
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/arc/13097/ice108.html
---
That's what a real winter is supposed to be like in the Upper Midwest.
If global warming is a scam,
by I don't get it
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 9:38 AM
why is all that ice melting at the poles?
I don't get it either
by confused
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Ice melting at the poles according to whose data(?), record cold and deaths in Siberia this year, 54 below last year in Minnesota and one of the Unbathed residents ignores it, in the '70's the Unbathed warned of global cooling, last year they warned about global dimming, some moron at Utah pushed "The Day after Tomorrow" as something educational, and then there's stuff like this, which the Unbathed will never reconcile:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12551308.htm
Fossil fuel curbs may speed global warming-scientists
13 Jan 2005 00:00:42 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Matt Falloon
LONDON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Cutting down on fossil fuel pollution could accelerate global warming and help turn parts of Europe into desert by 2100, according to research to be aired on British television on Thursday. "Global Dimming", a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, "dimming" temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect.
The researchers say cutting down on the burning of coal and oil, one of the main goals of international environmental agreements, will drastically heat rather than cool climate.
"When the cooling affect goes away -- and it must do because particles like sulphur dioxide are damaging to humans -- global warming will be much stronger," climate change scientist Dr Peter Cox told Reuters on Wednesday.
Temperatures could increase in the worst case by up to 10 degrees by the end of the century, the researchers said -- much more than current estimates.
Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.
Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, and the extra heat will speed warming, irreversibly melting ice sheets and rendering rain forests unsustainable within decades, Dr Cox said.
"The climate will warm more in the future but the ability of the land to store carbon dioxide will be compromised," he said, adding that warmer soil was less able to hold the greenhouse gas.
________________________________________
And there's this from last winter:
Record Low Temperatures in Parts of U.S.
By CATHERINE TSAI
Associated Press Writer
Dec 07 12:17 PM US/Eastern
DENVER - Bitterly cold air poured southward across the nation's midsection Wednesday, dropping temperatures to record lows from Montana to Illinois. The mercury dived to a record 45 below at West Yellowstone, Mont., the frequently cold spot at the west entrance to Yellowstone National Park, the National Weather Service said. The old record for Dec. 7 was 39 below, set in 1927.
The cold even extended south to the Texas Panhandle, where Lubbock shivered at a record low 6 above zero, the weather service said.
The body of a homeless man was found huddled next to a fence in Denver, where the temperature hit 11 below Wednesday, and authorities were trying to determine if he froze to death. He apparently had shed his jacket in a phenomenon called "paradoxical undressing," where victims of hypothermia become disoriented and hallucinate, deputy coroner Amy Martin said.
The Denver Rescue Mission opened all available space for the homeless.
The coldest spot in Colorado early Wednesday was Hohnholz Ranch, 50 miles northwest of Fort Collins, which bottomed out at 37 below zero, the weather service said.
In Gunnison, Alec Solimeo tended bar at the Timbers Sports Bar & Grill wearing a couple layers of clothing Tuesday as a faulty heater let the inside temperature drop to 42 degrees. The outside temperature fell to 12 below early Wednesday, the weather service said.
"I'm keeping these travelers happy," Solimeo said, adding that his regular customers apparently stayed home. "They're playing pool, drinking some Irish coffee and doing some singing."
Temperatures read like baseball scores in northeastern New Mexico _ zero at Las Vegas and 1 at Raton. "I'm sitting here in my office and it's freezing and we've got the heat on full blast," said Bill Cox, owner of the Hillcrest Restaurant in Las Vegas.
The cold follows a blizzard that blasted much of the Plains on Nov. 27-28, shutting down hundreds of miles of major highways across a half-dozen states and piling up snowdrifts 8 feet high in South Dakota.
Just two of the 157 South Dakota towns that had power problems after that storm snapped power lines were still without electricity Wednesday, but more than 3,600 rural customers were still blacked out, said Tom Dravland, state public safety secretary. Lows across the eastern part of the state dipped to as much as 20 below.
A winter storm warning was issued Wednesday in and around the Dallas- Fort Worth area, where the temperature fell from the low 40s before sunrise to the upper 20s by the end of the morning rush hour. Freezing rain and sleet fell Wednesday and up to 2 inches of snow was predicted by Thursday morning.
Elsewhere Wednesday, the weather service said record lows for the date included 28 below zero at Drummond, Mont., where the date's previous record was 21 below in 1971; 26 below at Seeley Lake, Mont.; 25 below at Laramie, Wyo., tying a 1978 reading; 17 below at Alliance, Neb.; 19 below at Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and 3 below at Lincoln, Ill.
Associated Press writers Roger Petterson in New York and Joe Kafka in Pierre, S.D., contributed to this report.
---------------------------------------------
I don't get it. Why do the Unbathed self anoint themselves as intellectual when they have no fucking clue what they're talking about?
Polar Amplification at realclimate
by pat n
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Polar Amplification
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Arctic and Antarctic— group @ 3:42 pm
Guest commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington
"Polar amplification'' usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.
... figures, more text and 116 comments at realclimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
That's why we don't have "real winters" anymore.
Go Packers!
pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
which is it?
by which is it?
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Global warming?
Global cooling?
Global dimming?
Can the Unbathed make up their minds?
Regarding "Polar Amplifiaction" (again).
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 5:58 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Here you see the style of nonsense platformed in a manner of 'seeming' to be scientific' but contains little viable 'science'.
The contrivance of an 'imposing name', "Polar Amplification", seems the only reason for the material being presented as otherwise there is little of SCIENCE in what is there contained.
Had to go back a month to find the last time you attempted to sound 'knowledgeable' with mention of 'polar amplification' Pat.
The problem all 'greenhouse' science has Pat is that the basic premise relating to the existence of a 'greenhouse effect' is a contrivance and pays NO attention to how the materials involved will interact and behave within their actual known, real behaviors.
It is very easy to see why 'greenhouse science' is has trouble producing validly functional 'models' that actually include 'greenhouse concepts', the concepts are as far from describing the actual behaviors of the materials it would involve as could be considered even possible.
As has been shown Pat, Radiation within the Atmosphere will trend to 'rise' out of the Cascade due to the drop in density of the Atmosphere with the attached reduction in the number of molecules, the 'air is thinner' quite literally.
Also, the 'cascade terminator', the H2O molecule is constrained by its Condensation and Ice point altitudes and the effects of Gravity. So there is little to retain the energy propagated by Photons as altitude increases.
THUS there is NO real existence of ANY ability to validly mention that 'radiation' is 'reflected back to the surface', as it is NOT so.
Even the Albedo of this planet indicates this, the Moon presents as ~12% which is indicative of the remittance of photons by the lunar surface, the Earths atmosphere is reasonable efficient in removing energy, with a presented albedo of ~36%.
Venus, with its very dense atmosphere is ~100% but as Venus has no magnetic field present, there is no production of an ambient plasma as the planet Earth produces and so Venus is NOT shielded from the energy contained in the Gamma and X-Ray spectrums and it is this energy that is producing the kinetic energy inductance seen within the 'biosphere' of Venus.
All the 'data', in the biggest 'super computer', cannot overcome the flaws in what is referred to as 'climate science' theory that incorporates 'greenhouse concepts', nor can 'stern platforming' of such 'material' improve its lack of validity.
Nor can the fabrication of 'imposing nomenclature' to describe these fictitious 'effects'.
You have nothing to offer Pat expect your disassociated opinion, flawed numeracy and a lexicon of imposing nomenclature.
The 'realclimate' web site is nor more a reference and most certainly no more 'authoritive' than yourself Pat and it is pointless to continue your attempts to market you opinions if you persist in avoiding discussion of the flawed 'science' underpinning these theories.
"Polar amplification" is as much contrived nonscience as is the supposed 'greenhouse effect Pat, and until 'greenhouse science' can at least distinguish the difference tween energy measured within Radiation, and that measured as 'heat' the nomenclature invented is simply and completely irrelevant.
As mentioned Pat, the small rise in kinetic energy inductance is due to the rematerialing of the land surface by Humanity, and the location of this planets present 'climate' within its natural climate oscillation, complete with the expected behaviors (being exhibited) for that position, as previously mentioned within this list.
This is all dsicussed in greater detail within the Yahoo based 'climate-change' group (amongst others).
You spend too much time trying to appear knowledgeable Pat, and insular in the discussions you prefer to make.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In regard to:-
Polar Amplification
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Arctic and Antarctic— group @ 3:42 pm
Guest commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington
"Polar amplification'' usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.
Regarding "That's for one station for one month"
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 6:12 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Still Pat you do not seem to comprehend that no matter how MANY 'climate stations' you might have, the oscillations of present climate have been progressing for over 130,000 YEARS within the present cycle that seems attached to the confirmation of continental land surface upon the planetary surface.
More data points within an insignificant time window are only that Pat, a lot of statistically INSIGNIFICANT data points.
That is why the PREMISE you Pat attach to these pointless ramblings regarding 'temperature measures' is indicative of you lack of actual knowledge and highlights the amount of MARKETING you platform regarding the issue of 'greenhouse' and 'greenhouse warming', along with your complete inability to explain WHY your proffered numeracy is in any manner relevant.
On top of all these problems Pat you still cannot address the real flaws in the most basis premises within the hypothesis relating to a 'greenhouse effect' and avoiding this whilst relying on 'name calling' highlights the 'political nature' of your platform.
To those within this list, you can see my outlines within the Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/
complete with slides, and make your own comments, it is a freely joinable group.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In regard to:-
That's for one station for one month
by pat n Saturday, Feb. 04, 2006 at 4:13 PM
That's for one station for one month. You need to view annual temperatures for many climate stations for all years of record.
Regarding "which is it"
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 6:35 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Well the premise for the existence of 'global dimming' is embedded within the same flawed conceptualisations involved within 'greenhouse science', and can be overlooked to begin with.
"Global warming and Global cooling" are infact slightly misinterpretations of what the real process is.
The natural tendency of this planet under the bombardment of incident Solar Radiation is to 'warm'.
The alteration to an overall 'cooling' or 'warming' effect is based in the alterations to the RATE of kinetic energy inductance by and within the materials of the planetary surface.
This is best realised in the image of energy absorbance within the atmosphere, and that energy that is able to become surface incident.
However, the alterations to inductance rate and the actions of Turbulence do swing the 'temperature cycle' within our biosphere.
The addition of 'cascade repeaters' like CH4 and NO2 result in the increase of energy OUT of the biosphere. CO2 has limited ability to gain intrinsic kinetic energy (and so increase warming) with that molecules high remittance of energy in interactions. Hence the release of CH4 from high 'near polar' regions aids in swinging the inductance rate from an overall 'warming' to an overall 'cooling'.
AS I have mentioned the overall surface materialing that would have been present without actions of Humanity is indicative of a position within the 130,000 (minimum) present natural 'climate cycle' that is at just a 'toppling point' from overall warming to cooling.
The alterations to surface materialing by Humanity will seemingly make us expend this 'toppling' period, the extent of this alteration will be 'seen' in the amount of polar ice that is removed. Too much and the 'oscillation' will modulate towards a "Turbulent" peak and not reach an "Ice Age" at the trough, for a period that would be describable in a 'short geological like' time frame.
Again, I would direct you to my outlines within the Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climate-change/
(amongst others) complete with slides, and make your own comments (it is a freely joinable group) if you are so interested.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding the melting of Ice.
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 9:44 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
as presented in the comment
Regarding "Arctic summer"
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 5:04 AM
-----
Remember that over the past 130,000 years, the climate of this planet has cycled into and out of ‘Ice Ages’, and this planet is at a point where the possible confirmation of its natural material covering (including a naturally forested European Continent as seen prior to the 1500’s) would indicate a nearness of a point of ‘tipping of balance’ from a general increase in rate of kinetic energy induction to a reduction in kinetic energy induction, hence a ‘cooling’ towards the ‘dip’ that surrounds an “Ice Age”.
At this point the poles will show warming and ice loss.
This ‘tipping period’ is thought to always be showing short time frame alterations to turbulence (increases and decreases), which is what we are observing. The question is whether the alterations made to the surface materialing, by Humanities sprawl across the planetary surface, will only extend this ‘tipping period’ or move the oscillation up (that is present the oscillation a modulation opportunity) so that the ‘dip’ will no longer surround an ‘Ice Age, and the ‘peak’ will surround a ‘Wind Age’ instead. The indicator of this ‘modulation’ will the amount of ice lost at the poles.
In the next 50 year period the Human population will be expected to reorganise its distribution to have ~60% of near 12 billion people living in cityscapes, with the related rematerialng involed in this construction.
The percieved reproduction rate (not the birth rate) will be accentuated by increases in longevity to near a 40 year average from the present of ~25 years. More people will remain 'alive' from year to year.
Medicine and health improvements in presently 'Lesser Developed Nations' will drive this as the average longevity in many of these Nations is less than ~15 years at present.
There is nothing to cite for a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any events associated with warming of polar regions, it is expected infact.
The trend of the past 5000 years is indicating a rise of temperature, traced with increases in sea level (seen in submerged 'permanent' human infrastructure) and the transition of previously verdant plains into present day deserts (still showing remnant animal populations from those past days of 'plains').
A different climate is NOT necessarily bad, it is infact a natural progression. The apparent 'speed' of transition is mostly coincidental with the present location of the planetary climate within its current oscillational behavior.
What is needed is for Humanity to begin to show regard and concern for what is being done to the planetary surface by way of rematerialing, and the consequences to be faced in the next 50 years if attention is NOT directed to such.
Remember that ‘Temperature’ is a scaled measure of ‘heat’ and ‘heat’ is but an average measure of the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms within the observed sample. Differentials of this inductance, due to variations in surface materialing across the planetary surface produce the diffentials in pressure that drive climate and its included weather patterning.
It is the 'extra' kinetic energy being induced by the materialing made to the surface by Human actions that is driving any alterations to the natural climate oscillations.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Arctic ice melting faster as temperatures climb
by MSNBC
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 10:18 PM
The satellite image on the left shows the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 1979, while the image on the right shows the concentration of sea ice recorded on Sept. 21. New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply, scientists say.
Regarding "I don't get it either"
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 10:20 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Very few with knowledge of SCIENCE regard a 'greenhouse effect' as responsible for any warming process. The supposed process simply ignores the actual behaviors of the real materials present.
Emissions are air pollution, as they where regarded BEFORE the 'global warming' rorting began, and as they always have been.
That there is a longer term oscillation in climate is indisputable, we know there have been multiple 'Ice Ages' in the past 130,000 years.
We know that the sea level has been rising steadily over the past 5000 years, due to the location of many submerged 'permanent' constructed infrastructures (like ports and docks).
WE know that major regional alterations in climate have occurred. Again I will mention that the Sahara, now a desert, was only a few thousand years ago a verdant plain as is the Southern region of Africa, with a remnant population of antelope still known.
Climate is not and never has been 'stagnant' as those presenting the 'global warming' platform would like us all to 'accept'.
As previously mentioned, the premise of 'Global Dimming' is as miss led, with its included misinterpretations of matter/energy interactions, as is the 'opposite premise' of the 'greenhouse effect'.
To quote:- [""Global Dimming", a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, "dimming" temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect."]
It is that molecules do NOT 'reflect' photons. To produce a 'mirror' is a process of aligning molecules so remittance of photons occurs under certain conditions. Within the atmosphere what you 'observe' is 'random remittance' due to the random motion OF the molecules themselves.
The addition of cascade repeaters to the motion of photons within the atmosphere simply promotes greater escape of energy.
Realise that a Photon is NOT a uniform 'entity', they all posses differing energy loads.
"Cascade Repeaters" can interact with a photon and NOT retain very much of the incident ENERGY, and so the molecule will NOT gain intrinsic kinetic energy, which is what is measured as an increase in 'temperature' of that molecule. These molecules usually have a narrow interaction spectrum, like CH4 and NO2 (see slide).
However, if you look at the slide, you will see that the energy that can become incident TO the surface is within a specific region. This region includes the lower and upper visible, and the lower one third of the overall UV spectrum.
Photosynthesis is most active in predation of energy within the lower and upper visible spectrum, whilst the portion of the UV energy becomes incident to the surface as the constant energy fueling the perpetual warming processes, along with that energy within the lower and upper visible spectrum that does NOT become incident to a photosynthetic surface (when, for example, Humanity has replaced such with concrete.)
I have long mentioned to Pat, and others, that the addition of CO2 by Humanity has just been overcoming the 'warming additions' created by the rematerialing OF the planetary surface.
It is that in the next 30 years, the sprawl of Humanity can overcome the cooling effect of CO2, with its actions of interception of energy from H2O, and as a cascade step down agent reducing the energy load within the cascade (of the remitted photons) by producing a slow increase in warming as opposed to a rapid and large rise possible from H2O.
'Global dimming' is as unreal a process as is the 'greenhouse effect'; they are both seemingly rooted in late 1800's concepts of matter, energy and the interactions tween.
The reason everyone is so confused, is that for too many years people have made much from nothing and called it 'greenhouse science', a formalised study of 'false positives' presented with a 'straight face'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In regard:-
I don't get it either
by confused Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Ice melting at the poles according to whose data(?), record cold and deaths in Siberia this year, 54 below last year in Minnesota and one of the Unbathed residents ignores it, in the '70's the Unbathed warned of global cooling, last year they warned about global dimming, some moron at Utah pushed "The Day after Tomorrow" as something educational, and then there's stuff like this, which the Unbathed will never reconcile:
<snipped-already in list>
Regarding "Arctic ice melting faster as temperatures climb"
by Peter K Anderson
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 10:29 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
As has been mentioned this is not anything to do with a supposed 'greenhouse' effect. Please refer to slide of past and projected Human population, from 500 MILLION to over 5 BILLION in just 400 years, with a strong trend to associate sprawl of human habitat to this population.
To reiterate:-
-----------------
Remember that over the past 130,000 years, the climate of this planet has cycled into and out of ‘Ice Ages’, and this planet is at a point where the possible confirmation of its natural material covering (including a naturally forested European Continent as seen prior to the 1500’s) would indicate a nearness of a point of ‘tipping of balance’ from a general increase in rate of kinetic energy induction to a reduction in kinetic energy induction, hence a ‘cooling’ towards the ‘dip’ that surrounds an “Ice Age”.
At this point the poles will show warming and ice loss.
This ‘tipping period’ is thought to always be showing short time frame alterations to turbulence (increases and decreases), which is what we are observing. The question is whether the alterations made to the surface materialing, by Humanities sprawl across the planetary surface, will only extend this ‘tipping period’ or move the oscillation up (that is present the oscillation a modulation opportunity) so that the ‘dip’ will no longer surround an ‘Ice Age, and the ‘peak’ will surround a ‘Wind Age’ instead. The indicator of this ‘modulation’ will the amount of ice lost at the poles.
In the next 50 year period the Human population will be expected to reorganise its distribution to have ~60% of near 12 billion people living in cityscapes, with the related rematerialing involved in this construction.
The perceived reproduction rate (not the birth rate) will be accentuated by increases in longevity to near a 40 year average from the present of ~25 years. More people will remain 'alive' from year to year.
Medicine and health improvements in presently 'Lesser Developed Nations' will drive this as the average longevity in many of these Nations is less than ~15 years at present.
There is nothing to cite for a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any events associated with warming of Polar Regions, it is expected infact.
The trend of the past 5000 years is indicating a rise of temperature, traced with increases in sea level (seen in submerged 'permanent' human infrastructure) and the transition of previously verdant plains into present day deserts (still showing remnant animal populations from those past days of 'plains').
A different climate is NOT necessarily bad; it is infact a natural progression. The apparent 'speed' of transition is mostly coincidental with the present location of the planetary climate within its current oscillation behavior.
What is needed is for Humanity to begin to show regard and concern for what is being done to the planetary surface by way of rematerialing, and the consequences to be faced in the next 50 years if attention is NOT directed to such.
Remember that ‘Temperature’ is a scaled measure of ‘heat’ and ‘heat’ is but an average measure of the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms within the observed sample. Differentials of this inductance, due to variations in surface materialing across the planetary surface produce the diffentials in pressure that drive climate and its included weather patterning.
It is the 'extra' kinetic energy being induced by the materialing made to the surface by Human actions that is driving any alterations to the natural climate oscillations.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In regard to:-
Arctic ice melting faster as temperatures climb
by MSNBC Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 3:18 AM
The satellite image on the left shows the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 1979, while the image on the right shows the concentration of sea ice recorded on Sept. 21. New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply, scientists say.
msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/
The Arctic Meltdown Speeds Up
by Time
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005
The Arctic Meltdown Speeds Up
Global Warming Update: A new study shows the Arctic ice cap is shrinking faster than expected
By JEFFREY KLUGER
Even as debate continues about the role global warming has played in the recent burst of violent hurricanes , more bad news on the climate front emerged today from a decidedly untropical part of the world: the Arctic. According to a study sponsored by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and other groups, the Arctic ice sheet—a frozen expanse measuring millions of square miles—is shrinking faster than was previously thought. At the current rate it could melt away to nothing before the end of the century.
The numbers are straightforward. In the past 50 years, air temperatures across the Arctic Ocean have climbed by as much as 5.4 degrees F—huge by climate standards. This has had an unsurprising effect on the ice. Ordinarily, the ice sheet expands and shrinks with the changing seasons, dwindling to its smallest size in late September. Even then, however, it used to measure about 2.7 million sq. mi., roughly the size of the contiguous U.S. Not anymore. On the last day of summer this year, the ice measured just 2.05 million sq. mi.—a loss of area twice the size of Texas. That continues a four-year trend of dwindling ice, reducing the sheet to perhaps the smallest size ever recorded in the 100 years measurements have been taken.
Even a little shrinking can be a self-reinforcing process. Ice reflects sunlight back into space, helping to keep Earthly temperatures under control. But dark seawater absorbs the sun's energy, raising the temperature of both the Arctic and the planet as a whole. What's more, a smaller ice sheet in summer means less to build on in winter, when temperatures plummet and the ice should rebound. In the winter of 2004 and 2005, the rate of regrowth was the smallest ever measured.
If you're a whale or a codfish—which use the Arctic waters for breeding—this is good news. It's also a bonus for cargo ships taking advantage of a shortcut through the open sea. For other animals—to say nothing of humans—it could spell disaster. Polar bears spend the summer stranded on land, surviving on fat reserves and waiting until the ice creeps back, when they can hop aboard and resume their wintertime fishing. More and more hungry bears are now remaining marooned later and later in the season.
For humans, melting Arctic ice can mean rising seas, but less than we might think. Since the ice cap already floats on water, the mere act of melting has little or no effect on sea level. But the general warming of the oceans does, since warm water expands, increasing overall volume and eroding already inundated coastlines. What's more, if melting worsens global warming, and global warming is widely believed to have helped fuel the killer hurricanes, all the other dangers associated with higher temperatures—from droughts to crop failures to the migration of tropical diseases—start to look more real.
The question, as always, is whether all of this is a part of natural cycling, or whether the greenhouse gasses we produce in such abundance have simply busted a fragile system. Ocean temperatures historically run in cycles, with shifting currents carrying warmth to different parts of the world at different times. But the planet's own metabolism and the damage we do to it with our industrial exhausts don't exist separately. Greenhouse emissions undeniably raise global temperatures. Whether we're entirely responsible for the loss of Arctic ice or only exacerbating a natural phenomenon, now is the time to dial down the gasses. The planet—as Katrina and Rita showed—knows how to hit back.
www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1111569,00.html
again - which is it?
by Newsweek
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 11:44 PM
FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975
The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Regarding "The Arctic Meltdown Speeds Up"
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 2:13 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
There was little actual debate as to the 'global warming' involvement in 'Katrina' or any other storm infact, as it was not really needed, just a lot of innuendo from the 'greenhouse-globalwarming' platformers and much associated media speculative 'reporting'.
As has been mentioned this is not anything to do with a supposed 'greenhouse' effect. Please refer to slide of past and projected Human population redistribution, which highlights the associated sprawl to be expected in the presently 'lesser developed nations' as medicine and living standards improve.
This is indicative of the projected increases in kinetic energy induction additions from Human activity upon the planetary surface, which can be rendered as a plot to mirror the plot shown earlier relating projected total human population.
If you wish to limit 'ice melt' then put aside the 'greenhouse rhetoric' and look at the real scenarios rather than persist in attempts to maintain the impossible as plausible.
The present distribution of human population is even more telling when you extrapolate WHERE the near future sprawl WILL go, and as Humanity does NOT like to live in deserts, it will be remaining to recover more green with concrete.
The Cityscape does NOT make a jungle, it makes for a barren terrain, and in as far as interactions with incident Radiation are concerned.
Wise up, save the environment, ignore 'greenhouse' platformers.
AS to the present situation, again I will reiterate:-
-----------------
Remember that over the past 130,000 years, the climate of this planet has cycled into and out of ‘Ice Ages’, and this planet is at a point where the possible confirmation of its natural material covering (including a naturally forested European Continent as seen prior to the 1500’s) would indicate a nearness of a point of ‘tipping of balance’ from a general increase in rate of kinetic energy induction to a reduction in kinetic energy induction, hence a ‘cooling’ towards the ‘dip’ that surrounds an “Ice Age”.
At this point the poles will show warming and ice loss.
This ‘tipping period’ is thought to always be showing short time frame alterations to turbulence (increases and decreases), which is what we are observing. The question is whether the alterations made to the surface materialing, by Humanities sprawl across the planetary surface, will only extend this ‘tipping period’ or move the oscillation up (that is present the oscillation a modulation opportunity) so that the ‘dip’ will no longer surround an ‘Ice Age, and the ‘peak’ will surround a ‘Wind Age’ instead. The indicator of this ‘modulation’ will the amount of ice lost at the poles.
In the next 50 year period the Human population will be expected to reorganise its distribution to have ~60% of near 12 billion people living in cityscapes, with the related rematerialing involved in this construction.
The perceived reproduction rate (not the birth rate) will be accentuated by increases in longevity to near a 40 year average from the present of ~25 years. More people will remain 'alive' from year to year.
Medicine and health improvements in presently 'Lesser Developed Nations' will drive this as the average longevity in many of these Nations is less than ~15 years at present.
There is nothing to cite for a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any events associated with warming of Polar Regions, it is expected infact.
The trend of the past 5000 years is indicating a rise of temperature, traced with increases in sea level (seen in submerged 'permanent' human infrastructure) and the transition of previously verdant plains into present day deserts (still showing remnant animal populations from those past days of 'plains').
A different climate is NOT necessarily bad; it is infact a natural progression. The apparent 'speed' of transition is mostly coincidental with the present location of the planetary climate within its current oscillation behavior.
What is needed is for Humanity to begin to show regard and concern for what is being done to the planetary surface by way of rematerialing, and the consequences to be faced in the next 50 years if attention is NOT directed to such.
Remember that ‘Temperature’ is a scaled measure of ‘heat’ and ‘heat’ is but an average measure of the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms within the observed sample. Differentials of this inductance, due to variations in surface materialing across the planetary surface produce the diffentials in pressure that drive climate and its included weather patterning.
It is the 'extra' kinetic energy being induced by the materialing made to the surface by Human actions that is driving any alterations to the natural climate oscillations.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
The Arctic Meltdown Speeds Up
by Time Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 4:21 AM
In regard to:-
Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005
The Arctic Meltdown Speeds Up
Global Warming Update: A new study shows the Arctic ice cap is shrinking faster than expected
By JEFFREY KLUGER
Even as debate continues about the role global warming has played in the recent burst of violent hurricanes , more bad news on the climate front emerged today from a decidedly untropical part of the world: the Arctic. According to a study sponsored by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and other groups, the Arctic ice sheet—a frozen expanse measuring millions of square miles—is shrinking faster than was previously thought. At the current rate it could melt away to nothing before the end of the century.
The numbers are straightforward. In the past 50 years, air temperatures across the Arctic Ocean have climbed by as much as 5.4 degrees F—huge by climate standards. This has had an unsurprising effect on the ice. ........
Regarding "again - which is it?"
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 2:31 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
(In the slide, 'population density (geographical) you see density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN). (Yellow = low density - dark red = high density).
As soon as an 'author' begins to sprout 'doom and gloom' I simply read past them.
There is nothing overly terrible as yet to be seen.
The planetary climate is at a point in its 'life' where a period of turbulence in weather patterning and overall climate will see 'small' time scale fluctuations as the oscillator components vie for dominance.
Eventually the reduction in kinetic energy inductance, to proceed past the toppling point into a 'cooling phase', will be a balance of Humanities recognition of its abuse of the planetary surface.
The overall point of climate expected in the 'trough' that is at the other 'end' of the cycle from our present position will be roughly determinable form the amount of ice remaining to 'seed' the 'cold period' that will contain the 'trough'.
The cycle has been seen for 130,000 years (minimum) so far, if we modulate it by rematerialing the surface, it is still NOT unseen that this modulated state is not in itself unnatural.
It is that a 'wind age' might not leave behind a signature as does an 'Ice Age' and the 'ice age' period could well have been something the planet fell into with the continental land surface motions.
So we move out of one natural 'harmonic' and into another natural 'harmonic' but due to unnatural causes in regards to surface rematerialing.
AS long as Humanity REALISES the actual cause and tells the 'greenhouse platformers' to also observe the realities, all will be well still.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding "Ice ages", melting ice and the supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 3:31 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding "Ice ages", melting ice and the supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
To aid in the defining of 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."]
["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]
["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, over the past 130,000 years.
This 130,000 year period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point the surface would be highly photosynthetic with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period (with its associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
There is little to make an association with a supposed 'Greenhouse effect' and present observations of melting Polar ice.
There is little to make reasonable any actual expectation OF a 'greenhouse effect' at all in any manner that pays attention to the actual materials being involved and their real behaviors.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Sea levels
by pat n
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Read the recent guest post on 'Can 2C warming be
avoided' to understand what is actually being claimed, and why some people feel that an increase of another degree or C increases the chances of 'dangerous' climate change. I would point out that the geologic record provides no examples (none!) of CO2 levels as high as today with a Greenland ice sheet and sea levels as low as today. The last time CO2 may have been as high as this (mid Pliocene ~
3 million years ago), sea levels were 20m higher. Even stage 5e, which may have temperatures comparable to projections for mid-century, had sea levels higher by
5 or 6 meters. -gavin]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220#comment-8437
Regarding Sea Levels
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 9:05 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
There is no 'dangerous climate change' Pat.
Just the constant alterations to climate that have been in progress constantly, with alteration to 'sea level' included.
There is still no ability of CO2 to produce any effect as you would opinion, and no valid reason to expect a 'greenhouse effect' to be even present.
You need to tell those other isolated sermonisers within the 'realclimate' discussions Pat that the majority of SCIENCE and the general public are tired of the pretentious bullying of their platform of 'doom and woe', with nothing to actually relate their opinions of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' to the actual materials present.
Please read:-
To aid in the defining of 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."] ["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."] ["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, over the past 130,000 years.
This 130,000 year period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point the surface would be highly photosynthetic with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period (with its associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
There is little to make an association with a supposed 'Greenhouse effect' and present observations of melting Polar ice.
There is little to make reasonable any actual expectation OF a 'greenhouse effect' at all in any manner that pays attention to the actual materials being involved and their real behaviors.
Take it 'home' Pat, it is become boresome.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In response to:-
Sea levels
by pat n Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Read the recent guest post on 'Can 2C warming be
avoided' to understand what is actually being claimed, and why some people feel that an increase of another degree or C increases the chances of 'dangerous' climate change. I would point out that the geologic record provides no examples (none!) of CO2 levels as high as today with a Greenland ice sheet and sea levels as low as today. The last time CO2 may have been as high as this (mid Pliocene ~
3 million years ago), sea levels were 20m higher. Even stage 5e, which may have temperatures comparable to projections for mid-century, had sea levels higher by
5 or 6 meters. -gavin]
... "moose are dying in greatest numbers within a year of a very hot summer." ..
by personal
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 4:25 AM
Climate Change - Part 1
By Rick Kupchella, KARE 11 News Twin Cities area
Aired 10:15 PM Feb 7, 2006, (NBC affiliate)
---
Climate Change - Part 1 [Northern Minnesota]
Excerpts:
... "Specifically, these moose are dying from parasites: brain worms and liver flukes. Mark Lenarz with the State Department of Natural Resources says it appeared the parasites "caused those individual moose to starve to death."
Lenarz says that's "really contrary to what parasites are supposed to do." Parasites are not supposed to kill the animal.
In trying to figure out - why - this is happening, scientists have become focused on 'temperature'. Lenarz says, "If you're a moose, and it's the middle of summer, and you're panting, you just have a lot less time for eating." In the end, he says, many of these moose cannot cope with the added stress. Lenarz says the moose are dying in greatest numbers within a year of a very hot summer." ...
---
"Watch Rick's report on Climate Change
Minnesota/western Wisconsin
[Kare11 New Extra, Part 2. 10 PM Feb 8].
More Information on Climate Change
... KARE 11 has assembled a large collection of resources, reports and sound from nearly a dozen experts. To view that page, visit kare11.com/climate
Wednesday night's Extra will look at the factors believed to be contributing to global warming â?? in particular, man-made factors, and what if anything can be done to reverse our impact on the environment. Join us Wednesday at ten." ...
---
http://www.kare11.com/news/investigative/extras/extras_article.aspx?storyid=118105
Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream
by Guardian
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 8:13 AM
The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today.
Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago.
The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously.
The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow.
If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said.
Although climate records suggest that the current has ground to a halt in the distant past, the prospect of it shutting down entirely within the century are extremely low, according to climate modellers.
The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor.
Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current.
The researchers measured the strength of the current at a latitude of 25 degrees N and found that the volume of cold, deep water returning south had dropped by 30%. At the same time, they measured a 30% increase in the amount of surface water peeling off early from the main northward current, suggesting far less was continuing up to Britain and the rest of Europe. The report appears in the journal Nature today.
Disruption of the conveyor-belt current was the basis of the film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicted a world thrown into chaos by a sudden and dramatic drop in temperatures. That scenario was dismissed by researchers as fantasy, because climate models suggest that the current is unlikely to slow so suddenly.
Marec Srokosz of the National Oceanographic Centre said: "The most realistic part of the film is where the climatologists are talking to the politicians and the politicians are saying 'we can't do anything about it'."
Chris West, director of the UK climate impacts programme at Oxford University's centre for the environment, said: "The only way computer models have managed to simulate an entire shutdown of the current is to magic into existence millions of tonnes of fresh water and dump it in the Atlantic. It's not clear where that water could ever come from, even taking into account increased Greenland melting."
Uncertainties in climate change models mean that the overall impact on Britain of a slowing down in the current are hard to pin down. "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters," said Tim Osborn, of the University of East Anglia climatic research unit.
The final impact of any cooling effect will depend on whether it outweighs the global warming that, paradoxically, is driving it. According to climate modellers, the drop in temperature caused by a slowing of the Atlantic current will, in the long term, be swamped by a more general warming of the atmosphere.
"If this was happening in the absence of generally increasing temperatures, I would be concerned," said Dr Smith. Any cooling driven by a weakening of the Atlantic current would probably only slow warming rather than cancel it out all together. Even if a slowdown in the current put the brakes on warming over Britain and parts of Europe, the impact would be felt more extremely elsewhere, he said.
sheesh - the Guardian?
by hardy har har
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 9:03 AM
Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.
A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.
Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?
Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.
The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.
The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
Climate Change More Rapid than Ever
by Max Planck Institute
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology presented on Thursday, September 29, their first model calculations for the future of the climate. According to the calculations, in the next 100 years, the climate will change more than ever. Given particular conditions, it is expected that the sea ice in the North Pole region will completely melt in the summer. Extreme weather events in Europe will increase in frequency and strength.
According to the calculations of scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, over the next century the climate will change more quickly than it ever has in the recent history of the earth. These results come from the latest climate model calculations from the German High Performance Computing Centre for Climate and Earth System Research.
The global temperature could rise by up to four degrees by the end of the century. Because of this warming, the sea level could rise on average by as many as 30 centimeters. The scientists expect that under certain conditions, the sea ice in the arctic will completely melt. In Europe, summers will be drier and warmer, and this will affect agriculture. The winters will become warmer and wetter. Another consequence of the heated atmosphere will be extreme events like heavy precipitation with floods.
"The significant result of these future scenarios is the progressive raising of mean global temperatures and the movement of climate zones in connection with that," says Dr. Erich Roeckner, the project leader of the model calculations in Hamburg. "Almost everywhere on earth, the forestry industry will have to husband different types of trees than it has until now."
In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.
To verify their own climate model calculations, the researchers first simulated the climate of the last century and compared the results with the real climate. "In this way, the theoretical models could be adapted very well to reality," says Professor Jochem Marotzke, the Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.
The results by the climate researchers from Hamburg will be presented in the report from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is developed every five years, on the commission of the WMO, World Meteorological Organisation, and the UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme. The IPCC report is provided to governments as an independent source of information. In total, 1000 scientists worldwide are working on the fourth edition of the progress report, due for release in 2007. The scientists are commissioned by their governments to participate in the comprehensive, independent climate status report.
"The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology is participating in the calculation of the IPCC scenarios with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model that is considered one of the best climate models worldwide," says Dr Guy Brasseur, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and one of the 15 coordinating main authors of the IPCC Report. "As scientists, we want to provide politicians with a decision paper that is as understandable as possible, and from which they can decide which measures ought to be politically implemented as urgently as possible."
In the framework of the international workshop "Future Climate Scenarios and their Use for Impact Studies", scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology presented, on September 29th and 30th, their latest model calculations, and discussed them with colleagues and operators from Germany and abroad. The data and results will be made available, in particular, to research groups that deal with the effects of climate. Those include regional results and the effects on land and sea ecosystems, hydrology, air quality, and socio-economic systems.
Source: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
there can be only one conclusion
by yes, Virginia, the sky is falling
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Pat N. is obviously another mindless copy and paste spammer.
(I'm not a copy and paste spammer, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and if you don't believe me then you're not who I'm talking to).
sheesh - the Max Planck Institute?
by they must be in on the scam
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Planck? Isn't that *foreign* name?
foreign?
by Harry Hay
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 11:43 AM
No, it's what's up your ass.
blah, blah, blah
by back to the subject
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 2:51 PM
So does the Maz Planck Institute know what it's talking about or not? Yes or no?
re: moose dying
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 7:41 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Well it is that this planet IS at a tipping point at the end point of a long warming phase.
AS such those animals most adapted to a cooler climate will suffer a little.
This is also the case in the 'trough' at the other end, when those animals most adapted to warmer climates will in their turn suffer attrition.
This is the usual for the NATURAL climate alterations we see, the only special 'thing' about the present situation is the location within the overall cycle the planetary climate is presently in.
There is still nothing to support any preamble regarding any link of 'emissions' to any climate effect we are observing, or any supposed link of present climate alterations to the perishing of animals.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regardng Gulf stream
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 8:02 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
[“Of all the water on the Earth, only three per cent is fresh water. Two-thirds of this three per cent is locked in polar ice caps, glaciers, the atmosphere and soil. That leaves only one per cent of the Earth's water available for use."]
Perhaps if more SCIENCE was used in the UK, with less media report and hype, the material being issued from that isle would not be so pointless.
The amount of fresh water available at any time would not allow for a statistically significant application of a hypothesis assuming fresh water release could stop current flow by simply lower salinity.
The motion of ocean currents is an action of turbulence, a process of convection. Kinetic energy is added to coastal margin strips by contact with continental land mass and from additions of water from river system outflow that is carrying conducted kinetic energy (that which is measured as 'temperature').
Salinity plays a part in water density and stratification, and can create a potential for water to 'fall laterally' from higher salinity to lower, but the motion would only be driven by the degree of differential in density and any disturbance to the 'gradient' would readily disrupt the 'fall'.
Permanent long distance currents would be unlikely to 'run' on salinity alone.
Salinity can also define 'current banks' just as in a land locked water flow (river).
AS such currents 'push' through water will take the 'easiest path. AS such a drop in salinity would create the opportunity for a current to increase its 'flow' perhaps, or alter its course just as a river might.
A current can also increase its depth, moving below the surface as if in a tunnel, all defined by salinity/density.
But at some point real kinetic energy input is needed to shift the enormous mass of water that is within the flow of an Ocean current.
This kinetic energy is inducted into our biosphere by the planetary surface. Alterations to the conformation, the relative locations of land surface upon the face of the planetary globe along with the materialing covering that surface, will alter the inductance of kinetic energy from interaction with the incident energy of the bombarding Solar Radiation.
That is to say the surface gets warmed and the 'heat' (the measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules of the material) is conducted to the gases of the atmosphere and the contacting waters of Ocean or River system. Then begins the processes of Convection, and production of turbulence.
As such salinity can help define an initial vector for a juvenile current, but it cannot sustain a current of any size, the mass of water has a momentum that WILL require kinetic energy to motivate in a perpetual system, ESPECIALLY over a large distance.
Perhaps if the research was not being made by jounalists and newspapers they would do better....
To reprise:-
To aid in the defining of 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."] ["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."] ["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, over the past 130,000 years.
This 130,000 year period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point the surface would be highly photosynthetic with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period (with its associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
"what volume the 'Planck Institute' would like to claim."
by just wondering
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 8:10 PM
So what are you saying here, that you can refute the Max Planck Institute on this issue? Is that what you're saying? Yes or no?
Regarding "Climate Change More Rapid than Ever"
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 8:10 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Seems the continence of scenarios is the 'go' now after trying to model the reality we face using 'greenhouse concepts' fell well short of being successful.
There is little to worry about, the 'max plonk' and ipcc are only fabricating situations and trying to make them look scary.
They cannot actually make anything that is indicative of the behavior OF the planetary climate we have in reality as they are still attempting to 'fit' the 'greenhouse concepts' to such when there is NOTHING to validate any relationship to reality OF the 'greenhouse concepts'.
If it was at all capable the 'model' would not be making up fabricated 'scenarios' as 'vinaigrettes' to be made into a 'montage' of 'scary futures' with 'runaway greenhouse'.
Seems these institutes have forgotten all about the Ice age oscillation also, infact the 'max plonk/ipcc scientists' seem to have avoided any use of SCIENCE in the contrivance of their scenarios of 'future climate'.
Perhaps that is why they are beginning to be ignored, and why they should continue to be ignored.
Quote:- "The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology is participating in the calculation of the IPCC scenarios with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model that is considered one of the best climate models worldwide," says Dr Guy Brasseur, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and one of the 15 coordinating main authors of the IPCC Report. "As scientists, we want to provide politicians with a decision paper that is as understandable as possible, and from which they can decide which measures ought to be politically implemented as urgently as possible."
Are these the same organisations that attempted to rort that methane was produced by plants, without actually showing plants producing methane above the known decompositional processes?
The only desire by these 'scientists' is to platform a 'greenhouse concept' that was never approved for use, in effect, by SCIENCE, so one does wonder WHAT they are doing, as it is NOT 'science'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding 'what volume'
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 12:19 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
If you are referring to the supposed production of methane by plants 'discovered', you would do well to look at 'how' the situation was 'produced'. There was NO study involving direct observation OF 'plants'.
After decades OF studies involving enclosed plant studies, with input and outputs measured and documented.
After decades of close examination of the bio-structures within and of the photosynthetic organelles AND their chemistry, no large volume as purported was ever noticed.
What was 'produced' was based on numeracy:-
["In our study, we have linked global methane emission estimates to plant growth, which is generally quantified as net primary productivity.."]
Outside of the known production of methane by known decomposition processes, there is still NOTHING to outline HOW in a direct and lucid manner this SUPPOSED production of methane is made.
Most certainly, the claim that the supposed PRODUCTION of methane was 10 to 1000 times that of known decomposition processes output has NOT been verified by DIRECT study OF 'plants'.
There is little to make but 'political grandstanding’ in the statement:-
[“Surprised by the wave of media attention generated by their study, the authors have hastened to add that because these previously unsuspected methane emissions come from a natural source, they are not the culprits in contemporary climate change.”]
-:as the only reason the ‘mention’ was made to the media was to induce this very situation, now it seems there is the role play of ‘the earnest scientists’ still there is only supposition and the (mis)use of ‘estimates’ to present a situation.
All in all just another 'rhetorical platforming' trying to plug gaps in the failing models of 'climate' (the 'Planck Institute' recently (within the last 2 years) had a big expensive computer installed for such did it not? I remember all the rhetoric about 'Super Computer' numbers making more relevant the supposed 'science' within 'climate science'.
The reality of the situation is that the processes of photosynthesis is amongst the most studied process in human history, and the photosynthetic structures within 'plants' amongst the most studied non human 'bio-machinery'.
None have noticed within ALL the decades of DIRECT study any vast presence of METHANE (in the order of 10 to 1000 times especially) outside and above of the known decompositional processes.
Simply reading a rhetorical presentation that is presented in a manner of being 'scientific' by phrase and word, does NOT make the contents of the article SCIENCE regardless of which magazine the article is printed in.
This 'subject' is still very much seen as an attempt to 'fill in' excuse lists titled under 'please explain' memos.
No production path within the plant means that no methane production can be made BY the plant, regardless of how much methane is in the atmosphere, or what volume the "Planck Institute" (or any other institute) would like to claim.
The entire situation is simply being ‘relayed’ again and again, with it seems the 'wagon pushers' trying to claim ‘credibility’ for the 'production' simply due to this relay process making the same story appear in multiple places.
But the report is the same, simply from a number of differing sources, and is still seemingly a speculation attempting to be factualised by repeated mention.
Same as was produced by the 'greenhouse platformers' to attempt to present THAT concept as 'science'.
Your answer is simply, there is NOTHING to refute.
The 'plank researchers' have not done any actual research as yet.
Supposition mentioned many times is only supposition.
I have refuted the claim by the plank institute as it is currently platformed, convenient numeracy is NOT sufficient and NEVER has been in SCIENCE. Hence the three times failure of the GREENHOUSE CONCEPT to be validated within 'SCIENCE'.
No presented production of methane in the volumes they claim has been made, nor has it never been noted in the many closed decades of tests OF the photosynthetic processes as a product, refutation complete.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding attempts to ban vehicle advertising.
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 3:00 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
(See article below for details i respond to.)
The situation is that such silly claims, attempting to ban advertising of cars, is only wasting space with opinion that is far removed from any recognitions of the real needs of the people in meeting the actualities of their day to day lives.
It is also pointless to have 'western green opinionations' sermonising and demonising 'personal transport', as the peoples of the 'developing nations' are embracing personal transport in a very rapid manner.
China is leaving its bicycles against the walls and parking cars beside them, even before you see improvements in life style within other areas, such as improvements to residences and associated facilities, as example.
It is not obsession, but necessity, that produces the requirement for a vehicle.
It would be BETTER if advertising was less concerned with POWER and was more open about ECONOMY and EMMISIONS of the 'new vehicle'. DO not STOP advertising, demand MORE INFORMATION to be made in a more socially aware manner within the advert campaigns.
There is nothing within the use of a motor vehicle that will 'kill of the world'. The doom and gloom merchants need to realise this. Their sad tale has been heard for 20 years. It began with "I 20 years hence' and now, 20 years later, is still leading with 'In 20 years hence..'.
I see the attempt to link 'driving' with 'tobacco' is still being tried. People still smoke, knowing what they do. People drive as they need however, not because they are in a manner physically addicted to driving, you cannot walk miles in any rapid manner. All remediations need to be practical.
The sad thing is that 'Ram Tough' is behind the times. The older cars are the ones that create more air pollution. They are the ones we should be encouraging people to retire to the shed, if they wish to keep them, to be driven on 'club days' only with special registrations. It is environmentally BETTER for more 'newer' vehicles to be in use, buying a NEW-MADE car is thus showing concern for the environment, in a possibly 'perverse' manner.
It needs to be realised that the climate we are presently seeing is NOT due to 'greenhouse' and it is widely known. The comments in this list have established that beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes, social engineering IS very well recognised in many areas, even some that pretend to be 'science'.
The world is always changing, so too is its climate.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
{PS:
The 'climate-change' Yahoo! group is presently closed to new posts, if discussion is sought, i also use the 'powertothepeople' Yahoo! Group:-
powertothepeople@yahoogroups.com
and am in the process of making a Yahoo360 page to contain slides i refer to for simplicity and quiten the more belligerent.}
****************
In response to:-
Coming to Terms With Our Obsessions
Time to ban car commercials?
by Bob Ecker
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file==/chronicle/archive/2006/02/06/ED
GU9GJCDM1.DTL
Social engineering is a concept many Americans naturally abhor,
because it attacks our deeply held freedom, and we have always
believed in doing virtually anything we want. Free-market
capitalists feel this way, and most citizens usually go along for
the ride.
But our country's obsessive consumption of oil to fill the tanks of
our auto-centric culture may eventually kill off the world, and
believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. America, you and I will go down,
too. Our love affair with cars has to change, sooner rather than
later. The hubris of excess (see Hummer) has gotten our society into
a pickle, and it's time to take a novel approach with this problem.
Let's tamp down the future demand side -- to put it another way,
like a diet, we must somehow decrease our appetite. Cars are
wonderful machines, I'll freely admit, and powerful tools that help
us maintain our modern lives. But this obsession has gotten way out
of control and threatens the very air we breathe, the earth beneath
our feet, our overflowing landfills and even the worldwide political
landscape. If every American drove less, kept the same car longer or
thought about cars as a well-being issue, then perhaps we can yet
avert catastrophe.
I suggest looking at a successful model from our past that
effectively tackled a serious societal problem. This drastic
transformation eventually brought about positive social change,
despite the bleating of mega-corporations. I am referring to the
tobacco industry and its cigarette advertising on TV and radio.
Until 1970, U.S. consumers were bombarded by advertisements in all
forms of mass media, including the most popular, television. People
knew that something had to change and lobbied the government hard.
Congress finally passed a law, heavily fought by the tobacco and
broadcasting industries as well as the Nixon administration.
Nonetheless, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 was
signed into law by President Richard Nixon, on April 1, 1970. It
ended cigarette ads on TV and radio forever. When the last cigarette
commercial ran during Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" (an ad for
Virginia Slims) at 11:59 p.m., Jan. 1, 1971, roughly 44 percent of
American men and 31 percent of American women smoked cigarettes,
according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Today, the CDC estimates that those numbers have dropped to 23.7
percent for men and 18.5 percent for women, respectively. The
Tobacco Outlook Report (written in 2005 by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture) calculated that Americans 18 years and older smoked
4,287 cigarettes per capita in 1966 (the highest level in U.S.
history) before the ad ban was enacted. The latest figures from 2004
estimate that number at 1,791 per capita.
Many factors, of course have driven the numbers of U.S. smokers
down, but clearly the omission of smoking ads from the airways made
a large difference. The ban has become a positive development for
our country, managing to change the behavior of many Americans.
I propose creating a similar ban on all automobile-related
television and radio advertising in the United States. I am asking
Congress to take the lead in helping to wean Americans, particularly
the younger generations, off the fixations that glamorize cars.
Getting rid of the TV ads will mitigate the lusting after cars and
the constant purported need to purchase a new one every few years.
"Ram Tough -- I've heard enough!" Most older cars work just fine,
and do not need constant replacement. Our landfills alone can't
handle the millions of pounds of auto junk poured into our earth.
Our continual quest for more and more oil causes problems around the
world, for both humans and the environment. I drive a car and am
happy to do so, but I recognize that people do not need two, three,
or four cars per person. We don't have the room, resources or enough
ozone to support this type of mindless consumption ad infinitum.
A shift is in order. I am not suggesting that cars be made illegal,
or tire shops raided. New and used car dealerships, gas stations,
repair and painting facilities, oil changers, tune-up shops and the
like will still be needed. I'm only suggesting that we start to
alter the emotional as well as economic landscape before it's too
late.
Sure, the auto industry won't like this proposal one bit, and
neither will politicians raising big bucks from oil and auto-
manufacturing lobbyists, but upon reflection, the auto industry
might come around. It won't have to spend billions of dollars on
producing and airing expensive television ads that compete with each
other.
If the world begins to think of cars as, for instance, washing
machines, then we may be on to something. Washing machines are
mighty useful, but aren't lusted after. We don't have Maytag
commercials hitting us over the head every time we turn on the TV,
or listen to the radio. We don't need to see them sliding over slick
roads in super slow motion. Washing machines are important tools
that work well and help us in our daily lives, just like cars.
Though difficult, this type of change is within our power, just as
brave politicians and consumer groups in the late 1960s were
eventually able to pass regulations banning broadcast smoking ads.
My suggestion may be a small step, but it's truly time to think big,
reclaim the airwaves and make a positive difference that will affect
future generations -- for the better.
Bob Ecker, a writer who lives in Napa, is president of Bay Area
Travel Writers.
"the 'max plonk' and ipcc are only fabricating situations"
by just wondering
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 6:25 AM
Let me see if I understand correctly. Are you saying that the Max Planck Institute is lying? Is that what you're saying? If so, why should we believe you and not them? They are are, after all, among the world's most prestigious scientists, while you're just some guy on the internet, who chooses to post his claims on a site well known for not fact checking. Your plausibility is, at best, tenuous. Theirs is renowned. So why should we believe you and not them? Be specific.
and just who are you?
by also wondering
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 8:27 AM
From what I've seen, your plausability doesn't even exist, so who are you to ask?
Regarding the post of 'just wondering'
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 2:54 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
The models described as 'the best' are being used with 'plug in values' to attempt to provide a 'future scenario'. That these models cannot actually be preemptive of the REAL climate makes such fabricated 'scenarios' of little value, and poor correlation, to any expectations of REAL climate. The 'scientists' are attempting to continue to platform a concept that was never validated by SCIENCE due to its numerous flaws in implementation of theory, process and interpretations of the knowledge of SCIENCE.
There is only the constant bragging by platformers that these 'ipcc scientists' are 'prestigious', when nothing these individuals, or those that 'push the wagon', say is remotely linkable to what we are observing in any valid manner and is only repeated endlessly in 'media releases' which we all see 'cut&pasted' with such inglorious monotony.
It is noted again that 'greenhouse wagon' would platform persons rather than SCIENCE to validate its 'collective' opinion. This is indicative of the separation of 'greenhouse science' from the processes of SCIENCE that have existed since the 'greenhouse concepts' where run away from SCIENCE after failing all three validation attempts within the 20th century. The platform beneath 'greenhouse' is now run on a political basis using supposed 'faces' whose 'value' is as contrived as the opinions that emanate from such.
There is no 'fact checking' on the internet and only a few belligerent bullies who would present styled discussions. These few cannot withstand scrutiny of the opinions they would present as 'science' and so belittle those who present the information they are avoiding, as has been seen here in this list being again done.
I come to lists to discuss, that is the purpose of these lists, it is the few who are attempting to produce these lists as being 'learned places' for propaganda purposes, so that the groups the FEW control can be presented and platformed (like the notorious 'realclimate' site) as representing a supposed 'consensus opinion' by pretending there is no other. The 'few' also spend much effort to close, take over, or belittle any list that allows OPEN discussion, again as is being here seen done.
The question the MAJORITY is now asking is 'what are these few afraid off'?
The most concise answer is the 'TRUTH' (see below *).
I do not 'post to a site', I go to sites (like this one) to discuss, my days are spend in the real world challenging the presentations of pretentious platformers of 'greenhouse' such as you might have seen in this list to date.
The plausibility of the 'scientists' you protect is infact tenuous. The 'scientists' you protect still cannot be preemptive of climate after 20 years, and proffer only excuses to explain why. These EXCUSES have included 'insufficient computing services'.
I have infact BEEN preemptive of events, the situation involving New Orleans and 'Katrina' for example I was infact attempting to discuss months ahead.
Pretentious and IGNORANT individuals such as 'just wondering' would protect if not actually praise, some who run the BLOGS you would praise, would not allow such discussion due to a lack of 'greenhouse' science. I have their dated refusals all documented. I was also spending such information to REAL individuals including my own Parliamentary Member amongst others on this matter at the time involved.
I was using only a 'scientific calculator' on my personal PDA and my desktop in conjunction with other individuals, most now retired, some living in Florida I believe.
YOUR belief is your own affair 'just wondering', if you look at the responses in this group YOU would be the minority it seems. You should cease presenting YOURSELF as part of some large group. Realise that the OPINIONS of 'greenhouse scientists' ARE in the minority. There are around 500 MILLION tertiary educated with degree or equivalent qualifications alive today, and MANY use the materials 'greenhouse science' would involve on a DAILY BASIS.
There is no 'closed shop' possible in these matters either and infact it is becoming more obvious that the LAST place you would go to gain knowledge of CLIMATE is the arena of 'climate science' with ANY involvement of 'greenhouse science'.
It is YOUR OPINIONS Sir/Ms 'just wondering' that are out of step with knowledge of SCIENCE. It is YOUR OPINIONS Sir/Ms 'just wondering' that ignore the known behaviors of climate to date.
You seem to not notice the specifics i have already made mention of 'just wondering', few others seem overly perplexed by the issues i have raised.
You seem 'just wondering' to be walking blind with a fleece upon your head praising those who there upon put said fleece with such vigor you are unable to comprehend the voices of the multitudes you walk amongst.
I have nothing to prove, YOU however 'just wondering', HAVE EVERYTHING to prove. THAT is the real situation the 'few' are trying to avoid having noticed, THAT is the TRUTH (*) the 'greenhouse platform' have been trying to keep from the Political AND Public Arena for decades.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
PS:- You will note my trade mark, you can reference this mark on the Australian Intellectual Property Site and gain my postal address and see other associated details. I do not hide behind fake internet identites, the use of which is so common within the 'fraternity' that bullies opinion, and that are used to bolster the 'numbers' of so many of the blogs seemingly praised so monotonoulsy by the 'greenhouse platformers' and 'outriding bullies'.
~
In response to:-
----------------------
"the 'max plonk' and ipcc are only fabricating situations"
by just wondering Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Let me see if I understand correctly. Are you saying that the Max Planck Institute is lying? Is that what you're saying? If so, why should we believe you and not them? They are are, after all, among the world's most prestigious scientists, while you're just some guy on the internet, who chooses to post his claims on a site well known for not fact checking. Your plausibility is, at best, tenuous. Theirs is renowned. So why should we believe you and not them? Be specific.
---------------------
Playtime IS over, it is that the belligerent few have not noticed.
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 3:37 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Amongst those who follow me around attempting to bully and belittle me, it might be remembered my attempts to discuss vortex induction around the rim of the Gulf of Mexico.
This was in association with the known ancient sea channels that dot the coast of Florida up to an including parts of adjacent coast; political boundaries are the more modern initiative, which includes New Orleans.
Realise that the State of Florida is an ancient Lake Land and that multiple breaches of these old sea channels (a single one was breached near New Orleans) would see rapid and total invasion of sea water over vast regions. This salt water would destroy the fertility of soil and result in an expansion of the present coastal 'salt marshes' in place of the inland fresh, which have developed over time as rainfall as diluted original water salt content.
The vortex is generated as part of the motion of planetary climate oscillation (already discussed) towards a 'peak', with the equatorial regions becoming more marginal in surface materialing as 'desertscapes' proliferate within the 'equatorial zone'.
Around the Gulf of Mexico now you have a ring of high kinetic energy inducting material of natural occurrence, AND you have human habitat expanding over the 'most choice' locations present, New Orleans itself being just one example.
The opening in this ring is infact the 'cool' spot to produce the required pressure differential, and the motions of ocean currents will 'select' the direction the overall vortex can produce in. The overall effect is to increase the size of storms within the Gulf by extending the region of air that the available kinetic energy can place into motion.
This is analogous to reducing the drag at the tip of a 'wing' to reduce the bleed of energy from the 'lift' process. Land mass generally slows these winds, now it will enhance the motion.
There is historical precedence for this process as it is tied into the opening OF these ancient Sea channels in a loose cycle.
The situation is that the additions of Human habitat COULD be enough to reproduce events that will see storms physically large enough in REGION to cover sufficient coast to begin opening sea channels along a LENGTH o Western Florida coastline.
'Katrina' only needed to track a few miles to the EAST to produce its effect on New Orleans along hundreds of MILES of western Florida coastline.
I would also point out that these channels have been found on the Eastern Coast of Florida also, and are generally and rapidly BUILD OVER by developers. IT was such a situation that took many HOMES along the coast of New Orleans when the channel was opened.
What I got from the pretentious 'greenhouse platformers' was much belittlement, sermonising and incoherent posturing of 'authoritive knowledge' involving supposed 'greenhouse influences'.
Praise these people as representative of 'prestigious science', there is most certainly many jokes within 'just wondering', if the situation was not so serious STILL.
New Orleans is NOT safe yet.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In response to (in continuence):-
"the 'max plonk' and ipcc are only fabricating situations"
by just wondering Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Let me see if I understand correctly. Are you saying that the Max Planck Institute is lying? Is that what you're saying? If so, why should we believe you and not them? They are are, after all, among the world's most prestigious scientists, while you're just some guy on the internet, who chooses to post his claims on a site well known for not fact checking. Your plausibility is, at best, tenuous. Theirs is renowned. So why should we believe you and not them? Be specific.
reharding the 'blah of heard it all before'
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 4:28 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
It is much easier when the 'people' tp realise once they get to hear the REAL story 'blah blah blah', rather than the rubbish cowardly individuals such as you (being representative of the wagon pushers) attempt to present.
As example, Pat's groups (and those he attempts to praise) are seemingly overpopulated with cut and pastes and ,for instance, the 'climatearchivediscussion' group only has 59 members last i looked, near all the posts, are "C&P's", are by Pat or Mike Neuman, with the other "C&P's" by a slow parade of others. All the newest materials seem to have had representative mentions in this group and ALL have been shot down and shredded due to a lack of valid science beneath the opinions they contain.
Same for that other site 'realcliamte.org' which surprising 'blah blah blah' is just a bunch of pretensious 'wanna be censors of science' attempting to appear knowledgable, just a bunch of 'guys on the internet' infact.
I notice Pat has 'stopped' posting now that it is clear his opinions are not actually being seen as a 'majority' and these silly fake names have began to proliferate.
It is simple 'blah blah blah', you are presenting fictitious opinion based on contrived and fraudulently presented (mis)information so as to perpetuate a false dream as part of a support of a political platform.
Should I call you "Pat" 'blah blah blah' or will you go away?
Pat has already contributed to the continuance of ignorance and might well be considered responsible by many for contributions to the exasperation of the situation within New Orleans (see post "Playtime is over) by considering himself capable of being a 'censor'.
Perhaps the fake names are to avoid the PUBLIC STONING such individuals as Pat deserve and would get if the people of New Orleans for instance KNEW what the 'greenhouse wagon' was doing to them.
Should I call you "Pat" 'blah blah blah' or will you go away?
What do others think of these self styled censors and their outriding cowards?
Peter K. Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod@bigpond.com
In response to:-
_--_--_--_--_--_
blah, blah, blah
by heard it before Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 8:21 PM
So you're saying we should ignore some of the world's most prestigious scientists, and believe some guy on the internet.
That's what I thought. Good luck getting people to go along with it. Don't hold your breath.
"cowardly individuals such as you"
by bunk logic
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 6:24 PM
An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.
It is certainly no reason to believe some guy on the internet and not some of the world's most prestegious scientists.
Regarding 'dunk logic'
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 8:25 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
There is not 'ad hominem' 'bunk logic' and for all WE know you are the same individual who presents also as 'blah blah blah'. The attacks are always directed outwards by the 'greenhouse brigands' and when they get stuck, they simply try to accuse their 'victim'.
The only attempts to avoid discussion have been by Pat it seems under various fake identities, which it seems would include 'bunk logic' perhaps (as he is still 'on the run')?
The cowardly aspect of the 'greenhouse brigands' is that they can never actually point out what is wrong directly and precisely with what the individual they attack is saying, except that the individual is usually pointing out the flaws in the supposed 'greenhouse theory' and attached 'climate change due to a supposed greenhouse effect'.
Already another individual has presented material outlining aspects of the natural climate cycle that is widely known to which it seems these personal attacks on me are indeed intended to alter the topic as rapidly as possible.
The 'scientists' you again praise are not indeed in any manner regarded as 'prestigious'.
The attempt to railroad supposed 'methane production' by plants was pure fabrication, based on convenient numeracy, media releases and 'nudge-wink' repeating of stories by people like Pat, with censorship of comment to make appear some supposed 'consensus of agreement'. There was never any attempt to actually determine plants producing methane as was talkfested, yet it was already being spoken of as 'real'.
Just like the situation that arose around the 'greenhouse concepts', I suppose it was thought 'hey we did it once, we can do it again'.
Next, these 'prestigious' (a new word meaning pretentious perhaps) 'Scientists' cannot actually produce a model OF the present climate that can preempt events; instead they get their 'tinka toys', plug in lots of numbers and produce a scenario that is pure fiction.
Then the bullies demand we all accept the 'interpretations of future' derived from these fictions.
The notion that it is possible to take millions of data points from the last few decades to produce a significant trend of GLOBAL CLIMATE is no better placed in SCIENCE. The period of the study is INSIGNIFICANT to the process being observed, and so all that IS produced is a well defined INSIGNIFICANT period of little relevance and poor correlation TO global climate, which is WHY these 'models' are useless.
It is not SCIENCE, it is certainly not 'prestigious', it is infact 'bunk logic' that is the formalised study of false positives known as 'greenhouse science'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Just to remind the sudden influx of 'bullyboys' of the topic.
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 8:31 PM
hartlod@bigpond,com
Wise up, save the environment, ignore 'greenhouse' platformers.
AS to the present situation, again I will reiterate:-
-----------------
To aid in the defining of 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."] ["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."] ["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, over the past 130,000 years.
This 130,000 year period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point the surface would be highly photosynthetic with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period (with its associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding 'one name'
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 8:39 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
It is that 'Pat' is presented by many of these bullies as 'authoritive' so they are trying hard to preserve the 'facade' so far created.
When it comes down to it, it is the facade that the 'greenhouse platformers' need, it is through such that they peddle the lies you mention 'Authentic Pathological Liar™'.
With out the supposed 'prestigious scientists' and other 'identities', like 'Pat' as one example, there would be nothing to prop up the cart in all the places it gets stuck.
Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
Evangelical group tackles global warming
by wistv.com
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 8:37 AM
National-NBC) February 8, 2006 - A group of 86 evangelical leaders is calling for change. They want the Bush administration to act now to stop climate change. The church leaders say it's the poor who suffer from the effects.
As the federal government is in the process of considering making polar bears an endangered species because of melting habitats, a group of evangelical Christians is taking on global warming.
Wheaton College President Dr. Duane Litfin says, "In some ways the evangelical community has allowed ourselves to have blind spots, and I just think we are rising to that. That's what this is all about."
The group includes pastors and Christian University leaders, all who say climate change and recent natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina that battered the Gulf Coast primarily affect the poor.
New York Divinity school president Paul de Vries draws a direct connection between the group's mission and faith, "However we're treating the world, that's how we're treating Jesus."
Their new ad campaign calls for government requirements for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and research into alternative energy.
Critics like Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute question the science and the costs, "That means suppressing economic activity, and the first people to suffer when economies contract are the poor."
But this call for change represents a significant fissure for the evangelical community, long associated with the Christian right, and many of the movement's most powerful figures refused to sign on.
Tom Minnery is a spokesman for Focus on the Family, "We say there are plenty of organizations that are concerned about it, that are working on it. I wish that evangelicals would be characterized more by the issues that are more clearly defined in the Bible."
But for this group, it is faith, they say, that is calling them to action.
The White House has opposed mandatory restrictions on carbon monoxide emissions, and efforts in Congress have stalled.
www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4474680
no, winter ain't coming
by New Yorker
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 9:49 AM
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=10001#WIN
Expires 5:00 PM EST on February 10, 2006
Statement as of 11:14 AM EST on February 10, 2006
... Blizzard watch remains in effect from Saturday afternoon
through Sunday morning...
A blizzard watch remains in effect from Saturday afternoon
through Sunday morning.
Snow will begin late Saturday afternoon... and become heavy at
times Saturday night. Northeast winds will also increase Saturday
night to 25 to 35 mph with gusts up to 50 mph... causing blizzard
conditions along with considerable blowing and drifting of snow.
By the time the snow ends late Sunday morning... accumulations
should average 8 to 12 inches... with locally higher amounts
possible. The highest totals are most likely to occur in and near
New York City... and across western Long Island.
A blizzard watch means there is a potential for falling and or
blowing snow with strong winds and extremely poor visibilities.
This can lead to whiteout conditions and make travel very
dangerous.
"what's the point"
by good question
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Enquiring minds want to know:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/105604_comment.php#106166
as sent to the Evangelic
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 11:06 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
To aid in the realisation of the lack of veracity of claims attempting to relate CO2 from any source to supposed 'global warming' and 'climate change' I would point out the well documented and widely known material relating to the actual progressive alterations in climate that has lead to the situation the planet is presenting us all at this time.
Perhaps the 'Evangelical Union' should consider if it is being used for propaganda by a few more interested in self perpetuation and promotion than any real social, climate or even environmental concern.
The situation has naught to do with the 'poor and needy', and I have emailed the US congress and white house with this information and more.
Is it that 'humanity' is become so self centered, it even now tries to foist blame upon itself for doing what is the effort and work of another expressed within the Creation? This is only slightly better than making claim to Creation itself.
To aid in considerations of the real defining climates of the oscillation involving an 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."] ["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."] ["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, within the past 130,000 years within an overall oscillation.
This 130,000 year period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point the surface would be highly photosynthetic with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period (with its associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
WE are in a unique situation to observe a climate topple, and all we hear are ignorant platforming of a 'greenhouse concept' that was never approved for use by SCIENCE, failing three times to be validated within the 20th century.
There is nothing in SCIENCE to link any claim relating to a 'greenhouse concept' or a supposed 'greenhouse effect' as even being existent, even down to the level of the actual behaviors of the materials involved.
If you would express interest in emissions, do so in regard to pollution, there is NOTHING to any claim that there is induced 'climate change' due to 'emissions', and this is a FACT.
TO add to the material that is WIDELY known, consider the material offered below, from another correspondent I converse with in various discussion arenas.
What we are seeing IS NATURAL.
The study of 'greenhouse science' is infact a formalised study of FALSE POSITIVES.
There is little place for expressions of belief or faith in this matter, I would hope to inform you of in as polite a manner as possible, unless it is to recognise the natural processes within the Garden we all reside within and upon, and see whose hand has worked these 'things'.
Is it that 'humanity' is become so self centered, it even now tries to foist blame upon itself for doing what is the effort and work of another expressed within the Creation? This is only slightly better than making claim to Creation itself.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Seems to be to...
by Peter K Anderson
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 3:17 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Seems to be that the attempt by 'Pat' to spread his 'material' is come to and end here, perhaps.
That is at least the better to come of the discussion so far.
Onwards to other places.
"Save the environment, ignore greenhouse platformers."
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod@bigpond.com
Just Remember..
by Peter K Anderson
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 4:11 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com
To aid in the realisation of the lack of veracity of claims attempting to relate CO2 from any source to supposed 'global warming' and 'climate change' I would point out the well documented and widely known material relating to the actual progressive alterations in climate that has lead to the situation the planet is presenting us all at this time.
Perhaps the 'Evangelical Union' (as example) should consider if it is being used for propaganda by a few more interested in self perpetuation of position and promotion than any real social, climate or even environmental concern.
The situation we all face has naught to do with the 'poor and needy', and all to do with the realisation the Humanity is but a resident within a Garden that has its own agenda that WE need to heed.
Is it that 'humanity' is become so self centered, it even now tries to foist blame upon itself for doing what is the effort and work of another expressed within the Creation? This is only slightly better than making claim to Creation itself, if one where to invoke religious contemplations.
To aid in considerations of the real defining climates of the oscillation involving an 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
From which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
Then to jump to 'when':-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
-----
With the highlight being:-
-----
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."] ["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."] ["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the inductance rate of kinetic energy by natural rematerialing, within the past 130,000 years within an overall oscillation operating in that time.
This period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which in reference to its 'shape' need not be considered to present a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form.
At the near peak point of the oscillation, the surface would be highly photosynthetic throughout the 'temperate zone' with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, and the associated increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance would be approaching a maximum.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans.
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age'.
We are in a unique situation to observe a climate topple, and all we hear are ignorant platformings of a 'greenhouse concept' that was never 'approved for use' by SCIENCE, failing three times to be validated within the 20th century.
There is nothing in SCIENCE to link any claim relating to a 'greenhouse concept' or a supposed 'greenhouse effect' as even being existent, even down to the level of the actual behaviors of the materials involved.
If you would express interest in emissions, do so in regard to pollution.
What we are seeing IS NATURAL.
The study of 'greenhouse science' is infact a formalised study of FALSE POSITIVES.
There is little place for expressions of belief or faith in this matter.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
the blizzard is MY fault!
by what about Bob
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 8:03 AM
The blood is on my hands! Alack and alas. Woe unto me. I need my shrink.
The real culprit
by Jim Quim and the Whoreroom
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 8:07 AM
It was Bill CLinton's penis.
the real culprit
by quim quaffer
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 10:32 AM
It was a choice he was making. He was killing all our lives.
To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this.
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this:-
To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this:-
It is plain that a few belligerent propagandists, like Pat N, are attempting character assassination due to the paucity of their ability to respond to scrutiny of what they would present.
The number of blogs Pat organises within Yahoo is becoming larger as I find more and more, most filled with only 'cut&pastes' by Pat, but ALL cited as 'references' by Pat N, often also by Mike N who runs many groups in the same manner, with cross citations from each other as 'references'.
At present there seem to be few open groups in Yahoo free of these overbearing individuals and the associated bullying they (and others)seem to think they have some right to produce. They even invent fake identities to support their own comments with more of their own comments. (See below)
I am beginning to be informed of these individual's activities, and am in return naming those groups within Yahoo that are being run as closed blogs, in addition to those these individuals actively promote, mostly their own and often that 'realclimate' site also active in its provisions of hidden censorship.
I am also including these activities in an ongoing presentation to Yahoo to modify the abilities of private individuals to control comment, and even groups, amongst other claims.
I made this mail to those I know to be 'moderators' of groups presently run on the basis of hidden censorship, regardless of at what level of persecution the individual feels their 'rights' extend to.
I would also point out to all these individuals that Yahoo! now has commercial arrangements within Australia for the provisioning of services with major Australian media companies. There is less room for these private individuals now to wriggle everyday behind an already rapidly wobbling "Yahoo Group" (supposedly) "Customer Service" section as less and less can they simply stall argument with mention of a 'usage policy'.
What these few claim in their right, to limit what 'appears' in their group, as being within this 'usage policy' is now an open abuse under Australian Law when it is conducted in the manner it is presently being.
That these few seem to think they have some right to do as Pat N and Gavin have/are indicates how delusional they are in their self regard of their 'correctness'.
I will include in the list the moderators of the 'ClimateConcern' Group, Pat Neuman, Gavin, the moderators of the 'Globalwarming' group (as have open communications), and Mike Neuman, all how have been active in either slander of myself, or the censorship of material for spurious reason, and even direct alterations to material prior to presentation within a group.
This will be again also directed to Yahoo!.
As the extraordinary attitude of the 'globalwarming' group moderators seems to lead them to hid mostly their contacts, I will post to the 'global-warming' group as it is associated to this 'collection' of individuals.
I would also point out that to that group, and the ('Climateconcern' group) that I was attempting to preemptively discuss the situations in and around the Gulf of Mexico with regard to large storm creation, the presence of ancient 'sea channels', and evidence links to past events involving previous conformations of the Florida region as a Lakeland. This is linked to the present situation of the planet being near or within the 'peak oscillation climate' that (will see / has seen) rapid short term fluctuations (as seen in the warming/cooling/warming of the past 100 years), walking of 'seasonal' patterning (based only on human definitions to begin with) along with alteration to rain patterning and ocean current drift.
However the individuals censoring these groups blocked this attempted discussion months before 'Katrina' (which only openned ONE sea channel) occurred with various judgemental rhetoric based within their own lack of knowledge or 'preferred personal opinions'. I have their responses as such there is no point in their proffering denials.
Observing the content of these groups it is also that claims to 'science content' are made as excuse and justification in a spurious manner also, so there is little left except that these individuals cease pretending at being capable of censorship, else being obviously running a 'propaganda ring' based on 'environmental bullying and thugism' to keep their 'opinion mill running'.
I will post this everywhere I find any comment from Pat or Mike Neuman, Gavin or anyone associated in any way with the conduction of any group within Yahoo! until the lack of quality to the Yahoo! service is widely known, as is the veracity of the opinion and behavior of those few involved.
I am being informed more often now of these 'blogging scams' by Pat, amongst others, so there is not much chance of continuing to hide. If it is (as it seems) these few cannot face open discussion and scrutiny in these Yahoo! discussion groups, then there is NO Reason the public should support any use of these groups. It seems one open group has had posting stopped, after an earnest attempt by these few to 'usurp' control of that group, so as to enact censorship.
That WILL be realised by Yahoo! and the material below, seen in one such 'place'
< http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607_comment.php#22753 >
(here)
confirms the 'activities' of these individuals. Gavin has already condoned, by knowingly ignoring criminal harrasement of myself by one Calvin Jones, in association with a group Gavin is/was running. This marks Gavin as a person of as low repute as Calvin. Pat is sliding into the same arena, in common parlance known as the gutter, and they are taking the entire Yahoo! Group structure with them, which is where they will be withdrawn from use.
Or such censorship will cease NOW, along with these slandersous and malicious attacks.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In response to:-
An Axe to grind: 1936 summer heat compared to 2005 by pat n Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 8:53 AM npat1@juno.com (email address validated)
Hartlod is trying to baffle everyone with things he's picked up over the years to throw at people, most of it totally unrelated to real science and real climate. He has an Axe to grind. Watch out!
-----
Hartlod won't argue
by Gavin_pms Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM Gavin_pms@hotmail.com
Is there anyway to win an arguement against blind beligerance. This man, hartlod, is destroying Forums and yahoo pages to the point they are useless. It seems to me that he is using the Fox channel tactic of confusing an issue and muddy it enough and people will lose interest in it.
Is he paid to do it, is it blind beligerance or is it really that he is as thick as his aguements?
-----
"hartlod, is destroying Forums and yahoo pages to the point they are useless."
by no surprise Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM
That's the whole point. In military jargon, it would be called "area denial." It's a tactic, and yeah, he's probably getting paid to do it. Do keep in mind, though, that not all of the trolls who are trying to make Indymedia unusable are on salary. Some are volunteers. In spook jargon thay are known as "sayyanim."
-----
He's been stalking me for years
by pat n Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 9:20 AM
Correction to spelling in previous message.
Peter K. Anderson - most certainly vindicated
by Sharon
Monday, Nov. 30, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The scam of "global warming" was revealed for all time in November of '09. Any liar who still tries to cook the books should be drawn and quartered at high noon and televised to the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
the Emperor's new clothes
by pointer
Tuesday, Dec. 01, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Once a thief, always a thief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails
...Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said...
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)
