community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
An Axe to grind: 1936 summer heat compared to 2005
by pat n
Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 3:54 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!
There is no mystery that temperatures oscillate more in dry air than in humid air. Globally more humid conditions are a signature of a globally greenhouse warmed climate. Cold dry air was existed over large areas of the world during the Pleistocene and most of the Holocene ... up to the 20th century.
The extremely dry air of the 1930s didn't happen in 2005, and won't happen again for millions of years. See the daily highs and lows for Jun-Aug of 1936 compared to Jun-Aug 2005, graphs follow.
The gap between daily highs and lows in 2005 is much narrowed than in 1936. 1936 record high daily temperatures were a result of bone dry air and clear skies. http://climate.umn.edu/doc/twin_cities/mspdewpoint.htm
2005 summer heat was influenced by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Note that the lows in the summer of 2005 were substantially higher than the the lows in 1936 ... hot and humid sleeping conditions.
How do you explain record heat and very low humidity from 1927-1936? I explained that in my comments posted at realclimate.org ... Hartlod was banned by real scientists from posting at realclimate at:
http://www.realclimate.org
To view additional 100 year temperature plots in the Upper Midwest, Great Plains, Northwest and Alaska see:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Summer heat, 1936 compared to 2005
by pat n
Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 3:54 AM
npat1@juno.com
Hot and humid sleeping in 2005.
groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Winter festivities on ice and snow were a flop
by pat n
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 3:53 AM
I'm glad to see that Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod has not found this thread. He's been stocking me for years and has apparently given up, thanks to the help from others here at pittsburgh.indy in pointing out how dumb his arguments on global warming are.
BTW, still no below zero F temperatures at Minneapolis this year, maybe never again. Also, as I said awhile ago, I've abandoned my "Winter not coming" thread. It's a done deal... no winter in 2006 in Minneapolis. The winter festivities on ice and snow were a flop, as I said they'd be. I hope some people heeded what I said and didn't come here looking for winter fun. They'd likely have an Axe to grind with someone if they did.
He's been stalking me for years
by pat n
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 4:21 AM
Correction to spelling in previous message.
We are not the world
by pat n
Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 10:34 AM
We are destroying the world.
There's a choice we're making. We're killing our own lives. ... You can fill in the rest of the lyrics, A.H.
Hartlod won't argue
by Gavin_pms
Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 11:40 AM
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 3:23 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."
Regarding 'Summer Heat'
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 4:02 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
I see Pat that you are still propagandising complete rubbish. As has been mentioned, your fetish for 'temperature' is not able to validate your opinions due to inadequate statistical methods you employ.
One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. Thus you are basing your 'analysis' on an insignificant observed portion of a long term oscillation.
If one observes an actual curve in too fine a detail, one might think that one is looking at a linear plot. This is what you are doing Pat, you have taken a little bit of a curve within an oscillation and made it to be a linear style relationship. If you did not hid and run and simply stood and faced a discussion in Yahoo, along with Gavin, you would not be looking so silly and desperate right now.
What you are deliberately avoiding also Pat is that there has been a noted warming/cooling/warming mini oscillation occurring in global climate since 1880.
1936 fell within the noted 'cool' period Pat, which i am sure you are aware of, which makes you to be seen as deliberately presenting distortions. These distortions seem now to have extended to attempts invovling belittlement of myself.
There is also the motion of human population across the surface in line with population growth, as shown in the plot i include here. The alteration of the surface associated with this increase in population has led to alterations of what would be 'pleasant green terrain' to become covered to various densities in coverage of concrete and asphalt.
WE all know that concrete and asphalt get very much hotter than even grassed terrain, and this has led to the small increase in average SURFACE temperatures observed as 0.6 degrees C.
As mentioned Pat, i have no axe, just the BIG BOOK OF SCIENCE that you seem not to wish to have noticed to you.
Oh, the 'realclimate' sit is still a censored and pretentious site of people simply trying to sound authoritive, which as you agree with them Pat is NOT making them any better sounding due to your obvious inabilities.
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:-
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)
It seems the few are desparate
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 4:43 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Ahh, Gavin is at it again. Not wanting to waste a post, I include a slide of atmospheric interaction with incident solar radiation (above), the value of which will be made clearer in continuing discussions. Now for a short time, we must return to the immediate situation however, as made necessary by the 'Gavin and Pat on the road' side show.
I infact argue so well Gavin that I see you have 'gone on the road' with Pat trying to slander myself and spread complete rot. Just as your opinions Gavin do not withstand scrutiny is not my 'fault'.
AS has been mentioned already Gavin, I am recovering from illness and have been so for a decade, have not worked in any capacity and this has been established beyond doubt. My Trademark on the word 'Hartlod' allows anyone to locate me even to street address on the Australian Intellectual Property site and the identity required to gain a trade mark exceeds that for getting even a passport. Again you deliberately LIE Gavin, but that seems to come easy to those used to dealing in propaganda.
That you run censorship of comment in those Yahoo groups you 'run', as does Pat and the oft mentioned 'realclimate' site, is all that allows you to pretend to be authoritive in any manner. You all simply prevent any comment you cannot deal with. Some have pointed out that there has been attempts to pretend at comments form myself in places that I have made it widely known I am unable to post, like Yahoo! Groups run by Pat or Gavin for example, and the 'realclimate' site.
Nor am I 'destroying forums' Gavin, I simply make comment then when reply to my points becomes obviously 'thin in detail', suppression of such discussion in places outside of 'greenhouse bloggers' control (control allows people like Gavin to simply 'ban' me for no real reason); the 'area denial' tactic is used by people like you Gavin.
Yes, Gavin is describing the 'greenhouse bloggers' tactics whilst attempting to insinuate and infer the use of such tactics by others.
If you could make sense of your opinions Gavin (and Pat) in open discussion you would not need to make these little attacks on myself and run insular and censored blogs presenting misinformation and rumor in a factualised manner.
To relate to the readers here the style of 'discussion' Gavin attempts, the last 'try' he made is below, I would point out that to have open discussion the best group at present seems to be 'powertothepeople' being non-specialised any topic is open.
It is really that neither Gavin nor Pat has any clue as to the conduction of SCIENCE and simply try to play politic within arenas of SCIENCE. These two individuals are suppressing free speech anywhere they can get an audience, and slandering those whose scrutiny of their opinion they cannot otherwise overcome in open discussion.
That is WHY they are here, in these forums, trying their 'area denial' tactics to prevent open and honest debate of the 'material' they demand you all believe. They have also in the past supported themselves often by inventing fake id like 'no surprise' whose 'comments' are theirs and this is done so commonly I no longer would regard 'no surprise" as a separate individual from either Pat or Gavin, or any small number of individuals FROM those blogs run in Yahoo! Groups, so I include that 'material' in my response as it is not worthy of separate consideration.
It is very rapidly looking like the last place one can get free speech and discussion is IN Yahoo! Groups due to people like Pat, Gavin, and a small list of others.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
With regard to, and as made with my reply preceding Gavin's 'comment':-
__________________----------___________________
I have 'Gavin', observed much in relation to the 'methane game', there is nowhere performed any direct observations OF plants.
The numeracy involves 'production' of links to 'average plant growth' and 'methane content' within a computation; this is the basis of method.
This is indeed NOT indicating of plants actually producing Methane.
Over decades hundreds of extended 'closed room atmosphere' experiments have never seen produced any volume of methane such as has been 'talked up'.
The entire 'performance' has been as a pantomime, run in a manner similar to the production of the 'greenhouse platform'.
The 'timing' of the entire pantomime was coincidental to scrutiny of the methods you would proclaim as 'science' "Gavin", being amongst those other articles 'reporting' on 'climate scientists' being 'harassed'.
The situation would indicate that the underpinning consideration OF the 'methane game' was "We got away with it once, we can do it again".
It would seem "Gavin" that whatever you have read was far less of SCIENCE that you would seem to comprehend.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In Response to:-
-----Original Message-----
From: global-warming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:global-warming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gavin_pms
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:04 AM
To: global-warming@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [global-warming] Re: Global warming:-- plants are not to blame
Read Down
HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS. I HAVE. IT IS PRETTY
FULLPROOF. YOU SHOULD STOP READING MEDIA STATEMENTS AND START BASING
YOUR OPINION ON THE SCIENCE THAT UNDERPINS THEM.
__________________-----_________________________
In response to both:-
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."
Regarding Pat and his blogs.
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 5:08 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Slide above:- 'population density (geographical) you see density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN). (Yellow = low density - dark red = high density)
WE have barely 200 years of records and even then for only various portion of the region as it were ‘settled’. On a scale of global climate, even one million data points within those 200 years is only defining well a ‘statistically insignificant period’.
To even attempt to lead from data collections that Pat overplays futures millions of years ahead is simply not SCIENCE. That the attempt to 'support' 'greenhouse concepts' is constantly based in events of hundreds of millions of years ago (with the attached vague vapidity) is evidence of the scant SCIENCE that can be applied NOW related to such 'greenhouse concepts'.
The overall natural climate cycle saw an ‘Ice Age’ being to revert ~20,000 years ago, which occupies the ‘trough’ of the climate oscillation. We are all now at, if not even within, the ‘peak’ of that oscillation. WE have a dry equatorial zone, with a heavily photosynthetic covering of the temperate zone (if you include the photosynthetic mass so far removed by Humanity within the last 400 years) and warming Polar Regions.
There is no reason to think that the motion of the oscillation peak will progress any faster than through a trough (and its often contained “Ice Age”) and so ‘peak oscillation climate fluctuations’ could last multiple centuries.
As such the ‘peak’ will present shifting behaviors, in as far as Humanity defines ‘seasons’ (which need not be considered ‘natural and permanent’ being definitions OF Humanity only) without any needed periodicity in these alterations. Rain patterning will alter its density and distribution. Wind and ocean currents will show some disturbances to various degrees.
These will manifest differing behaviors within regions that are NOT 'global' in scale.
One such region is in and around the Gulf of Mexico, which can at this point within the oscillation, produce storms of vast surface coverage from little more kinetic energy than currently available. These events are those that open the multiple sea channels along the Florida coastline and nearby environs (New Orleans for example has seen ONE open) which produce the 'Lake Land' that the State of Florida region HAS been in the 'past'.
I did attempt to discuss preemptively (before 'Katrina') by a number of months, but persons like Pat and Gavin censored and prevented such discussion in the Yahoo! Groups.
(I can document the censorship so there is little point in continuing these 'slander sessions' of myself either, but that has not stopped these few yet.)
Realise that there has NOT been what can be regarded as permanent Ice on this planet over the last BILLION years, which has seen great periods that have involved cycles of glaciations within them.
The present cycle we are within would appear to have persisted for around 2 MILLION years.
Look to:- < http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ > for information.
The plots of human population reproduce exactly in shape that seen in the numerous 'co2 plots', and it is therefore NOT possible to remove the population attached surface rematerialing produced by the humanity and alterations to planetary surface kinetic energy induction rates. There is then also the inability of CO2 to actually produce behavior that is in any manner consistent with that presented as 'greenhouse behavior' within the supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
I include population density plot above to indicate human habitat, if you overlay plot of marginal terrain (deserts and near deserts), you will see where future population will tend to move, humans do seem to prefer 'green' to build upon.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
NOAA measured CO2 - Mauna Loa Hawaii
by CO2 hothouse
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 6:27 PM
mauna_loa_monthly_mean_carbon_dioxide.jpg, image/jpeg, 950x775
See URL
www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures/co2mm_mlo
Regarding "NOAA measured CO2"
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 9:59 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
..And it has nothing to do with any ability to produce 'climate change'. Notice the plot of Human population growth 'co2 hothouse'. notice the 'shape' similarity to those 'co2 plots'.
The same 'Co2' image is produced by many bloggers, Pat uses it commonly, it is a favourite of those in Yahoo!, but there is never any ability to actual produce a valid reason to suppose CO2 is able to actually produce even a warming effect in any manner from any of those who just like to 'push' a picture.
I am sure the location does however make continuence of the 'research' necessary.
As you do everything to avoid notice of my previous posts 'co2 hothouse' the siutation you face is that your plot of co2 has no direct relevance, to explain it in 'short hand'.
Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
Regarding 'western rhetoric'
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 3:03 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
The article i comment on is listed below.
Justification for use is NOT making use practical and it seems already the attempt to produce a 'new marketing plan' has led to a name change for 'Alternate Energy' to 'Preferred Energy', perhaps to escape the disasters do far produced. Perhaps, if the effort was going into product development rather than rhetoric production...
It seems the '18' companies are not all that major, and all seem dependant on the perpetuation of the 'greenhouse myth' for profit with products mooted as the 'preferred energy provision of the future' (once called alternative energy).
There is much innuendo of a problem from the 'President and CEO' of 'Fuel Cell Canada' but little real reason to consider fuel cells at all practical, or the 'problems' platformed as justification for their use actually evident, that being the supposed 'greenhouse' issue, NOT 'climate alteration' which is a natural process.
As the Japanese have seemingly already moved from electric-fuel cell (having it seems practical drive systems now) to hybrid (announcing new processes to produce bio-fuel oils), by the time the rhetoric spewing 'west' realises what has happened, they will be buying hybrid propulsions from Asia.
All the 'western' based propaganda has done is closed the eyes and minds of the 'western believers'. In the next few decades, if not sooner, 'western attitudes' will be reduced in relevance as population distribution alters the situation of International Politics.
To quote Dr. Michael Pidwirny (slides provided):-
["By 2050, the oldest countries of the world will be Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Thailand, and almost all of Europe. Some other areas of the world affected by ageing will be the United States, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, most of South America, Northern Africa, India, the Caribbean, and some other Asian nations. Africa will be the youngest major area of the world with about twice as many children as elderly."]
["The ageing of the world's population will have several important socioeconomic impacts. Currently, the economic productivity of young people plays an important role in financially supporting a variety of social programs in more developed countries. In the future, this economic productivity will be significantly reduced."]
["Many counties will probably increase retirement age in the future to lower financial payments to pension plans. It is also possible that many countries will have a hard time financing government supported health care programs. A United Nations report (Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?) has suggested that countries experiencing problems due to an ageing population (and population growth rate decline) should adopt policies encouraging replacement migration. Replacement migration can be defined as the international migration that a country would require to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates."]
In short, most 'western nations' with their loud AGING 'activists' demanding 'Kyoto, Kyoto' will simply cease to be relevant to the newer economies of younger and more VIGOROUS nations.
It is TIME that 'corporations' and individuals like John Tak, the President and CEO of Fuel Cell Canada, realise that rhetoric involving 'health' is NOT what they need to be considering, they need to be able to PRODUCE electricity in a viable and practical manner, in the needed quantities, in the next 5 years.
Implementation of 'schemes' to 'adopt fuel cell use' will simply NOT be made if the products under perform, as has been seen in attempts to make LARGE SCALE 'Wind Farms', which leave 'turbine bodies' like abandoned graves all over the USA at present, it seems. Rhetoric is NOT any more able to supply electricity than is opinion.
What these 'global greenhouse warmers' are deliberately avoiding also is that there has been a noted warming/cooling/warming mini oscillation occurring in global climate since 1880. This micro-oscillation has been noted in many comments in many places by many people. One such comment I will add below my post.
There is also the motion of human population across the surface in line with population growth, as shown in the slide I include here. The alteration of the surface associated with this increase in population has led to alterations of what would be 'pleasant green terrain' to become covered to various densities in coverage of concrete and asphalt. WE all know that concrete and asphalt get very much hotter than even grassed terrain, and this has led to the small increase in average SURFACE temperatures observed as 0.6 degrees C.
WE have barely 200 years of records and even then for only various portion of the region as it were ‘settled’. On a scale of global climate, even one million data points within those 200 years is only defining well a ‘statistically insignificant period’. To even attempt to lead from such data collections to 'futures' millions of years ahead is simply not SCIENCE. That the attempt to 'support' 'greenhouse concepts' is constantly based in events of hundreds of millions of years ago (with the attached vague vapidity) is evidence of the scant SCIENCE that can be applied NOW related to such 'greenhouse concepts'.
The overall natural climate cycle saw an ‘Ice Age’ being to revert ~20,000 years ago, which occupies the ‘trough’ of the climate oscillation. We are all now at, if not even within, the ‘peak’ of that oscillation. WE have a dry equatorial zone, with a heavily photosynthetic covering of the temperate zone (if you include the photosynthetic mass so far removed by Humanity within the last 400 years) and warming Polar Regions.
There is no reason to think that the motion of the oscillation peak will progress any faster than through a trough (and its often contained “Ice Age”) and so ‘peak oscillation climate fluctuations’ could last multiple centuries.
As such the ‘peak’ will present shifting behaviors, in as far as Humanity defines ‘seasons’ (which need not be considered ‘natural and permanent’ being definitions OF Humanity only) without any needed periodicity in these alterations. Rain patterning will alter its density and distribution. Wind and ocean currents will show some disturbances to various degrees.
These will manifest differing behaviors within regions that are NOT 'global' in scale. One such region is in and around the Gulf of Mexico, which can at this point within the oscillation, produce storms of vast surface coverage from little more kinetic energy than currently available. These events are those that open the multiple sea channels along the Florida coastline and nearby environs (New Orleans for example has seen ONE open) which produce the 'Lake Land' that the State of Florida region HAS been in the 'past'.
Look to:- < http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ > for more information regarding overall climate.
Realise also that the 0.6 degree rise in average surface temperature so far recorded is infact indicative of the kinetic energy inducted in to surface NOT as yet Conducted into the Atmosphere or Oceans to being actions within the process of Convection.
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:-
-----Original Message-----
From: fuelcell-energy@yahoogroups.com
Fuel Cells In The New Age of 'Preferred Energy'
By EV World
Address by Fuel Cell Canada President and CEO John Tak at the 2005
EDTA Conference and Exhibition
February 14, 2006
"Two weeks ago, Globe Net reported that the heads of 18 major
corporations came forward with a statement urging [then-Canadian]
Prime Minister Paul Martin to develop a long-term climate change plan
that extends beyond the time line of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. This
is the first time that such a large group of executives has publicly
acknowledged and endorsed a corporate role in the reduction of
greenhouse emissions," stated John Tak, the President and CEO of Fuel
Cell Canada at the 2005 conference of the Electric Drive
Transportation Association in Vancouver.
In his 20-minute presentation, Tak, who has held a number of
managerial positions including with the British Columbia Trade and
Development Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation, briefed the
conference attendees on the status of Fuel Cell Canada, with an
emphasis on the drivers of the technology.
He noted that the pace of economic activity worldwide continues to
accelerate, especially with the entry of China and India, but that
we're also "running smack into the simple reality that the world is a
small place and getting smaller."
"More and more, we understand how limited our resources are and how
sensitive our ecosystem is. Economies are being affected, and more
importantly, the negative impact of unrestrained growth on our
natural environment, our future, are profound.
"Consider that in the last hour, the world's population has grown by
almost 10,000 people," he stated. "So far this year, there are 80
million more of us".
Tak introduced the phrase "preferred energy" when talking about what
we've traditionally called "alternative" energy.
"In our business environment, we seek to understand the changes
around us by analyzing what drives these changes, and for alternative
energy, which is now more appropriately called preferred energy, the
drivers are climate change, pollution reduction, energy security,
energy reliability, health costs and innovation-based job creation.
"Climate change is now generally accepted as a fact. People formally
opposed to action on it, are now proponents, he emphasized, pointing
out that heads of major corporations are now calling for government
policies that extend beyond the 2012 terminus of the Kyoto Protocol.
Tak noted that in 2004, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated:
"What is now plain is that the emission of greenhouse gases is
causing global warming at a rate that is alarming and simply
unsustainable in the long term; and by the long term, I mean within
the lifetime of my children, certainly, and possibly within my own.
And by unsustainable, I don't mean a phenomenon causing problems of
adjustment. I mean a challenge so far reaching in its impact and
irreversible in its destructive power that it alters radically human
existence."
Tak went on to tell the conference that Japan recently announced its
plan to completely eliminate, as a nation, all carbon dioxide
emissions by 2100.
"Under their New Energy Technology Vision plan, the Japanese aim to
reduce emissions of CO2 by automobiles and homes to zero".
He sees this is auguring well for the hydrogen fuel cell industry.
On the topic of energy security, he stated, "Global energy demand is
now 50 percent higher than it was only 20 years ago; and will likely
increase over 50 percent between now and 2030."
"Let me put that into context. It is projected that by 2030, China
will need 95 million barrels of oil a day. Today, the whole world
consumes 85 million.
"Urgent action is required to reduce consumption of oil, however, our
enormous dependence on oil and the good service that oil has provided
won't allow this to happen quickly. We will continue using oil, but
must reduce its impact and seek to develop a diversity of alternative
supplies."
Tak used this statement to segue into the need, initially, to create
hydrogen from fossil fuel sources like natural gas. "However, the
efficiency of a fuel cell reduces both consumption and emissions," he
noted. "In this way, fuel cells are a critical stepping stone on our
path away from high carbon fuels to low carbon fuels, and eventually
on to zero-carbon fuels."
On the point of energy reliability, he reminded everyone of the
impact the 2005 hurricane season had on U.S. energy production,
forcing the federal government to make use of its Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. The shut down of America's centralized energy processing
facilities along the Gulf Coast underscored the need to de-centralize
and diversify its energy system.
Quoting Michael Cleland, the President of the Canadian Gas
Association, Tak said, "If there is a magic bullet, it would be
diversity of energy sources; no single source is going to solve the
growing energy gap between energy supplies and demand in a
sustainable fashion."
Shifting his attention to the health drivers, Tak observed that "the
cost impact is so significant that even a 10 percent reduction of
North America's accelerating health budget, already in the 100s of
billions of dollars, would free up capital to reduce deficits or to
apply to new investments, to say nothing of the productivity from a
healthier workforce.
"China's pollution problem is so severe that many worry that it alone
may halt economic growth." He added that the U.S. and Canada also
face similar challenges and wondered why these costs aren't included
in the price of oil-based fuel.
"All this cements the fact that we have to make a major shift in the
way we produce and consume energy, and that leads me to electric
drive trains…"
You can listen all of Mr. Tak's address in which he discusses the
roled Fuel Cell Canada is playing in helping drive development of
this technology. You can download the 5MB file to your computer hard
drive for playback on your favorite MP3 device or play it from this
page using the Flash-based MP3 player in the right-hand column .
EV World expresses its appreciation to the EDTA for granting use
permission to record this and other presentations during the 2005
conference.
END STORY
To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this.
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 6:00 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
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.
a lot of hype but no REAL PROOF!
by Dr. Jones
Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 12:08 AM
a lot of colorful charts, these will entertain the lower IQ's that reside here but you have yet to add any real proof of your statements
Regarding "a lot of hype but no REAL PROOF!"
by Peter K Anderson
Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 6:20 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Strange, previously the insinuations involved not supplying slides or other material, now U.N. information is only some 'colorful charts'.
As they say 'Dr' (Tim is it, another belligerent Yahoo Blogger and self promoter) the proof is in the pudding, and I see no attempt by you to make specific comment.
Realise also Tim I have been attempting to discuss PREEMPTIVELY events, that is BEFORE things happen, which is what VALID SCIENCE and STATISTICAL process allows. I have replies from Ken and Ross showing such with the usual pretentious rhetoric of opinions of science.
Just as YOU and Pat try to belittle me, and with some few others block (and/or edit) my posts, harass those who allow open discussion and try to fill such discussion with persistent interruption, means ONLY that such are NOT made within Yahoo in your knowledge, NOT that they are not being made there or elsewhere.
There is not much to be said for you comments "Dr" in any manner, so I will direct you to mine.
"Procrastination on climate change", really!
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312#comment-184
It is reasonable and easy to realise that there cannot be a 'greenhouse effect' of any kind, 'simple or enhanced'.
See for as reasonable a rendering as I can make without 'unpleasant detail' that simply garners claims of me making 'confusing complications':-
To give a run down of the attitude seen by some within the 'climate change community' in more general terms, I include here a brief of the specific effect of the "Gulf of Mexico" concerning New Orleans.
At this point, being near or even within the oscillation peak (with the known warming/cooling/warming fluctuations of the last 100 years), the surface would be highly covered within photosynthetic mass through the ‘temperate zone’ with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period being associated with a near maximum of the overall increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance. This is the conformation of natural surface materialing we observe now.
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', and this "Peak Oscillation Climate Fluctuation" could readily be expected to progress for several centuries.
The ecological costs incurred by Katrina are as nature has wrought, at 'peak oscillation' large storms HAVE occurred in the past, opened MANY of the ancient storm channels that Katrina managed only ONE of and made the STATE of Florida the Ancient Lake Land it has been in the PAST.
I would attempt to describe the process for you here in a manner you might all comprehend.
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) we 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 a 'desert-scape' proliferates within the 'equatorial zone'. Realise the our 'cities', those 'Concrete Jungles' are presenting more like an expanding 'Concrete DESERT', marching over the few green fields humanity has so far left.
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 'choicest' 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.
The air around the 'Gulf' is already 'rising' due to convection, away from the surface. When a storm system forms within the 'Gulf' within this confining situation, that 'rising air' is induced to take on a vector that effectively produces a 'lateral fall' of air around the 'Gulf ring'. With the 'cool spot' being the beak in the 'Gulf ring' you then have the opportunity for this lateral fall to start being a motion INDEPENDENT of the developing storm system forming.
This can induce the contained storm system to expand in surface coverage as energy bleed induced by 'drag' at the 'new' storm system's periphery is reduced. This is analogous to reducing the drag at the tip of a 'wing' to reduce the bleed of energy from the 'lift' process inducing 'flight'. 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 around the "Gulf ring' 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 of Western Florida coastline.
'Katrina' only needed to track a few miles to the EAST to produce its effect on New Orleans, from mainly ONE sea channel, along hundreds of MILES of western Florida coastline and multiple channels.
I would also point out that these channels have been found on the Eastern Coast of Florida also, and are generally and rapidly BUILT OVER by developers. IT was such a situation that took many HOMES along the coast of New Orleans when the channel was opened. I wonder if more levees have been built on these other old and ancient sea channels openings.
New Orleans is NOT safe yet, but not in any manner is the City threatened by a 'greenhouse effect' however.
BY the development of the environs OF the Gulf of Mexico is the opportunity to see the Great Lakes of Florida revisited increased, this is the 'danger'. BY simply BUILDING in the WRONG place at the WRONG time, New Orleans places ITSELF in danger, and it is NOT alone there.
The issue to consider is that the 'Peak Oscillation Climate Fluctuations' could continue for a few more centuries, seemingly already having been obvious for over one century already, and Humanity is about to go into a second great surface expansion with a new rush of rematerialing of 'green space' to 'concrete and asphalt'. (See above)
Attempts to discuss this PREEMPTIVELY (i.e. before the event of "Katrina") by a few months, where met by sermonising and posturing of 'authoritive knowledge' involving supposed 'greenhouse influences', and censorship of comment, prevention of continuance of discussion, harassment of myself and those providing the 'place' for such discussion. It is NOT Corporation or Government involved as a 'greenhouse mafia', it is the few within the 'greenhouse brigades', those 'belligerent believers' of their own 'moral correctness', but totally ignorant of their real lack of SCIENCE.
20 years ago, global warming was platformed on a basis of 'doom and woe in 20 years time', not it IS 20 years later and still the 'doom and woe' is 2 decades away.
"Procrastination on climate change", really! Climate change has never ceased, will not cease, it is not procrastination the 'few' observe; the Majority are simply getting weary of listening to the 'merchants of greenhouse doom'.
After 20 years, this is very natural, just like climate change, and New Orleans has decades to wait whilst more land is recovered in concrete.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
{P.S. Is this too complex for you 'Dr'? I can not simplify much more and remain properly descriptive, and many do understand what I am mentioning, and realise the reasons for your defensive pomposity, these being contained in:- ["Attempts to discuss this PREEMPTIVELY (i.e. before the event of "Katrina") by a few months, where met by sermonising and posturing of 'authoritive knowledge' involving supposed 'greenhouse influences', and censorship of comment, prevention of continuance of discussion, harassment of myself and those providing the 'place' for such discussion. It is NOT Corporation or Government involved as a 'greenhouse mafia', it is the few within the 'greenhouse brigades', those 'belligerent believers' of their own 'moral correctness', but totally ignorant of their real lack of SCIENCE."]}
I would wonder if this is Tim Jones (the 'old mud slogger' is it?), another of the belligerent bloggers from Yahoo with little obvious idea of science in there agreement with Pat, shown in all the 521 places Pat has blogged his 'temperature plots' that I can be bothered to find to date, with all those presenting cross links to 'Pats Yahoo Blogs' or 'Mike T Neuman's Yahoo Blogs' as reference, there in contained. Simply as you like to call each other 'scientists' Tim does not make you such.
In response to very little from 'Dr Jones':-
"a lot of hype but no REAL PROOF!"
by Dr. Jones Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 5:08 AM
a lot of colorful charts, these will entertain the lower IQ's that reside here but you have yet to add any real proof of your statements
Rapid warming in the Arctic
by pat n
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 6:17 AM
Regarding Pat and 'ice melting' once more.
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Hartlod@bigpond.com
Just to keep it simple to understand Pat, your '5 year moving average' plots for 1950 (the decade that 'greenhouse science' split from SCIENCE along with the validated method of SCIENCE) to now ignores ALL other pertinent knowledge of the period AND valid statistical process.
You might be able to add up Pat, but you need also to realise that the numbers you produce do NOT have any statistical credibility. You might produce a proper 'running average, but that does not make that production validly correlated to the process you claim to study. You look at a long cycle from within too short a period and have produced a 'tangential solution' in a (possibly) 'non-linear' function.
The '0.6 degree rise is in average surface temperature' is related to alterations to the materials presented on the surface by Human constructions in a much more direct manner with combination of the realised position the planetary climate is in with regard to the long term oscillation known to exist.
See
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for explanation.
You are following a generated false positive Pat, related to some supposed 'function' to base a 'model' on and simply are adding ongoing numeracy now to the inadequate function you would seemingly bully as being correct.
At this point, being near or even within the oscillation peak (with the known warming/cooling/warming fluctuations of the last 100 years, see below), the surface would be highly covered within photosynthetic mass through the ‘temperate zone’ with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period being associated with a near maximum of the overall increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance. This is the conformation of natural surface materialing we observe now.
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', and this "Peak Oscillation Climate Fluctuation" could readily be expected to progress for several centuries.
The ecological costs incurred by Katrina are as nature has wrought, at 'peak oscillation' large storms HAVE occurred in the past, opened MANY of the ancient storm channels that Katrina managed only ONE of and made the STATE of Florida the Ancient Lake Land it has been in the PAST. I would attempt to describe the process for you here in a manner you might all comprehend.
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) we 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 a 'desert-scape' proliferates within the 'equatorial zone'. Realise the our 'cities', those 'Concrete Jungles' are presenting more like an expanding 'Concrete DESERT', marching over the few green fields humanity has so far left.
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 'choicest' 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.
The air around the 'Gulf' is already 'rising' due to convection, away from the surface. When a storm system forms within the 'Gulf' within this confining situation, that 'rising air' is induced to take on a vector that effectively produces a 'lateral fall' of air around the 'Gulf ring'. With the 'cool spot' being the beak in the 'Gulf ring' you then have the opportunity for this lateral fall to start being a motion INDEPENDENT of the developing storm system forming.
This can induce the contained storm system to expand in surface coverage as energy bleed induced by 'drag' at the 'new' storm system's periphery is reduced. This is analogous to reducing the drag at the tip of a 'wing' to reduce the bleed of energy from the 'lift' process inducing 'flight'. 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 around the "Gulf ring' 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 of Western Florida coastline.
'Katrina' only needed to track a few miles to the EAST to produce its effect on New Orleans, from mainly ONE sea channel, along hundreds of MILES of western Florida coastline and multiple channels.
I would also point out that these channels have been found on the Eastern Coast of Florida also, and are generally and rapidly BUILT OVER by developers. IT was such a situation that took many HOMES along the coast of New Orleans when the channel was opened. I wonder if more levees have been built on these other old and ancient sea channels openings.
New Orleans is NOT safe yet, but not in any manner is the City threatened by a 'greenhouse effect' however. By the development of the environs OF the Gulf of Mexico is the opportunity to see the Great Lakes of Florida revisited increased, this is the 'danger'. BY simply BUILDING in the WRONG place at the WRONG time, New Orleans places ITSELF in danger, and it is NOT alone there.
The issue to consider is that the 'Peak Oscillation Climate Fluctuations' could continue for a few more centuries, seemingly already having been obvious for over one century already, and Humanity is about to go into a second great surface expansion with a new rush of rematerialing of 'green space' to 'concrete and asphalt'. (See above)
Your methodology is completely inadequate Pat, the treatment of these 'temperature plots' ignores valid statistical knowledge as to the ability to realise a long term process in the manner you attempt, from short term data.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
With regard to other common knowledge:-
--------------------
'A chronology of climate change'
.
.
.
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 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 causes of this period of warming are unknown.
-----
Photo - see link to ClimateArchive
by See photo
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 4:35 PM
Go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/2816
When will Pat realise?
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:09 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Still do not understand do you Pat. A 'picture' might be worth a 'thousand words', it is that they do NOT need to be TRUE, or even just honestly produced. Your temperature plots are irrelevant to any SCIENCE that can discern unnatural modulation of the long term oscillatory processes of the Planetary Climate.
You look at 'a few seconds' in relative time and try to promote your 'knowledge' as being of the 'Planetary Climate'.
To quote from a link I have given often enough:-
["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."]
["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."] ***
The waveform does not need to be considered uniformly periodic; it need not be considered a 'pure harmonic form' like a sinusoidal wave might appear.
It WILL have a base 'carrier wave' with overlaying sub harmonics producing (from interaction with 'secondary' oscillators) an 'interference pattern' that wobbles along the path of the basal form, which is it self produced in the interaction of 'primary' oscillators.
If you try to remember Pat you will recall I was speaking YEARS ago about analytical forms involved in 'unraveling' complex process involving 'time series' statistical analytical forms to produce 'output' of the function DRIVING the process observed, NOT trying to 'predict' that process from an 'approximation'.
That is Pat; I 'won' on 'slot machines' I in Las Vega on my only trip there, for a CES show) not by predicting the 'window' combination, but the seeded formula that was driving the production. It was that new seeds only got generated on a 'reset'.
If I was not so HONEST I could have made a lot of money.
I am NOT talking from BELOW where you opinion YOURSELF Pat to be placed, I am trying HARD not to talk DOWN to YOU.
All you do Pat is plaster the internet with repeated and pointless rhetoric and images, trying to foster BELIEF in your 'supported 'opinion' and in your own 'expertise'. Yet you Pat squirm incessantly when your platformed 'opinion' is challenged with scrutiny of its underlying METHOD and can only respond to such scrutiny with more rhetoric and pictures.
Bulk is NOT making your opinion any more valid Pat when it is ALL produced within the same erroneous methods AND inferences.
Do you KNOW what a false positive IS even Pat? The BELIEF that CO2 can produce a warming effect is NOT based in valid SCIENCE Pat, never has been. It was RUN AWAY from SCIENCE as a FAILURE after 3 attempts to gain validation.
See < http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 >
You are simply Pat seemingly trained within an indoctrinated belief system, you Pat behave in a disassociate manner, display NO understanding and even comprehension of WHAT you do wrong and REFUSE to discuss anything relying instead 'at him' attacks in place of discussion.
It is certainly such Cognitive Dissonance that is produced in response to the indoctrination of belief in a concept of 'greenhouse warming' concepts and it clearly produces irrational aggression in those who consider the 'belief' to be threatened.
Oil is no only used for fuel, apart from eating it, Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil' derivatives for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise, yet the 'greenhouse platform' has people espousing 'bike riding' whilst wearing neoprene clothing and using 'rubber' (not made in natural form since the ~1940-50's) tyres!
As the basis of the formation of Cognitive Dissonance in any population, the initial step is to produce 'experts', 'talking heads' whose 'fame' is more by constant mention than ability or deed. These 'experts' produce scenarios of 'danger, doom and woe' is their words are not heeded. Anti Communist sentiments where garnered in the 1950s USA, with the institutionalisation of processes to combat 'dangerous communism and its practitioners'.
The internet is good at allowing such activity, hence the number of inconspicuously censored sites where unwanted comment is removed, accompanied by ridicule of the author, as the censorship cannot be justified simply by quotation of the 'belief' system platformed.
Today there are many arenas where Cognitive Dissonance is displayed, and the use of the MASS MEDIA is at the root of it all.
Let it be known that the 'climatearchivediscusion' Yahoo! group is a vehicle for Pat's self promotion, not a place ofr open and free discussion.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
With regard to other common knowledge:-
--------------------
'A chronology of climate change'
.
.
.
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 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 causes of this period of warming are unknown.
With Regard to "Ancient Climate Studies"
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 10:25 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
55 MILLION years ago, the expert CLAIAMS intimate knowledge of supposed EVENTS 55 MILLION YEARS ago.
ON top of this there is still not been produced a VALID indication of how the supposed 'greenhouse effect', at the BASE of all the 'expert' SUPPOSITION (i.e. estimated guess work), can produce a WARMING EFFECT in any manner.
Pat, do YOU understand the concept of CONVIENIENT NUMERACY?
It seems assumption are that 'weathering' is only made in chemical manners, CO2 might be 'consumed', but kinetic activity also dissipates energy in weathering also. This reduces the kinetic energy load of the atmosphere and so 'COOLS' such by reducing the residual kinetic energy able to be measured as 'temperature' by producing material deformation of the surface.
It seems CO2 is only 'gone' when it reaches the 'sea floor'. A slow and convenient assumption for the 'reports' needs.
Infact, near all the supposition of 'ancient times' with any greenhouse platform spin seem embedded in chemical concerns.
Then you read that warmer water will release gases. IS it not that warmer water (especially) will increase the ability of the liquid to solute gases? PLUS methane has only a LIMITED solubility to begin with.
Quote:-
["METHANE:- Methane is a colorless, odorless gas with a wide distribution in nature. It is the principal component of natural gas, a mixture containing about 75% CH4, 15% ethane (C2H6), and 5% other hydrocarbons, such as propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). The "firedamp" of coal mines is chiefly methane. Anaerobic bacterial decomposition of plant and animal matter, such as occurs under water, produces marsh gas, which is also methane. At room temperature, methane is a gas less dense than air. It melts at –183°C and boils at –164°C. It is not very soluble in water. Methane is combustible, and mixtures of about 5 to 15 percent in air are explosive.."]
Why is it assumed the Methane was released? Why form the ocean floor? Why is it assumed to be in vast quantities?
How was the 'methane' retained in the ocean floor?
It is not very soluble to begin with, was it produced?
If so would not this production, if by organism, be preserved in the ocean floor composed ["mainly of clay and the carbonate shells of Microplankton"]?
Would it not be feasible that deep sea bacteria are responsible for the consumption of carbonates? WE see many life forms in deep sea communities already with totally differing biochemistry.**
Why would CH4 react with soluted O2 with some assumed rate in deep water of 55 Million years ago? What O2 content was assumed to facilitate this 'conversion'?
O2 content drops away as you are removed form the photosynthesis of the surface? Reread **. What if a bacterium needed O2 and removed such from CO2 and produced CH4? Perhaps this was based in silicon based biology?
This from just reading the 'article' Pat, I do not think I have the time to disassemble the real report. There are so many assumptions you could build a chain from 'here to the moon and back' and still not get them all.
There is thus also doubt as to the 'findings' of the 'geochemists' involved in these 'carbon studies' if their findings are agreeing with this 'concept', perhaps there is over use of supposition in the 'science' implemented in the chemistry of the 'geochemistry' works also.
What the 'global greenhouse warmers' still have not done is show HOW CO2 can warm the atmosphere, they have failed THREE Times already and so now simply try to talk as IF they have done so.
Published in 'Science' (seems to be the 'greenhouse magazine' to cite) with findings presented at the annual meeting of the 'American Association for the Advancement of Science', another imposingly named 'society' where the 'closed shop' parades for the 'greenhouse' platform so often appear, as to add 'face' and another citable 'event'?
The overwhelming reaction to this 'report' would be best muffled with a cough by those how would look beneath the hoopla, raza and mataz. But then those are the people the 'greenhouse scientists' ran from so many years ago.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
With Regard to:-
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
by Staff Writers
Santa Cruz CA (SPX) Feb 16, 2006
Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times
faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme
global warming in the Earth's past, according to an expert on
ancient climates.
"The emissions that caused this past episode of global warming
probably lasted 10,000 years. By burning fossil fuels, we are likely
to emit the same amount over the next three centuries," said James
Zachos, professor of Earth sciences at the University of California,
Santa Cruz.
Zachos will present his findings this week at the annual meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in
St. Louis. He is a leading expert on the episode of global warming
known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when global
temperatures shot up by 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit).
This abrupt shift in the Earth's climate took place 55 million years
ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch as the result of a massive
release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of two greenhouse
gases: methane and carbon dioxide.
Previous estimates put the amount of released carbon at 2 trillion
tons, but Zachos showed that more than twice that amount--about 4.5
trillion tons--entered the atmosphere over a period of 10,000 years
(Science, June 10, 2005). If present trends continue, this is the
same amount of carbon that industries and automobiles will emit
during the next 300 years, Zachos said.
Once the carbon is released into the atmosphere, it takes a long
time for natural mechanisms, such as ocean absorption and rock
weathering, to remove excess carbon from the air and store it in the
soil and marine sediments. Weathering of land rocks removes carbon
dioxide permanently from the air, but is a slow process requiring
tens of thousands of years. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide much
more rapidly, but only to a point. The gas first dissolves in the
thin surface layer of the ocean, but this surface layer quickly
becomes saturated and its ability to absorb more carbon dioxide
declines.
Only mixing with the deeper layers can help restore the ability of
the surface water to absorb additional carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. But the natural processes that mix and circulate water
between the ocean surface and deeper ocean layers work very slowly.
A complete "mixing cycle" takes about 500 to 1,000 years, Zachos
said.
The greenhouse emissions that triggered the PETM initially exceeded
the ocean's absorption capacity, allowing carbon to accumulate in
the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans appear to be adding carbon
dioxide to the air at a much faster rate: about the same amount of
carbon (4.5 trillion tons), but within a few centuries instead of
10,000 years. What was emitted 55 million years ago over a period of
about 20 ocean mixing cycles is now being emitted over a fraction of
a cycle.
"The rate at which the ocean is absorbing carbon will soon
decrease," Zachos said.
Compounding this concern is the possibility that higher temperatures
could retard ocean mixing, further reducing the ocean's capacity to
absorb carbon dioxide. This could have the kind of "positive
feedback" effect that climate researchers worry about: reduced
absorption, leaving more carbon dioxide in the air, causing more
warming.
Higher ocean temperatures could also slowly release massive
quantities of methane that now lie frozen in marine deposits. A
greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, methane in
the atmosphere would accelerate global warming even further.
Such positive feedback or "threshold" effects probably drove global
warming during the PETM and a few other ancient climate extremes,
Zachos said, and they could happen again. It is possible that we
already are in the early stages of a similar climate shift, he said.
"Records of past climate change show that change starts slowly and
then accelerates," he said. "The system crosses some kind of
threshold."
Clues to what happened during the PETM lie buried deep inside the
sediment at the bottom of the sea, which Zachos and his colleagues
have probed during several cruises of the Ocean Drilling Program
(ODP). Composed mainly of clay and the carbonate shells of
microplankton, this sediment accumulates slowly, but steadily--up to
2 centimeters every millennium--and faithfully records changes in
ocean chemistry. The layer of sediment deposited during the PETM,
now buried hundreds of meters below the seafloor, tells a clear and
compelling story of sudden change and slow recovery, he said.
During the PETM, unknown factors released vast quantities of methane
that had been lying frozen in sediment deposits on the ocean floor.
After release, most of the methane reacted with dissolved oxygen to
form carbon dioxide, which made the seawater more acidic. Acidic
seawater corrodes the carbonate shells of microplankton, dissolving
them before they can reach the ocean floor and reducing the
carbonate content of marine sediment.
Zachos led an international team of scientists that analyzed
sediment cores recovered from several locations during an ODP cruise
in the southeastern Atlantic. Collected at depths ranging from 2.5
to 4.8 kilometers (1.6 to 3.0 miles), each sediment core bore a
telltale PETM imprint: a 10- to 30-centimeter layer of dark red
carbonate-free clay sandwiched between bright white carbonate-rich
layers.
by relating the thickness of the clay layer to the rate of
accumulation of marine sediment, Zachos estimated that it took
100,000 years after the PETM for carbon dioxide levels in the air
and water to return to normal. This finding is consistent with what
geochemists have predicted using models of how the global carbon
cycle will respond to carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of
fossil fuels.
"We set out to test the hypotheses put forward by a small group of
geochemists who model the global carbon cycle, and our findings
support their predictions," Zachos said. "It will take tens of
thousands of years before atmospheric carbon dioxide comes down to
preindustrial levels. Even after humans stop burning fossil fuels,
the effects will be long lasting."
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Ear
th_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
The Gavin and Pat show, an update.
by Peter K Anderson
Saturday, Feb. 25, 2006 at 6:13 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Of course Gavin you support Pat, along with censorship (which you attempt to cite as 'banning'), to enable the styling of discussion to misrepresent reality to suit your political platform. It is also the 'realclimate.org' is a censored blog, I having only attempted to make one post; it is obvious that the site is only trying to present styled discussion so as to look as open. Again it can only be another worthless site added to those others Pat runs, as simply agreeing with Pat's method is enough to remove ALL credibility for any persons stating such an agreement, Gavin, or any group of people, also, Gavin.
I do not 'cut&paste' Gavin, you again lie and misrepresent, as I only reuse material I have already typed, as I am a poor typist. The entire effort to miscast the 'climate-change' group is another lie from you Gavin, the time stamps indicate a posting habit that is not at all as you would attempt to allude to Gavin, another form of lying you have developed and rely on it seems as you are seemingly otherwise incapable. Harassment has led the individual to suspend the group the present also, another blow to free speech.
If you had studied Gavin, you would realise I quote material you should know already, so to being a liar, you are also ignorant Gavin. This material is generally termed 'common knowledge' due to its utilitarian nature. Hence my references to 'get you to a library' Gavin (and others). Perhaps my level of common knowledge is of a higher level than yours Gavin, but I have no obligation to educate you.
So, with no display of suitable academic knowledge, you Gavin (and 'Pat N') attempted to start a little 'hate hartlod campaign' which fizzled, firstly as I needed to be told you had gone to the trouble, and when obviously when you both 'ran for the hills' once it was seen you cannot actually defend you opinions and misrepresentations under scrutiny, with a display of total 'academic cowardice', as seen in sessions like
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607.php or http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/22241.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22524.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/17575.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/18014.php and
http://hm.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/10410/index.php
just to show a few.
However I was INFORMED of this pathetic slandering and I went, read, spoke and 'whipped you to shreds' with only SCIENCE. The 'few' you are part of (and hence 'support') Gavin are PRETENDERS to knowledge; they have but NOTHING to support themselves in open discussion so try to CLOSE DOWN such. Now that I look back, I see some of the links at the base of some of Pat's posts. Was there an attempt to 'trap' me into commenting? Was I too slow to notice so a 'friendly and anonymous notice' was sent?
Once this 'behavior was highlighted to myself, I looked a little into the situation.
I would point out that 'Pat N' has BLOGGED these styled 'plots of temperature' in over 500 threads. on various sites, that I have so far found. That is ONLY under a similar TITLE, and suggests seriousness in Pat's dissemination of PROPAGANDA, being beyond 'discussion', with an attached attempt to produce an aspect of self image of and for himself, and by referencing other 'Yahoo identities' within the 'few', supposed 'creditability' for the entire 'few'.
To further explain the actions within the photonic cascade a little more, and stop noticing 'Pat's Plots' for a moment, I would add to the linked material at:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
-----
Realise that CO2 has in close proximity 3 large 'positive polarities' as nodal centres.
The nodal centres of CO2 will prefer to move apart further, it is only the covalent bonding that produces CO2 with any permanence. Energy interaction with an incident photon will trend to make the inter-nodal distance larger in CO2, a 'more preferred' situation, but the double valence bonds will restrain and return the nodal centres, to the overall equilibrium 'common state'.
Thus, CO2 tends to undergo the so-named "Quantum Vibrational State" alterations which result in the production of a secondary photon which represent the energy placed into the inter-nodal bond that is 'squeezed' out when the molecular conformation returns to 'normal' after interaction. The energy NOT expressed in the remitted photon has gone into alteration to the kinetic energy/velocity of the overall molecular unit.
H2O however only has 1 large and 2 small relative positive centres, the 'desire' to move apart is much lesser. Energy involved in interaction with incident photons is less likely to make an impact on the molecular conformation (shape) and is instead directed in to alterations of the overall kinetic energy/velocity of the H2O molecule.
Thus, both CO2 and H2O absorb energy (as seen in slide in files section), but CO2 by the physical PROPERTIES of the molecule trends to remit energy as secondary photons, whilst H2O simply gains kinetic velocity (mostly as an addition to its rotation velocity vector) and moves faster through the atmosphere. It is this that is measured as alterations to 'heat' of H20, which does NOT involve the production of secondary photons
-----
Again, see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 for an outline of what I say, I have got tired of repeating myself to the ignorant liars, like Gavin. Pat should notice also and consider the concepts of 'convenient numeracy' and 'tangential solutions', within validation criteria for statistical processes.
On that recognition, of you 'misrepresenting reality' Gavin, I would state that I do not run any groups, I am only interested in open discussion, not in attempting to garner 'fame' as the 'few' like to think they do, but titling themselves as 'moderators' when in reality, they a propaganderists, self styled censors with no displayed abilities to support their mutual appreciations of each other.
As such you have all dragged yourselves down Gavin, and no matter how much Pat attempts to talk back up his 'plots', be it in the Yahoo groups 'climateconcern', 'globalwarming', any of Pats own protected groups or those of others, like yourself Gavin, or external 'closed' sites like 'realclimate.org', who manufacture excuses so to produce ONLY unwavering 'greenhouse support' as the APPEARANCE, the METHOD Pat attempts to misrepresent as producing VALID inference is hopelessly flawed.
DO you YET comprehend Gavin the situation the 'few' are in? Has it been cited enough that Gavin, gavin_pms [gavin_pms@hotmail.com], you are nothing but a fabricator of untruths? The quality of persons you fraternize with Gavin is seen in Calvin Jones, who thinks criminal harassment is easier than attempting discussions, but then that is what you too try is it not Gavin.
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:-
From: "Gavin Smith" <gavin_pms@...>
Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this.
--- In global-warming@yahoogroups.com, "Gavin Smith" <gavin_pms@...> wrote:
>
> It is strange that Hartlod still copies me into his groups. I have long
> banned him from my inbox. I find his response laughable. Most of his
> arguments can be googled and found in several websites. Yes he is a prime
> perpetrator of the old cut and paste.
>
> I just wish he had for once a scientific journal/ book that could back up
> his argument (drivel). He doesn't. Which only exemplifies the
> preposterousness of his arguments.
>
> I also note that http://www.realclimate.org/ have banned him for his drivel.
> In fact he only seems allowed into sites that are not very well regulated.
>
> It is also laughable that he accuses Pat of too many posts. One look at
> climatchange@yahoogroups will show you that it should really be called
> Hartlod@yahoogroups.... In fact thank you Hartlod for a very funny laugh.
> I am in stitches.
>
> Yes I think I would like to support Pat on this and invite you to eat a
> rock.
>
> Love Gavin
>
To place something worth further discussion.
by Peter K Anderson
Saturday, Feb. 25, 2006 at 9:11 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
== If you look only at a ‘second’ division of an hour, you cannot expect to predict the rest of the day.
If you look at the ‘correlation’ of SURFACE TEMPERATURE you will note that it is NOT Related to CO2 but to POPULATION growth and sprawl by Humanity. The plots are near IDENTICAL, showing population of 500 Million going to over 5 Billion in under 400 years. What is studied within ‘greenhouse science’ is a ‘false positive’; the cause is surface rematerialing, not CO2 emissions.
Human produced surface materials become much HOTTER than natural surface materialing; these materials can induct greater kinetic energy from interaction with energy of incident photons, so the average surface temperature rises as there is more Human made materials being spread about.
Realise also that the so far measured 0.6 degree C rise in average surface temperature is recording only that kinetic energy NOT conducted into the atmosphere, and moved about within processes of convection. It is conduction and convection of this generated kinetic energy that produces WEATHER, and events like ‘Katrina’.
So as you will notice, with the redistribution of population growth rate from the present ‘developed to lesser developed’ nations within the geographical opportunities there in provided, we will see presently ‘greened’ surface become more concrete and asphalt.
This opens up more energy (
see slides at http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 )
to become available to produce kinetic energy (by altering the materials present) to increase the rate of conduction (from an increased altered surface contact region) and so power more severe weather (like bigger ‘Katrina’s’) all without the surface EVER showing more than one degree C total increase in average temperature.
It is very easy to realise and many are doing so, above those already knowing such.
It is also, it seems, that few if any of the ‘climate experts’, so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.
== If you look only at a ‘second’ division of time but are not informed WHEN within a day period you are, how can you even remotely expect to describe the remainder of the day?
There is no value in attempting to justify ‘greenhouse actions’ simply by producing a supposed ‘precautionary principle’ application, there is little valid methodology or analytical method within attempts at self justification, and 'greenhouse science' runs from scrutiny even today behind howls of ‘comment censorship'.
Since the 1940’s, fossil oil has not only been used for fuel, and apart from eating it, Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil oil' derivatives for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise. The situation is that ALL the other products derived from fossil oils will STILL be needed, so the diffraction of fossil oils WILL continue. Thus there WILL be fossil oil based fuel products available, but maybe not in the same volume, and not distributed as now, but as a mix supplemented with bio-fuel oil volume, which will be combustible in present technology compression process engine designs (such as the “diesel” process, or in turbines) near immediately with little need for engineering alteration of present technology.
There is no ‘greenhouse effect’ possible with the actual materials present, noticing these materials REAL abilities and behaviors sees there has never been even ‘greenhouse behavior’ evident.
There is however a problem growing, it is simply NOT involving of a 'greenhouse effect'.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In Response to:-
__________________________Pat_______________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: npat1 [mailto:npat1@juno.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:23 PM
To: hartlod@bigpond.com
Subject: Re: Regards To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!
You must have some loose screws.
__________________________&_Gavin___________________________
In Response to:-
From: "Gavin Smith" <gavin_pms@...>
Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: To answer enquiry as to the situation developing in Yahoo!, I will say this.
--- In global-warming@yahoogroups.com, "Gavin Smith" <gavin_pms@...> wrote:
>
> It is strange that Hartlod still copies me into his groups. I have
> long banned him from my inbox. I find his response laughable. Most
> of his arguments can be googled and found in several websites. Yes he
> is a prime
> perpetrator of the old cut and paste.
>
> I just wish he had for once a scientific journal/ book that could back
> up his argument (drivel). He doesn't. Which only exemplifies the
> preposterousness of his arguments.
>
> I also note that http://www.realclimate.org/ have banned him for his
drivel.
> In fact he only seems allowed into sites that are not very well
regulated.
>
> It is also laughable that he accuses Pat of too many posts. One look
> at climatchange@yahoogroups will show you that it should really be
> called Hartlod@yahoogroups.... In fact thank you Hartlod for a very funny laugh.
> I am in stitches.
>
> Yes I think I would like to support Pat on this and invite you to eat
> a rock.
>
> Love Gavin
>
Observation and Inference
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Saturday, Apr. 01, 2006 at 1:56 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
To continue relating some of the issues of 'fault' within the 'greenhouse climate models', apart from the obvious discrepancies of the included materials behavior to those actually presented, there is the further exasperations from the realisation of the 'double' inclusion of kinetic energy within the calculations'.
It is easily seen in the slide included (along with the comparative version of a displayed trend to Human Population), that the rise in median temperature of the surface ocean waters runs in a trend similar to that of the land surface, but with a delay, and in a muted manner.
The dampening of the trend is due to the ability of the liquids of the ocean being able to produce Turbulence in reaction to these gains of kinetic energy. As such these processes of Turbulence lower the residual energy that is recordable as 'temperature'.
So the water surface will show a lagging trend of lower and more moderate increases whilst the dry land surface continues to be rematerialed and present a generally rising median temperature from altering interactions with incident radiation produced by the altering of the materials OF the surface made within the sprawl of Human Habitat.
The atmosphere being a gas is able to display much more readily the effects induced by Turbulence, hence the observed weather patterning alterations.
The combined 'land/ocean' plot is however presenting a 'double count' of much of the kinetic energy. This is WHY the 'models' are NOT preemptive AND give scenarios of such 'alarming fantasies' as they include TOO MUCH energy (as well as NOT handling the 'energy calculations' in a valid manner). Certainly much MORE 'energy' is included than is actually present.
(This situation I have been attempting to indicate for a few years, and is seen in many differing portions of 'calculation conceptualisations' including the remittance behaviors of molecules being presented as 'blackbody' radiation linked to 'atmospheric temperature' when the reverse is the reality, these photons present the energy NOT retained as a 'kinetic gain', thus have no link to 'atmospheric' molecular temperature.)
This (and other) 'misnomer(s)' is(/are) reason for WHY there are still some attempting to platform 'greenhouse concepts', as the claim is made of a need to 'account' for the 'energy observed'. It is just that the energy is not actually present in the amounts 'inferred'.
Again I mention this to play the difference of OBSERVATION to INFERENCE.
You need to avoid PREDETERMINATION as this psychological behavioralism 'taints' inferences of even the most reliable observations.
Too often we all see INFERENCE (especially as platformed 'opinions') being given precedence over OBSERVATION in relation to 'greenhouse (and related) concepts'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)