community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Arctic and Midwest climate change
by Pat Neuman
Saturday, Mar. 12, 2005 at 7:23 AM
npat1@juno.com (email address validated)
Figures and graphs showing climate change in Pittsburgh and elsewhere in the Midwest and Great Lakes States are in my article titled: "Arctic and Midwest climate change" ... link below.
To view other figures, graphs and tables that include Pittsburgh please go to my article at:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/27802/index.php
Thank you.
www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/27802/index.php
Re: Arctic and Midwest climate change
by Pat Neuman
Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 5:23 PM
npat1@juno.com
"Arctic and Midwest climate change" is now at North Texas IMC at:
http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=2110
Please check it out. Thank you.
brain dead Kyoto groupies
by 54 below zero
Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 at 7:51 AM
LAS VEGAS, N.M. - A slow-moving storm dumped 2 to 3 feet of snow on parts of northern and eastern New Mexico, closing major highways, schools and some government offices Tuesday.
"I've lived here for all my life, and this is one of the worst as far as how quick it (snow) accumulates," said Steve Lucero, owner of a tow truck service at Las Vegas, where 2 feet of snow had fallen since the storm developed Monday.
The heaviest snowfall was 34 inches at Mineral Hill, a small community about 15 miles west of Las Vegas, said Kerry Jones, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service (news - web sites) in Albuquerque. The Sipapu Resort ski area in northern New Mexico reported 28 inches and the Angel Fire Resort ski area reported 18.
Snow also fell across much of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles.
Packed snow glazed roads throughout northern and eastern New Mexico.
"Just as quick as they clean them, they get snowpacked again," Lucero said. He said one of his own tow trucks got stuck trying to pull a tractor-trailer rig out of a ditch.
Sections of Interstate 40, New Mexico's primary east-west highway, and Interstate 25, the main north-south artery, were closed east and north of Albuquerque.
Rows of tractor-trailer rigs queued up at Las Vegas, while other motorists scrambled to find hotel rooms. The Red Cross opened a shelter in Las Vegas for travelers who couldn't find a vacancy late Monday.
State offices were closed Tuesday for nonessential employees in areas hit by snow, Mahesh said.
Schools closed because of the snow included the University of New Mexico.
"global" warming
by Pat N
Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 at 3:44 PM
-
Why do u think they call it "global" warming?
Data used in global temperature plot above is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/2450
Update
-------
Global and Midwest/Great Plains climate change
at:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/144720/index.php
-
Not to be short sighted on global warming and damaging ozone layer
by Pat Neuman
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 at 11:22 AM
I don't expect Gaia to help out this time.
Government and business leaders must not continue to act short sightedly in making decisions which have negative impacts on global climate change and damage to Earth's protective ozone layer.
Although heat waves seem rare now, the frequency and severity of heat waves are increasing.
Although holes in the protective ozone layer seem rare now, to what extent will the number and size of holes in the ozone layer change?
To what extent will additional pollution by aviation damage the ozone protection?
To what extent will increasing tropospheric warming (with increasing stratospheric cooling) increase the damage to the ozone layer?
To what extent will ozone layer protection at the surface from ultra violet radiation change as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles, triples ... ?
How rapid will the global climate warm?
How rapid will the ozone layer weaken?
See:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/infodata/faq.php
That bothers me.
--------------------------
Additional information
Beginning Day of Snowmelt Runoff
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm
Special Report – Great Lakes States
http://www.mnforsustain.org/mn_dewpoints_neuman_p_special_report.htm
Global Land Air Temperatures raw data
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/2450
CONSERVE, NOW - reduce fossil fuel emissions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
NOAA's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostic Laboratory website - on greenhouse gases
-- Question --
"How do we know CO2 in the atmosphere
is increasing? And that humans are
responsible?"
-- Answer --
"Careful measurements have confirmed that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that human activities are the primary cause. CO2 measurements have been taken directly from the atmosphere over the past few decades. CO2 trends for earlier times have been derived from measurements of CO2 trapped in air bubbles in glacial or polar ice. The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 concentrations have varied naturally throughout Earth’s history. However, CO2 concentrations are now higher than any seen in at least the past 450,000 years."
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/infodata/faq.php
That bothers me.
See also:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/
chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/54275/index.php
x
by x
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 at 6:06 PM
Why are the knuckleheads laughing?
by pat n
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 at 11:47 PM
Do they think the graph at Leech Lake Federal Dam is funny too?
www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=2110
Do the knuckleheads think this is funny too?
by pat n
Friday, Mar. 18, 2005 at 12:21 AM
Why am I not laughing?
groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Embarrass
by A Minnesotan
Friday, Mar. 18, 2005 at 1:03 PM
How about posting your graphs of Embarrass, Minnesota on January 17 of 2005?
Embarrass is a local anomaly cool spot, with records going back only to 1994.
Leech Lake Federal Dam has a reliable and long daily temperature record. Grand Rapids Forestry station goes back to 1915, with similar characteristics to Leech.
Vallejo is paid by corporate greed
by He's not me
Friday, Mar. 18, 2005 at 1:47 PM
I don't know Vallejo. I see those bad posts at other indymedia sites. He's paid for by corporate greed to get knuckleheads to agree support his agenda of more money for more highway vehicles and air travel.
> How about digging up some more "data" about other "local cool spots"?
The St. Cloud weather station is another local cool spot. They moved the station to a low swamp in the the 1970s that stays cooler than the nearby higher terraign where the gage was before the 1970s. Knucklehead skeptics like to use that biased data from St. Cloud to support their faulty logic.
The foul language you used just makes you look bad. If you continue to use that stuff, I'll disappear.
Professional Ecologist
by Ken
Saturday, Mar. 19, 2005 at 1:43 PM
Hippie trash? Not me. I am a rocker. Class of 76. To the gentleman that posted the 'hippie trash' message, I would bet you are uneducated and have no degree. Seems there are a lot of folks who lack intellect speaking out against the MAJORITY of scientists who have reported on this issue.
My first degree was range and wildlife ecology. My second, computer science. And to be honest, I am sick and tired of the idiots who flap their lips who have nothing but air between their heads. They have an 'pick up a torch' agenda because you can't make rational decisions, research the issues, or otherwise think for yourself. In otherwords...
You're an idiot!
When you open your mouth, you let some of that hot air out... and I would suggest to you that your words are part of the problem. Seems to me the noise you are making should be coming out another orifice.
What a loser.
Professional Ecologist
by Ken
Saturday, Mar. 19, 2005 at 2:04 PM
And by the way, note that I am an ecologist, not ncessarily an environmentalist. I am pragmatic about my approach to ecology. Example, I am a hunter. And I am very concerned with waterfowl hunting hunting on the Columbia River in Washington when the temps in February soar to 60+ degrees for weeks at a time. I am have been hunting for 40 years and have seen nothing liket the last 10 years. And it is getting worse. Eastern Washington seen TWO weeks of 60-70 degree weather tha last week in February and first week in March. And as of this writing, our governor has already declared a drought emergency. The driest and warmest conditions ever seen on record for this state. And the rest of the Pacific Northwest region is no better off. If the idiots here want proof, ask the ski lift companies here in Washington, Oregon and California. They are losing their shorts to global warming these last ten years. Give Snoqualmie Pass a call. Talk to them about it. Crystal Mountain. You name it, they are hurting - and for the last ten years.
Those are all cold hard facts. But why do I get the feeling the idiots will not be listening and will find some little piece of dirt out there - a quack article - anything to keep their lack of intellect from showing. Anything to save face. All face. No brains behind it.
Forestburg 3 NE, South Dakota
by Pat N
Saturday, Mar. 19, 2005 at 3:15 PM
-
105 years of daily temperature records.
No urban heat island at Forestburg 3 NE (of post office).
-
groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/
But again, why the laughter?
by Rich Gardner
Monday, Mar. 21, 2005 at 5:29 PM
rlg3526@ix.netom.com Horsham, PA
So after about ten back and forth comments, we still don't have an answer. Why is global warming so gosh-darned funny? Perhaps there are a few temperature differences that don't fit the overall pattern of the Earth getting warmer, but the larger pattern is clear.
I simply can't imagine why anyone would consider this amusing.
The fraudulent author on global warming is Derek Kelly, PhD.
by Now I see
Tuesday, Mar. 22, 2005 at 11:51 PM
npat1@juno.com
No way I was ever what you think of as a hippy. I've worked full time since graduation from UW Madison in 1975. I care about the future for young people today.
BTW,
The fraudulent author on global warming is Derek Kelly, PhD.
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/27361_comment.php#38159
Friday February 25, 2005 at 02:37 AM
The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD
Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.
A chronology of climate change
...
"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."
Derek Kelly's Ph.D
by Ted Bagg
Friday, Mar. 25, 2005 at 5:59 AM
tbagg@[216.250.183.124]
Derek Kelly's Ph.D is in Philosophy, not Climatology, say, or Geology, Biology, Physics, or Chemistry. He posted his resume at http://www.ccie.cn, a website advertising candidates for English teaching jobs in China, and the Google record
=======
Derek Kelly - [ Translate this page ]
... DEREK KELLY dkchina2002@hotmail.com Position Desired Advanced listening, Advanced ...
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts USA 1966 Ph.D. Philosophy, Boston ...
http://www.ccie.cn/advmember/gaojihuiyuan/down.asp?id=954 - 17k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
=======
shows it's the same Derek Kelly, Ph.D who authored the Asia Times Online article in question
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
and who is referenced in this http://www.iUniverse.com listing:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/author.asp?author_id=80855&penname=Derek++Kelly
iUniverse records him has having a Ph.D in Philosophy from Boston University, having studied religions and taught college students for a dozen years followed by 25 years "mainly as a technical writer in the software development industry". Asia Times describes him at the bottom of his guest article as having "been an American University teacher and a computer-software developer". I wonder how many lines of code he's written? A little ironic from a non-scientist with the gall to explicitly write that all but a handful of the world's hundreds of certified climate experts are engaged in a "scam", without any showing of intent to deceive.
www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
It does matter
by Hydrologist
Tuesday, Mar. 29, 2005 at 3:58 PM
npat1@juno.com
The worst thing about global warming is that humans are causing the problem by their exorbitant use of fossil fuels.
Little fuel will be left when survival is on the line for many people, having been used up by those having rich exorbitant lives while on earth.
How long do you think global warming will last?
See:
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/55020/index.php
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Bullshit!
by Steven Argue
Wednesday, Mar. 30, 2005 at 9:06 AM
With the petrol-chemical industry firmly in power in America there is no drop in the release of greenhouse gasses taking place. At the same time global warming is now a clearly measurable fact. It is interesting to see that the petrol-chemical industry has a voice on Indy-Media. Perhaps this should be considered earth hate speech.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that is being put into the atmosphere either. Some of the other gasses released by the improperly regulated technology of capitalism are even stronger warming agents.
In addition large quantities of frozen methane are sitting on the bottoms of our oceans. Higher global temperatures could release even larger quantities of these greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and send global temperatures spiraling upward.
Atmospheric CO2 continues to increase
by What's happning?
Thursday, Mar. 31, 2005 at 4:46 PM
npat1@juno.com
What is really going on here?
-----------------------------
AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASE RETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS
March 31, 2005 — A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary
phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of
the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate
experts. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere by the
burning of wood, coal, oil and gas. Increases in the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere are of special interest to scientists because carbon
dioxide is a significant heat-trapping greenhouse gas.
...
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
-----------------------------
THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Support - Financial incentives-ConserveNow!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229
Join - P&C discussion group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/
Join - P&C Articles
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/
This is what I think is going on here...
by Pat N
Friday, Apr. 01, 2005 at 5:52 PM
npat1@juno.com
> What is really going on here?
Our loading of the atmosphere with accumulating and long lasting CO2 is causing out_of_control rapid global warming.
The rate of change in climate is likely to be catastophic for many
species of plants and animals which evolved during 50 million years of global cooling from the Eocene to Pleistocene.
The Apr 1, 2005 article by James Reynolds titled "Greenhouse gases reach a new high," ... (below) ... helps explain what is really going on here.
JAMES REYNOLDS
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
Greenhouse gases reach a new high, say researchers
JAMES REYNOLDS
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
LEVELS of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas chiefly responsible for
global warming, have risen to a new high, according to measurements
taken at the world's leading climate science laboratory.
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased to 378 parts
per million (ppm), according to results gathered at Hawaii's Mauna Loa observatory.
Although the rise from an average of 375.64 ppm in 2003 is smaller
than in the previous two years, experts say it again fits the pattern
of increases in emissions driving the warming of the Earth's
atmosphere and oceans.
The research was carried out by the US government's climate monitoring diagnostics laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The new figures are likely to be a powerful tool in the battle to
convince the United States, the world's biggest polluter, that it
urgently needs to join efforts to slow down emissions of carbon
dioxide, which are created through the burning of fossil fuels such as oil.
Dr Pieter Tans, the laboratory's director, said: "The most striking
thing about the data is that we've seen an increase in carbon dioxide
levels every single year since 1958."
Greenhouse gases that cause climate change have a delayed effect, like a "disease" with a long incubation period.
This inertia means that the consequences of the emissions that have
already been released into the environment will not be felt for some
years. Even if emissions of CO2 were stopped immediately tomorrow,
certain changes to the global climate over the next 50 years would
still take place.
According to Dr Tans, one significant finding is that the annual rate
at which CO2 is rising is increasing, and the growth rate over the
past decade has been about twice as fast as that found in the 1960s.
He believes that variations in this growth rate year by year can be
explained by natural factors, such as changes in the rate at which
plants and the oceans absorb CO2. However, Dr Tans and fellow
researchers have concluded that the steady rise overall can be
attributed to manmade, or anthropogenic, emissions of carbon.
Measurements began in 1957, at the observatory on top of the Mauna Loa volcano, which at an altitude of 11,500ft ranks amongst the most
remote scientific outposts in the world.
Since then the station has grown to become the premier long-term
atmospheric monitoring facility on Earth, largely because its altitude means the air it samples is stable, and free from the traffic pollution present round the Hawaiian coast.
Pacific air is also well-mixed, meaning there is no immediate source
of pollution such as heavy industry, and there is no natural "carbon
sink" nearby, such as a forest which would absorb CO2.
Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has already revealed that he intends
to use his presidency of the G8 group meeting at Gleneagles to bring
Mr Bush back into negotiations on ways of preventing global warming.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=343732005
Professional Ecologist
by Darren
Thursday, May. 05, 2005 at 5:17 AM
So,one has to possess a 'Degree' to know anything about how things work!Scientists basically observe data but usually start out with preconceived ideas and a set agenda about what they'll interpret,whereas REAL people going about their business,without the constraints of their 'teachings' will always see so much more...as far as the "loser" tag - well I believe it's a pathetic retort from those that have no answer and are backed into a corner..so much for the education!NO,I DON'T HAVE A DEGREE,just many years of observation without letters after my name to cloud my judgement on many things...
"Global Warming" by 'greenhouse', not likley.
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 7:59 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
(Above, slides mentioned here in.)
As has been mentioned, the fetish for 'temperature' plots is not able to validate opinions of 'global warming' due to inadequate statistical methods being employed.
One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. Thus the 'global warming' opinions related to these plots are basing the '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 the basis of what if happening, the 'global warmers' have taken a little bit of a curve within an oscillation and made it to be a linear style relationship.
What these 'global warmers' are deliberately avoiding also is that there has been a noted warming/cooling/warming mini oscillation occurring in global climate since 1880. This is even seen in the plot Pat provides. 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 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'. There was attempt to discuss this preemtively (pre 'Katrina') in various places but opposition mislabled then suppressed these attempts.
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,
{Slide 'population density (geographical) you see density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN). (Yellow = low density - dark red = high density)}, and 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.
Also is included slide of population distribution into near future,
{Slide ' 'Relative rates of population growth between Less Developed Countries and More Developed Countries in millions of people' (Source: United Nations).}, showing density increases in presently Lesser Developed Nations to assist in trend development of surface sprawl induced by population growth with its attached trends to increases in surface kinetic energy induction rates due to associated surface rematerialing (with reference to CIESIN sourced plot).
As to a supposed 'greenhouse effect', to demonstrate the flimsy state of the 'greenhouse' platform I will again mention the constantly given 'greenhouse examples' regarding the 'situation' on Venus, with mention of some exampled 'greenhouse statistics' for the Moon and Earth.
To refresh the mind of the reader:-
____________________________
The energy of incident Photons 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 of the molecule (measureable as 'temperature') 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.
____________________________
There is more energy being intercepted and suspended within the Atmosphere of this Planet (see slide link below), and once suspended the STATISTICALLY trended direction of ESCAPE is towards higher altitudes.
There is LESS energy incident to the surface of this planet (can provide slide) and the opportunity is given for more energy to escape altogether by the functions of this planets atmosphere.
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted, relating:-
["The albedo of the earth is approximately 39% while the moon's albedo is about 12%.']
-: is in fact indicating the activity of the process within the Earths atmosphere to direct suspended photons with trended motion being AWAY from the surface.
Infact, the comparison of Moon and Earth indicates the removal of photons from the atmospheric cascade within the Earth's Atmosphere, 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. It is that only energy within the lower and upper visible spectrum as well as the lower third of the overall UV spectrum can become surface incident (as per slide).
The average temperature of the lunar surface (~110 degrees K) includes the very cool dark side, whilst the 'brightside' temperature is limited to the interactions of the materials that compose the surface. This lowers the average (in comparison to that of this planet, being ~283 degrees K) and thus the 'average temperature' statistic is a poorly realised number, and is invalid in its usage within presentations attempting to present 'existence'
of a 'greenhouse effect'. It is however indicative of the differing materials of the surfaces, and their behaviors under bombardment by incident Radiation.
<
Picture1.jpg 'Atmospheric interaction with incident Solar Radiation'
>
On to the '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 (surrounding) plasma interaction to interdict photons within the Gamma and X-ray Spectrums as this planet Earth has.
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 <something> 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 it was that the 'magnetic shield' fell around Venus and an enormous amount of energy 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 with the Photons propagating this energy, see (a) above.
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 incident Gamma and X-Ray spectrums that would not be expected to enter a cascade within the atmosphere present on Venus, and so this energy 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 is no need to consider 'flying' a cause of 'climate change' or 'global warming', and outside of air pollution concerns, no need to restrict or cease flying at all.
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.
The alterations to turbulence so far noted are infact due to the kinetic energy that has already been REMOVED from the surface and so would no longer be measurable as 'temperature'.
The alterations to the inductance rate OF kinetic energy is due to the alterations to the surface materialing by Humanity over the past 400 years, with a rapid increase in such activity within the next 100 years requiring IMMEDIATE notice instead of the constant platforming of 'greenhouse' concerns and 'potential scenarios' so related by bodies such as the IPCC.
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:-
----------
'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 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.
----------
Still platforming 'temperature plots' Pat?
by Peter K Anderson
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 8:49 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
There seems to be a real lack of understanding in how relevant numerous measures of temperature can be in developing any climate model that is VALID and functional when those measures are made is such small time frames.
This fetish for 'temperature' plots is not able to validate opinions of 'global warming' due to inadequate statistical methods being employed. One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. 100 Million data points in 50, or 100 years, is of no more help in validating either model or opinion.
If one observes an actual curve in too fine a detail, one might think that one is looking at a linear plot. This is the basis of what if happening; the 'global warmers' have taken a little bit of a curve within an oscillation and made it to be a 'styled' relationship that does not notice the actual process.
Being avoided also is the 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.
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 the increase in surface region of concrete and asphalt 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’.
The overall natural climate cycle saw an ‘Ice Age’ being to revert ~20,000 years ago, which occupies the ‘trough’ of the climate oscillation.
Look to:- < http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ > for more information.
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 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'.
Realise that there has NOT been what can be regarded as even permanent Ice on this planet within the last BILLION years, which has seen 4 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.
WE are placed to notice a ‘topple’ of climate, to observe such a rare event that it night only occur in this manner every ~50,000 years with the “Ice Age’ ‘in the middle’, and all we do is try to blame a supposed ‘greenhouse effect’ induced by ‘humanity’ and use this as a ‘scare’ to hide opinion behind, as it is being used in attacks on ‘Desalination’ and other more obviously politically opinioned rhetoric, like that surrounding the “Kyoto Protocol’. Personally if people wish to believe in a ‘greenhouse effect’ I care little, but when they attempt to produce their belief as justification to prevent needed, necessary, practical and efficient remediations to REAL problems, my patience dwindles very rapidly, as it does when these same 'beliefs' are used to demand otherwise unsupportable demands for remediation of the processes that exist within that 'belief'.
The plots of human population reproduce exactly in shape that seen in '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'.
It is rapidly becoming evident that the last thing one does to gain understanding of 'climate' is ask a 'climatologist'.
Having viewed the policy statement of the 'American Association of State Climatologists', I note that they have not even done as they mention, and so I would place comments from another member of the public, that are all COMMONLY known.
Lastly, the materials involved and the systems used within 'climatology' are all in general use by many of the near 500 MILLION Other tertiary educated individuals who use these materials and systems to produce products every day. This includes attempts to proffer a 'greenhouse effect' as existent, amongst other very obvious flaws in method and interpretations.
There is no closed shop attitude to be tolerated when the method of making the 'shop' is so obviously flawed.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) Member of the Public, Australia.
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
With regard to:-
--------------------
'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 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.
-----
In response to:-
From: "Pat N self only" <npat1@...>
Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:20 pm
Subject: Summer nights warmer and more humid patneuman2000
The atmosphere is becoming more humid. People will not tolerate warm and humid
evenings without air conditioning if they can help it.
Jul-Aug 2005 minimum daily temperature averages were the warmest of record
(1898-2005) at several climate stations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Florida, Georgia and maybe at climate stations in other states which I haven't
checked out.
To see the future relevance of western rhetoric
by Peter K Anderson
Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 3:37 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
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 FROM all that extra concrete and asphalt.
The rhetoric to 'deal with climate change' by trying to stop it is as pointless as attempting to stop the tide. It is that most of majority agree we need to DEAL with it, that is to accept it is NATURAL and ongoing, not as some would try to imply as being agreed to, interdict a supposed 'greenhouse' effect with innuendo of such 'influence'.
15,000 years ago snow hares roamed somewhere north of Texas, 10,000 years from now they will most likely do so again, unless they fall into a large sink hole produced from the collapse of a 'cavern' produced to 'stop climate change' by the 'sequester of CO2' a few thousand years previously by a misguided subgroup of humanity who feared nature.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
groups.yahoo.com/group/foeb/message/43
Polar Amplification
by pat n
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 6:23 AM
"Polar Amplification", again?
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:20 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
From response to previous Pat blogging of P.A rhetoric.
Regarding "Polar Amplification" again.
by Peter K Anderson, Feb. 05, 2006
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.
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
Still Pat seems to not realise...
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:22 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.
Derek Kelly's correct
by David Walker
Tuesday, Jul. 24, 2007 at 6:10 PM
The contemporary global warming context, that it's anthropogenic and/or can be mitigated through human action, is among the greatest frauds in human history. The context is a modern-day Tower of Babble, with even more vanity and less substance than Nimrod's visions.
Americans have created new wealth through technology advances for centuries. Other civilizations have maintained the status quo through regulation -- hence the EU's enthusiasm for the Kyoto Protocol.
The rules for inhibiting carbon emissions are a damp towel on innovation and advances in energy technology, giving a bunch of regulatory trump cards to HUGE companies already enjoying too much wealth and power.
Improving the energy paradigm will come from empowering individuals with more choices and, possibly, the ability to create their own power.
The global warming context is a fraud.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)