community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
CNN's ... Melting Point... [global warming]
by Pat N
Saturday, Mar. 26, 2005 at 5:16 PM
npat1@juno.com (email address validated)
"The confusing debate over climate change has given way to a new scientific consensus: The Earth is getting warmer."
---
"Humans contribute to global warming mainly through the burning of fossil fuels, which creates carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases." In the atmosphere, these gases act like panes of glass in a greenhouse, allowing direct solar energy in but preventing the heat radiating from the Earth from escaping."
CNN News Channel Special Documentary:
Sunday, March 27
Melting Point: Tracking the Global Warming Threat
7 p.m. CST (8 p.m. EST)
Repeats:
Saturday, April 2
Melting Point: Tracking the Global Warming Threat
6 a.m., 8 p.m., 11 p.m., EST -- an hour earlier CST.
More information at:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.html
---
See also:
Round up shows rapid climate change already happening - 14 figures show climate warming:
http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/20356/index.php
"Global Warming Crisis Nears"
by Michael T. Neuman
http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/203052.shtml
Scenery from the top of Fossil Butte, WY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Warming by 'greenhouse'? Not possible.
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 7:10 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
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.
(The below figure is in the FILES section of the Yahoo climate-change group, also available in powertothepeople, foeb and bluegreenearth group, see Files
sections)
<
Picture1.jpg
>
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.
For simplicity I have outlined the population effects within the 'climate-change' group with further slides.
"Save the environment, ignore Greenhouse platformers".
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
It is easy to realise
by Peter K Anderson
Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 7:12 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)
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'.
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
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.
-----
Bob Corell interviewed in Greenland above the Arctic Circle
by The entire planet is out of balance
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 6:32 AM
Bob Corell, one of the world's foremost authorities on climate change, talks to Scott Pelley this Sunday, Feb. 19, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Corell is interviewed in Greenland above the Arctic Circle, where the rising temperature has caused glacial ice that's been in place for eons to recede steadily for the last few decades.
The entire planet is out of balance."
Bob Corell
Whether the change in temperature is a natural or manmade phenomenon has been a matter of debate, but Paul Mayewski of the University of Maine says the proof that man is responsible is in the ancient ice at the top of the world.
There is evidence of high levels of "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to warming the earth’s surface, in the core samples of ice he collected in Greenland. "We haven’t seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years," says Mayewski. "It all points to something that has changed and something that has impacted the system which wasn’t doing it more than 100 years ago. It’s human activity."
The Bush Administration spends $5 billion a year on climate change research, but the president refuses to sign a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Corell says the sooner we curb the emissions, the better for generations to come.
Even total cessation of the burning of fossil fuels will not stop the warming immediately, and to continue burning them will affect the planet into the distant future — perhaps thousands of years. "I try to tell [policymakers] exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable," Corell tells Pelley.
By Bill Owens ©MMVI
"The entire planet is out of balance"
by prove it
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:28 AM
Prove it.
Prove that an Unbathed egocentric knows all. Prove that the Earth "needs" anything which the parasitical Unbathed suggests.
Still blinkered in 'Ice' seems 'greenhouse'.
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 4:22 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
Still, the "Talking heads" are being marketed instead of valid SCIENCE is how the entire 'global greenhouse warming' platform has always been marketed. The insular presentation of 'experts' is all make believe, the situation is encompassed in trying to present a closed shop of 'expertise' in 'climate science' that in reality is filled with people educated in information that was ran away from its FAILED (three times attempted) validation within SCIENCE ~50 years ago! *
There seems to be a real lack of understanding, due to improper interpretations (see above*) 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.
Ice melts, get over it. To aid in considerations of the real defining climates of the oscillation involving an 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
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.
This represents the 'wobble' that marks the basic waveform of the overall climate oscillation of which we appear all to be within, or very near to, the 'peak' of.
This is SCIENCE, from multi sourced disciplines.
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.
Watch 60 Minutes
by "The entire planet is out of balance.&qu
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 4:31 PM
It's not just Hartod, the entire planet is out of balance.
Already contacted '60 minutes'
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:25 PM
hartlod@bigpond.com
With regard to:-
-----
Bob Corell interviewed in Greenland above the Arctic Circle by The entire planet is out of balance Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 11:32 AM
-----
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm) (Member of the Public, Australia) comments:-
Still, the "Talking heads" are being marketed instead of valid SCIENCE, and this is how the entire 'global greenhouse warming' platform has always been marketed for over 20 years on the back of 'new age prophesy' of 'doom and woe' but little SCIENCE.
The insular presentation of 'experts' is all make believe, the situation is encompassing attempts to present a closed shop of 'expertise' in 'climate science' that in reality is filled with people educated in information that was ran away from its FAILED (three times attempted) validation within SCIENCE ~50 years ago! *
Hence the oft heard 'consensus of climate scientists', however the materials they involve are common, these materials real behaviors (ignored by 'greenhouse concepts) are widely known and used to produce FUNCTIONAL artifacts daily by the other ~500 MILLION tertiary educated individuals within the PUBLIC.
There seems to be a real lack of understanding, due to improper interpretations (see above*) 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.
Ice melts, get over it. To aid in considerations of the real defining climates of the oscillation involving an 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:-
< http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ >
Note that to the REST of knowledge, there has not been what can be regarded as permanent ice for ONE BILLION years. Time for the MEDIA to STOP being the patsy for a group of misinformed 'climate science experts' and aiding in the INDICTRINATION of the 'doom and woe' encompassed in these false 'new age greenhouse climate beliefs'.
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.
This represents the 'wobble' that marks the basic waveform of the overall climate oscillation of which we appear all to be within, or very near to, the 'peak' of.
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.
"Climate Science' is following a generated false positive (that being CO2), related now to some supposed 'function' (improperly formed) to base a 'greenhouse model' on and simply is having added ongoing improper numeracy now to that inadequate function being seemingly bully as being correct. It has never BEEN seen as such within SCIENCE.
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)
'Climate Science' methodology is completely inadequate, hence its earlier failure under scrutiny, the treatment of these 'temperature plot related observations' ignores valid statistical knowledge as to the ability to realise a long term process in the manner attempted, from short term data.
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 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.
-------------------------------
When will Pat realise
by Peter K Anderson
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 7:32 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.
I have to this point in time Pat considered you to be a victim of those platforming misrepresentations regarding the unvalidated 'greenhouse rhetoric'. They have been at such for near 20 years now, self promoting themselves as experts, is that what is taught as/within 'climate science'?
Let it be known that the 'climatearchivediscusion' Yahoo! group is a vehicle for Pat's self promotion, not a place for 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.
To place an item for discussion
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod
Saturday, Feb. 25, 2006 at 9:15 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.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)