Searching \ for '[EE] no doubt, global warming is causing hurricane' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=doubt+global+warming
Search entire site for: 'no doubt, global warming is causing hurricane'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] no doubt, global warming is causing hurricane'
2008\04\05@142737 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0804&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=0000000&PRODLETT=R&CommonCount=0

Russel should be satisfied.

2008\04\06@134544 by Stephen R Phillips

picon face

--- Vasile Surducan <spam_OUTpiclist9TakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

>
www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0804&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=0000000&PRODLETT=R&CommonCount=0
>
> Russel should be satisfied.
> --

2008\04\06@233149 by Rich

picon face
I have a dumb question about global warming; actually a few dumb questions.
The first question is about the disagreement between NASA's findings on
ocean temperatures and Environmentalist data concerning ocean temperatures,
reported in the news.  I did not check the authority of the news, so that is
why it is a dumb question.  But what does this controversy say about the
research design and the hypothesis used by both in each design? The second
question is hypothetical.  What if I were to build a big hypothetical
mirror, say thousand of acres long by thousands of acres wide and lift it up
to the sky to hypothetically reflect the sunlight back away from earth?
Would that cause any cooling to take place below the hypothetical mirror?
Supposing it, did would the gas molecules below the mirror obey the gas
laws? Would they lose kinetic energy and compact more tightly due to a lower
ambient temperature?  Would that affect the wind patterns and the storm
patters?  Would it also introduce some element of error into the measurement
scheme if it was not properly accounted for in the design error budget?
Just some dumb questions.  I hope no one gets ticked off by them.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vasile Surducan" <.....piclist9KILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:27 PM
Subject: [EE] no doubt, global warming is causing hurricanes


> http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0804&RELTYPE=PSC&PRODCODE=0000000&PRODLETT=R&CommonCount=0
>
> Russel should be satisfied.
> --

2008\04\07@003451 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 07/04/2008, Rich <.....rgrazia1KILLspamspam.....rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> I have a dumb question about global warming; actually a few dumb questions.

There are more dumb answers on this subject than dumb questions.
Having said that I've now opened myself up but will carry on anyway.

> The first question is about the disagreement between NASA's findings on
> ocean temperatures and Environmentalist data concerning ocean temperatures,
> reported in the news.  I did not check the authority of the news, so that is
> why it is a dumb question.  But what does this controversy say about the
> research design and the hypothesis used by both in each design?

There appears to be a significant disagreement regarding this topic.
Most  politicians & the media and _some_ climatologists seem to take
one side, and remaining climatologists etc. take the other.

Then there's the question that if the suggested "global warming" is
taking place, whether it's being caused by :"greenhouse gasses" or
normal variations in the radiation output from the sun. Again, those
with a barrow to push are opting for the greenhouse gas option but
there don't seem to be any easy way to figure it out.

The second
> question is hypothetical.  What if I were to build a big hypothetical
> mirror, say thousand of acres long by thousands of acres wide and lift it up
> to the sky to hypothetically reflect the sunlight back away from earth?

Acres are a measure of area. I guess you mean miles.
It would still be very much smaller than the earth unless it was 10's
of thousands of miles per side.

> Would that cause any cooling to take place below the hypothetical mirror?

I'd guess yes. Unless it was nigh time. Then it might increase the
local temperature by reflecting radiation back to earth.

> Supposing it, did would the gas molecules below the mirror obey the gas
> laws?

Yes, I'd hope so.

Would they lose kinetic energy and compact more tightly due to a lower
> ambient temperature?  Would that affect the wind patterns and the storm
> patters?

Again, I'd guess there would be a localised climate change.  How
widespread the effect would be is a bit harder to figure out and
depend on the size of the shadow.

Would it also introduce some element of error into the measurement
> scheme if it was not properly accounted for in the design error budget?
> Just some dumb questions.  I hope no one gets ticked off by them.

What measurement scheme? - Are you asking if the  mirror you propose
could affect "global warming" ? If so I think you'd have to consider
the size that would be required compared to the size of the earth.

RP

>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2008\04\07@014407 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>I have a dumb question about global warming; actually a few
>dumb questions.

There are few dumb questions about global warming. But many
dumb answers :-)

Bear in mind that "Global Warming" is a fully scientific
subject open to critical examination and peer review. It is
the way that it is approached by some (in all camps) that
causes problems - not the nature of the subject itself.

A key thing to realise is that we are dealing with often
very small variations in systems with many variables and
complex and poorly understood interactions. Satellite
measurements of ocean levels are dealling in the mms/year to
decade range and gross ocean level variations across the
globe vary by metres/day with tides, tens of meters across
oceans with currents, metres across ocean basins with long
term (decades!) cyclical variations - sometimes several
different variations at once, and 1000m plus with bulge due
to the earth's spin. (Once you realise that ocean surface
levels vary by more than a km between poles and equator you
start to see how measurement of other effects may become
'problematic'.) Add to the above basin volume variations,
therma; variations by day and season and more,
precipitation, inflow, evaporation, and freezing and
unfreezing and a few more that don't come immediately to
mind and you have quite a system to play with.  The 'do I
have a model for you!' crowd have taken all this into
consideartion and made appropriate allowances in their
models and will confidently show you the precise sealevel
rises that their satellites have measured once the preceding
is all adjusted for. If you let them. And, they may be
right, at least some of the time or even much of the time.
In 2000 NASA changed the way that they used data from
various sources and in the process failed to notice that it
caused a step change in their data. Quite how you'd fail to
notice this I don't know, but as our tax department just
lost and recently un-lost 800 million $ of the government's
money, it's easy to see that such things scan happen. The
result was that they (NASA) plotted their projections as if
the step change was legitimate data and the results were
quite different than they would have got otherwise. Because
of the bad feeling between the NASA people and their critics
the NASAites unwisely protected their data sources and the
critics had to infer what they had done 'the hard way' and
then point it our to NASA. In due course the error was
acknowledge and remedied but it shows what can happen when
data and methods are not open to full review and
examination.

So -

>  The first question is about the disagreement between
> NASA's findings on
> ocean temperatures and Environmentalist data concerning
> ocean temperatures,
> reported in the news.  I did not check the authority of
> the news, so that is
> why it is a dumb question.

Big subject. Uncertain data. Best models possible. Human
pride. Human error. The sun does what it want. Eiother MAY
be right (or both or neither). Determining which is what and
what is which requires serious dedication and research.

> But what does this controversy say about the
> research design and the hypothesis used by both in each
> design?

As above. Some very earnest and serious people in both
camps. And some real 'flakes'. Alas even on the 'scientific'
side you get suspect actions.

> The second question is hypothetical.

That makes for easy hypothetical answers :-)

> What if I were to build a big hypothetical
> mirror, say thousand of acres long by thousands of acres
> wide

make that eg km or metres. Acre is square measure. But,

> and lift it up
> to the sky to hypothetically reflect the sunlight back
> away from earth?
> Would that cause any cooling to take place below the
> hypothetical mirror?

Yes. Well studied.

> Supposing it, did would the gas molecules below the mirror
> obey the gas
> laws?

They have no choice :-). The laws of nature are not laws -
they are desciptions of observed action. Sometimes the
observations are wrong. The laws are never wrong, by
definition. just our understandings.

> Would they lose kinetic energy and compact more tightly
> due to a lower
> ambient temperature?  Would that affect the wind patterns
> and the storm
> patters?

Yes x 4.
Where that leads is no doubt midel-able but I don't know
nearly enough to answer.

> Would it also introduce some element of error into the
> measurement
> scheme if it was not properly accounted for in the design
> error budget?

But if you are talking about the NASA etc measurements. then
yes.



       Russell

2008\04\07@195059 by Rich

picon face
Thank you for your good answers to my dumb questions.  About the
measurement.  I suppose that the climate changes are determined by some sort
of quantitative analysis of data collected from calibrated instruments and
the data compared against some experimental control. About the hypothetical
mirror.  You are correct, miles is the dimension I should have stated.
Around here, there are aircraft spraying material in the sky that simulates
cloud cover and it is many miles long and many miles wide and very quickly
dispersed.  The effect is a synthesized cloud cover and the temperature
below drops enough to feel the difference.  I have never set up a scientific
experiment to measure it but I can feel the difference in temperature.  Now,
I am not a meteorologist but I do know something about science.  It seems to
me intuitive that the large area affected by this "cloud cover" could affect
pressures and cause wind patterns to change.  Then another part of me says,
well so what it is like a cloudy day and maybe has no appreciable impact on
the weather pattern.  The next question I ask myself is what if this is
happening on a very large scale in many areas?  I do not know if it is but
if it is could the aggregate affect be significant, i.e., cause changes in
weather patterns? Could it be even beyond domestic boundaries?   I wonder if
anyone on the list knows about these synthesized cloud covers that appear to
reflect the sunlight or at least block it; the effect is the same. Before
anyone mentions it, I am not proposing a conspiracy theory.  I am just
wondering how many people observed this phenomenon and can anyone explain
it? Could is contribute some element of error in the climate measurements?
Go ahead and laugh.  But if you can show me how dumb I am I will laugh with
you.  :-)



{Original Message removed}

2008\04\07@202212 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
You're not dumb -- look up the term "global dimming".  Particles in contrails or from coal burning power plants throw dust into the atmosphere that are appreciably smaller than the dust that normally forms clouds.  The resulting clouds reflect more sunlight.  In some parts of the northern hemisphere, the sunlight reaching the earth's surface is only 80% of what it was 30 years ago.  It's one of the items that the IPCC has difficulty quantifying wrt global warming.  Now imagine the effects of adding a coal fired power plant every two weeks and you start to get an idea of how difficult it is to predict the weather, much less global warming/cooling. ;-)

----- Original Message ----
From: Rich <EraseMErgrazia1spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTrochester.rr.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 6:50:30 PM
Subject: Re: [EE] no doubt, global warming is causing hurricanes

Thank you for your good answers to my dumb questions.  About the
measurement.  I suppose that the climate changes are determined by some sort
of quantitative analysis of data collected from calibrated instruments and
the data compared against some experimental control. About the hypothetical
mirror.  You are correct, miles is the dimension I should have stated.
Around here, there are aircraft spraying material in the sky that simulates
cloud cover and it is many miles long and many miles wide and very quickly
dispersed.  The effect is a synthesized cloud cover and the temperature
below drops enough to feel the difference.  I have never set up a scientific
experiment to measure it but I can feel the difference in temperature.  Now,
I am not a meteorologist but I do know something about science.  It seems to
me intuitive that the large area affected by this "cloud cover" could affect
pressures and cause wind patterns to change.  Then another part of me says,
well so what it is like a cloudy day and maybe has no appreciable impact on
the weather pattern.  The next question I ask myself is what if this is
happening on a very large scale in many areas?  I do not know if it is but
if it is could the aggregate affect be significant, i.e., cause changes in
weather patterns? Could it be even beyond domestic boundaries?   I wonder if
anyone on the list knows about these synthesized cloud covers that appear to
reflect the sunlight or at least block it; the effect is the same. Before
anyone mentions it, I am not proposing a conspiracy theory.  I am just
wondering how many people observed this phenomenon and can anyone explain
it? Could is contribute some element of error in the climate measurements?
Go ahead and laugh.  But if you can show me how dumb I am I will laugh with
you.  :-)



{Original Message removed}

2008\04\08@100512 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> Around here, there are aircraft spraying material in the sky
> that simulates cloud cover and it is many miles long and many
> miles wide and very quickly dispersed.  The effect is a
> synthesized cloud cover and the temperature below drops
> enough to feel the difference.  I have never set up a
> scientific experiment to measure it but I can feel the
> difference in temperature.  Now, I am not a meteorologist but
> I do know something about science.  It seems to me intuitive
> that the large area affected by this "cloud cover" could
> affect pressures and cause wind patterns to change.  Then
> another part of me says, well so what it is like a cloudy day
> and maybe has no appreciable impact on the weather pattern.  


9-11 was actually a conspiracy by rogue meteorologists to get aircraft
grounded for a few days in order to study the sky better.  Either that or it
was the chem-trail nutters.

Possibly a bit hard to find, but there were a few people interested in that
short window (a day without plane (isn't that a song?)).  I remember there
were a few reports of (mildly) interesting things.  Of course, weather
change over a few days doesn't mean much.

I guess they'll be gearing up to knock over a few more buildings.

Tony

2008\04\08@193643 by Rich

picon face
Thank you for your reply.  I have been wondering about this activity in the
sky for a while.  But because of my ignorance I was hesitant to talk about
it.  However, on this list one can raise questions about which they are
uninformed.  Thank you.  I will look up global dimming.


{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...