Searching \ for '[OT:] Global Warming' 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=global+warming
Search entire site for: 'Global Warming'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT:] Global Warming'
2004\08\12@040942 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Entries in [] are to assist in rebuttals as required.  :-)

UK Royal Society.
Sure to annoy the nay-sayers :-)


http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/search/websearch.cfm?mainpage=/events/discussion_meetings/reps/acc.htm


UMO / UNEP
Intergovernmental panel on climate change
IPCC 3rd assement report - Climate Change 2001
Sure to have the nay sayers foaming at the mouth, rolling in the aisles and
slashing themselves with blunt PLCCs.
[2001 - MUST be out of date. Must be bad science. What did they know way
back then anyway .... ]
[IPCC - pack of UN lackeys, vested intertest. PC. Greens. Commos.... mumble
...]

       http://www.ipcc.ch/


   Full report (pdf)    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2SPMfinal.pdf

   Summary for policy makers - "The Scientific basis"   . Lots and lots of
pretty graphs :-)
   Actually very interesting

           http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf


Really really really bad pro GW site just to allow people to point to how
bad these GW people are
(OK - its for kids - but balance is a really really good idea regardless -
or even especially so)

       http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/global_warming_primer.htm

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@060309 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Agreed.

Global warming is pseudo-science. It reminds me of some of the other
pseudo-science schemes,
like reading bumps on the head to determine tendency toward criminal
behaviour.

Like a bad case of indigestion, it will pass into memory and we'll all
laugh about it one day.

--Bob

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: Attachments must be sent to
attachspamKILLspamengineer.cotse.net, and
MAY delay replies to this message

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@063627 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Agreed.

NO!
You didn't follow my position.
I'm being too subtle I see :-)

> Global warming is pseudo-science.

No. It's not.
It attracts followers and practitioners of pseudo science and other camp
followers.
But "Global Warming" is valid scientific pursuit.

My concern is that there are many on both sides who are blindly committed to
the rightness of their cause, who will go to any lengths to discredit 'the
other side" rather than trying to come to an objective understanding of what
may or may not be happening.

> It reminds me of some of the other seudo-science schemes,

I imagine it may. But reminding you of them does not make it one and the
same.

You are probably aware that anyone today who queried Plate Tectonics as a
reasonably accurate picture of geographic formation would be hounded out of
all relevant scientific communities and roundly ridiculed and even abused
and sent anonymous threatening lettters.

You may not be aware that the proposer of Plate Tctonics essentially in its
current form fought for decades - most of his life - to get his theory
recognised as a reasonably accurate picture of geographic formation - and
for his troubles was hounded out of all relevant scientific communities and
roundly ridiculed and even abused and sent anonymous threatening lettters.

Same occurred to the "discoverer" of prion disease who's whole life was
attacked in detail for a decade or so. He finally received the Nobel prize
for his efforts. Some are still bitterly scathing.

Such is the practice of objective "science" in our world.

> like reading bumps on the head to determine tendency toward criminal
> behaviour.
>
> Like a bad case of indigestion, it will pass into memory and we'll all
> laugh about it one day.

I suggest (perhaps wrongly) that you (and a few hundreds of millions of
others) need to do their homework more thoroughly.

It is certain that the more extreme proponents of GW are wrong.
BUT it is extremely likely that there is significant merit in much of the sc
ience and reasonable danger that there is very considerable merit in much of
the science.

I say "'reasonable danger" because the worst case risks of GW are rather
extreme, albeit, hopefully, improbable.

As a start i suggest people look at the pretty graphs in

   > >            http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

These don't PROVE anything. But there should be enough there to cause almost
any engineer to sit up and take notice.

IMHO what we need is a concerted effort to pull together to analyse and
refine the data and methodologies in order to vastly impove our models. We
can afford to spend several billion dollars a year to do this. The cost of
not doing this MAY be zero, and may be far far far more than the trillions
(literally) of dollars that the misguided Kyoto protocol proposals will
cost.

Try again:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >Entries in [] are to assist in rebuttals as required.  :-)

Note :-)

> >UK Royal Society.

Seem to have heard of them somewhere. Newton somebody used to belong I
think. Or was it ... ?
Anyway - just a populist paper so ...

> >Sure to annoy the nay-sayers :-)
> >
> >
> >
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/search/websearch.cfm?mainpage=/events/discussion_meetings/reps/acc.htm

> >UMO / UNEP
> >Intergovernmental panel on climate change
> >IPCC 3rd assement report - Climate Change 2001
> >Sure to have the nay sayers foaming at the mouth, rolling in the aisles
and
> >slashing themselves with blunt PLCCs.
> >[2001 - MUST be out of date. Must be bad science. What did they know way
> >back then anyway .... ]
> >[IPCC - pack of UN lackeys, vested intertest. PC. Greens. Commos....
mumble
> >...]

Note the []

> >
> >        http://www.ipcc.ch/
> >
> >
> >    Full report (pdf)    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2SPMfinal.pdf
> >
> >    Summary for policy makers - "The Scientific basis"   . Lots and lots
of
> >pretty graphs :-)

Has anyone actually READ it ?

> >    Actually very interesting
> >
> >            http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf


> >Really really really bad pro GW site just to allow people to point to how
> >bad these GW people are
> >(OK - its for kids - but balance is a really really good idea
regardless -
> >or even especially so)

Just to point out excesses all round.

> >        www.chesapeakeclimate.org/global_warming_primer.htm
> >
> >--
> >http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> >email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

The day we get adamant about our scientific results, especially re chaotic
ill conditioned systems that are far beyond our ability to model well, is
the day we risk dying. Saying that the other guys' models are poor is fine -
as long as we admit that the reason that they are questionable is that the
best brains and computing power available isn't enough to yet model with
certainty - either way. The real model is still running, and it tends to
only produce results in real time.



       Russell McMahon


Look at CO2 believed range for past ?10,000 years and now.
Look at nitrogen oxide input, methane input and much much more.
Look at how far outside the previously controlled range they are.
look at the stunningly good control and feedback mechanisms that exist to
manage all this up until now.
Ask yourself "IF there is an adaptive feedback system that keeps everything
in balance, more or less, how far can I perturb the variables before the
mechanism gets to a state it was not "designed"* to handle and cannot
function as "intended"* ?
Is there such a limit?
How do we know?
How do we know we are correct?

* -> Designed / Intended. Whether the control systems arose "ex nihilo" or
evolved or whatever, they are there and work. Origins may be pertinent but
are probably less important than functionality.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@072055 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Global warming is pseudo-science. It reminds me of some of the other
> pseudo-science schemes,
> like reading bumps on the head to determine tendency toward criminal
> behaviour.

Strange. According to the data I've seen, global warming is a fact.

That being said, the data only cover a very short period of time (100
years of so). Also, the *causes* of global warming are a mystery, as
is its extent.

From what I've read I don't think that humans have had much to do with
this.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
@spam@jayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@075703 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > Global warming is pseudo-science.

> Strange. According to the data I've seen, global warming is a fact.

Data never sez nothing - he jest lay low.
It's the interpretation where the fun begins.

GW, for and against, is a religion.

There are many moderates and in betweens, but:

- In the strongly against camp are the rape the earth crowd, vested interest
petro-dollar, what me worry, capitalist/laissez faire/libertarian, control
freak exploiters AND, importantly  those who oppose the principles of the
other point of view.

- In the strongly for camp are the save the earth crowd, vested interested
eco freak, vested interest I can make a (trillion) buck(s) out of carbon
credits, save the resources, brothers keeper, socialist/control freak
exploiters  AND, importantly  those who oppose the principles of the other
point of view.

Both have attendant masses of sincere and highly capable and proficient
scientists - Nobel prizes on both sides. Both have attendant masses of I can
prove anything you will pay me to prove scientists and both sides believe in
their cause with a religious zeal akin to that found in spokesmen for the
cigarette industry.

The truth is out there, but people are shouting past each other in furious
hate.
Many suffer and many make big bucks.

> That being said, the data only cover a very short period of time (100
> years of so).

Pertinent data is available over very large periods of time with varying
reliability and detail. (Hundreds of years to millenia to far more). Tree
rings, snow deposits in permanent glaciers, various archaeological
indicators
and far more. Much is open to interpretation. The guys on "the other" side
are all self serving idiots, do poor science, can't interpret data properly,
cook their figures, and are a disgrace to humanity. [Lest anyone miss my
point - this applies from whichever side you look.]
There are enough people on each side who make this stereotype look true to
make you worried.

>Also, the *causes* of global warming are a mystery

Yes but :-)
The factors are largely known. Their relationship and past (and even
present) magnitude are in question.
eg
- The sun is a variable output star and also has its own cycles. Clearly (I
think ;-) )0 the Sun's output level is very significant.

- The magnitude of past CO2 levels is hotly debated. Both sides are right
and both differ vastly in their opinions.

- The ability of the system multiple feedback mechanisms to handle
perturbations of the sort that we are adding is AMPLE !!! / GROSSLY
INADEQUATE! / Has inverted and is now driving the system further out of
control / None of these.

- much much much more

> , as is its extent.

Both sides are absolutely certain about this within known bounds.
Again, both disagree in their certainty and don't overlap.
The models are unable to be made good enough with present data and
resources.

> From what I've read I don't think that humans have had much to do with
> this.

Choose any two:

   - They absolutely certainly have !!!!!!!!!!  Are you mad !!!!! ?
   - They absolutely certainly haven't  !!!!!!!!!!  You'd have to be mad to
even think otherwise!!!!!


Stand well away from anyone who is absolutely certain about GW either way
!!!!
(Niven's second law).


       Russell McMahon.

The references I gave have some excellent material on the pro-GW case. This
can be hard to come by on the web. The anti-GW crowd  can tear all that
apart before breakfast without even reading it.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@084138 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Stand well away from anyone who is absolutely certain about GW either way
> !!!!
> (Niven's second law).

I fully agree with this. I'm seldom absolutely certain about *anything*.  :)

> The references I gave have some excellent material on the pro-GW case. This
> can be hard to come by on the web. The anti-GW crowd  can tear all that
> apart before breakfast without even reading it.

Of course. It's much easier to deal with things if you just assume the
opposing view is wrong and all who hold such views are malicious.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
spamBeGonejayspamBeGonespamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@084758 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <RemoveMEapptechspamTakeThisOuTPARADISE.NET.NZ>
Subject: Re: [OT:] Global Warming


> - The sun is a variable output star and also has its own cycles. Clearly
(I
> think ;-) )0 the Sun's output level is very significant.

The solar cycle has been known for at least 300 years.  The effect of the
sunspot cycle on the solar flux has been known for at least 100 years.  For
about 30 years we have been able to measure the effect of the solar flux on
global temperatures.  The effect is significant.  During solar maxima, the
increased temperature of the planet causes an expansion of the atmosphere
which, in turn, causes satellite orbits to degrade more rapidly than during
solar minima.  I would say that is "very significant".

What concerns me is that every single global warming "scientific" report
that I have read which talks about temperature change in the industrial age
(and I certainly can't claim to have read them all), ALWAYS selects a time
range that begins at a solar minumum and ends at a solar maximum.  This
tells me that either:
 a) They are incompetent
 b) They are trying to decieve me

That being said, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty well
established, and should probably be a cause for concern.  It concerns me
that we are not fretting about more powerful greenhouse gasses (although I
see Dubya did something about CH4 last week). Further, there is evidence
that if, in fact, the planet really is warming, there are other factors that
may be more significant than the greenhouse effect, but we aren't looking at
those factors at all, as far as I can tell.

All this tells me that somewhere out there is someone with a vested interest
in reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, and their concern isn't the health of
the planet.  But I don't know what they are after.  What worries me most is
that maybe we should be concerned about global warming, but because of these
hiddden interests, we really don't have any studies we can trust.

--McD

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@100458 by Rich

picon face
Not to be contrary, Russell, but the data seems to be very compelling for
some and hardly impressive for others within the community of scientists.
This is not the case for gravity, or electric field, etc.  How can it be a
sound principle if there is so much controversy, and there is clear
definition of its nature?

{Original Message removed}

2004\08\12@104029 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Not to be contrary, Russell,

Contraryness is always welcome :-)
But I can be happy with non-contraryness too.

> but the data seems to be very compelling for
> some and hardly impressive for others within the community of scientists.
> This is not the case for gravity, or electric field, etc.  How can it be a
> sound principle if there is so much controversy, and there is clear
> definition of its nature?

Second things first.
2.    The definition is far from clear.
This is outlined nicely in the summary of an ebook in one of the references
I gave and in various papers.
People are agreed that the climate is varying. Some say we are driving it
towards a warming cycle. Others say we are pushing it towards triggering an
ice age. Some, wisely, say that that A MAY cause B. Some say that's just the
way it goes and we are not having a significant effect. The most alarming of
the true scientific positions is that we MAY be pushing the climate into a
toggling mode where it changes almost instantly into a completely different
way of working - past history seems to indicate you MAY be able to swing
mean global temperature by over 15C in around 50 years. Now THAT would be a
time to live through (if you were lucky :-) ).

Note that Northern Summer 2003 was the hottest ever recorded. (I was there
at the peak - it was very interesting). Note El Ninya weather patterns of a
decade or two back - never *known* to have been seen before. And changes
since. Some say we are doing this. others say it just happens.

1.    We don't know enough, the reality is vastly complex, our computers and
our knowledge cannot model the system well enough to be certain that our
assumptions are good. Some people just decide that they know their
assumptions are the correct ones, and away we go. They MAY be right. They
may not. God knows who is right. Just as well ;-)

While gravity and electric fields are at core a pure mystery (even though we
may pretend otherwise), we can model their effects very very very well
indeed. In fact our models work better than we can measure reality and we
have cause to believe that our models are far better than our measurements.
eg Gravity seems to work by inverse law to power
2.000000000000000000000000000000..... . Our measurements run out long before
the 0's do.

Fundamental laws generally allow of good prediction and modelling, even if
we don't understand how they work. Even Quantum mechanics, which we
completely don't understand, is superb for predictions (most of the time
until we find another wrinkle).

But atmosphere is not based on simple single fundamental laws but on vast
interactions (obviously enough). The only computer we have that will model
it accurately is an analog one and its in constant use for other purposes
and only gives results in real time. Maybe we could ask the mice to fund a
second one ?



       Russell McMahon


Did I pass ? ;-)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@105934 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Your premise that there is a clear definition of the nature of global
warming is false.  There is a clear observation or symptom of gloabl
warming, but no one agrees on the nature of global warming, nevermind a
clear definition of such.

Likewise, electricity did not have a clear definition of its nature for
all the decades that it, its effects, and theories concerning it were
hotly contested.

We are, at most, 25-30 years into the discovery and debate.  This is
tiny compared to the time taken to generally prove and agree on what
today we consider physical doctrine, thought the theories of gravity,
electricity, etc are nothing but reasonable approximations.

We know, for instance, that gravity is observable (like GW) but no one
really knows what causes gravity.  We hardly know whether gravity has a
speed, let alone the actual nature of it.

Whether the entire statement is true generally I don't know since 'clear
definition of its nature' is rather subjective, and difficult to give a
'yes' or 'no' to, so any example I could come up with could be rebutted
by someone simply claiming to have a different clear definition.

-Adam

Rich wrote:

>Not to be contrary, Russell, but the data seems to be very compelling for
>some and hardly impressive for others within the community of scientists.
>This is not the case for gravity, or electric field, etc.  How can it be a
>sound principle if there is so much controversy, and there is clear
>definition of its nature?
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@150350 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:56:01 +1200, Russell McMahon
wrote:

> Stand well away from anyone who is absolutely certain
about GW either way !!!!
> (Niven's second law).

Indeed... Definition of a Consultant:  One who is loud,
confident, and wrong!  :-)

I am sitting severely on the fence on this at the
moment, because the more I read about it (and thanks for
the Royal Society link) the more I realise that the
people who know most about the subject know extremely
little!  (Personally I'm from the other mob, the Royal
Institution - we had Davey and Faraday among our number
- Newton was just a layabout! :-)))

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\12@152423 by Rich

picon face
Russell:
I see the logic in your reasoning.  Not that I would expect less.  I always
appreciate your ideas and I am sure to continue to do so.

I am familiar with the arguments you give, and I know that the model for
the atom is also incorrect and if I may say so, I do not accept "string
theory" yet it is widely accepted and not well defined scientifically.  I
suspect that we really do not know much more than the fact that we have
observed certain environmental changes and some of us are persuaded that it
is sufficient deductive information that we can inductively arrive at a
theory.  It is entirely possible in my view that either it is a valid
hypothesis or it is a bogus hypothesis, but that it at best adumbrated and a
gross scientific error to assume a priori that it is a scientific theory.

What occurs to me also is the tenacity with which certain persons in the
political camp hold to an idea as though it were a valid theory, when at
best, as I see it, it is still speculation at least until more predictable
models are produced.  I am not willing to take a defensive position with
respect to either case until I see more scientific evidence.    Is it more
of a scientific debate or a political debate?  I find it necessary to ask
that question as well.

I do agree that it is possible to toggle the environmental system.  However,
I an not convinced that it would not recover, even though it may not be in
the short term.  To that end, I am not in favor of the present practice of
spraying the skies with the aluminum-barium spray because it reflects the
sunlight back and results in a lowering of local temperature.  I cannot see
how lowering the local temperature would not affect the atmospheric pressure
and change weather patterns on a greater geographic scale.  Could this
impact el nino?  Could global warming or cooling be affected by such
practices?  Could this toggle the environment if carried to a greater
extent?  Perhaps it can but there is not enough long term data to indicate
that.

It seems to me that our adherence to the scientific method has been
compromised by other interests.  Global warming, I feel, falls into this
category.  I was quite surprised by the cold fusion fiasco and yet I could
see it coming.  If I could ask one thing of the scientific community it
would be strict adherence to the scientific method.  To the socio-political
community I would ask for strict avoidance of politicizing scientific
information.

respectfully,
Richard



{Original Message removed}

2004\08\12@153252 by Rich

picon face
Would you agree that we need not go back to the invention of the wheel to
establish a timeline for scientific discovery? We are all familiar with
Newton's work in the seventeenth century and the great scientific thrust in
the nineteenth century.  But I hope we do not lose sight of the real issue,
which is that the effects of gravity, electric fields or corona or similar
common phenomena are not only mathematically demonstrable but predictable
even though the essence of their nature remains unknown.  Is this the case
for global warming?  It may be but I am not aware of it.

{Original Message removed}

2004\08\13@001602 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
The US National Security Agency put out a paper about the ice age issue -
not exactly a left wing group - that discussed a mechanism that can trigger
an ice age in a relatively short period of time.  Supposedly this mechanism
could have triggered the mini ice age of the 1400's and it is caused by
global warming!

It works like this.  The warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico flow from the
Caribbean northward where the saltier waters cool.  Since salt water is
heavier, the water sinks to form one of the giant ocean currents that circle
the globe.  Clearly there are others, but NSA is only interested in
developing scenarios to save rich Americans - no offense guys.  Anyway, with
global warming melting the icebergs, the concentration of salt is diluted
and the massive sinking is slowed.  Depending upon how much it slows,
affects how cold Europe gets.  The Viking settlements in Iceland were
supposed to have succumbed to this effect.  Anyway, ice cores indicate that
it has happened many times in the past and can happen in as few as ten
years.  True or not, recent flow in the Gulf current has slowed 20% since
records were kept although the salt concentration has changed some miniscule
percentage.

Personally , I believe ocean temperatures have a much greater impact on our
weather than greenhouse gases, but I'm not stupid enough to claim to be able
to prove it.  It sure is good to know NSA is looking at doomsday projections
to save our fat cats!

Here's just one Google search result, but there is one that has very good
graphics to show the oceans flows, etc.  I have the paper, but failed to
bookmark the site :-(
http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover5.html

{Original Message removed}

2004\08\13@012858 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The US National Security Agency put out a paper about the ice age issue -
> not exactly a left wing group - that discussed a mechanism that can
trigger
> an ice age in a relatively short period of time.  Supposedly this
mechanism
> could have triggered the mini ice age of the 1400's and it is caused by
> global warming!

Google on thermohaline & atlantic conveyor [which isn't a container ship
heading for the Falklands ;-) ].

       "atlantic conveyor" thermohaline        =             345 hits
       "atlantic conveyor" thermohaline  2004  =        102 hits


Starter for 10 points:

University of Washington
Surface heat budget of the arctic ocean


http://sheba.apl.washington.edu/sheba3/publications/shebaArticle/sheba.article.html

People opposed to thinking should not look at the figures in the above
document, such as this one


http://sheba.apl.washington.edu/sheba3/publications/shebaArticle/figure2.html

   (you have been warned!)

Ice Station SHEBA
Not a Alistair Maclean novel

       asd-http://www.larc.nasa.gov/fire/



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\08\13@042439 by Rich

picon face
I am happy to hear that you admit that you can't prove it.  Also, most
Americans that I know that are well off came here from somewhere else, or
their parent's did as in my case, and broke their butt working very hard,
studying hard and going without to become successful so that they can be
envied and called fat cats and criticized by others who did not sacrificed
and struggle to make it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Browne" <EraseMEed_b_pesspamspamspamBeGoneSWBELL.NET>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [OT:] Global Warming


> The US National Security Agency put out a paper about the ice age issue -
> not exactly a left wing group - that discussed a mechanism that can
trigger
> an ice age in a relatively short period of time.  Supposedly this
mechanism
> could have triggered the mini ice age of the 1400's and it is caused by
> global warming!
>
> It works like this.  The warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico flow from the
> Caribbean northward where the saltier waters cool.  Since salt water is
> heavier, the water sinks to form one of the giant ocean currents that
circle
> the globe.  Clearly there are others, but NSA is only interested in
> developing scenarios to save rich Americans - no offense guys.  Anyway,
with
> global warming melting the icebergs, the concentration of salt is diluted
> and the massive sinking is slowed.  Depending upon how much it slows,
> affects how cold Europe gets.  The Viking settlements in Iceland were
> supposed to have succumbed to this effect.  Anyway, ice cores indicate
that
> it has happened many times in the past and can happen in as few as ten
> years.  True or not, recent flow in the Gulf current has slowed 20% since
> records were kept although the salt concentration has changed some
miniscule
> percentage.
>
> Personally , I believe ocean temperatures have a much greater impact on
our
> weather than greenhouse gases, but I'm not stupid enough to claim to be
able
> to prove it.  It sure is good to know NSA is looking at doomsday
projections
> to save our fat cats!
>
> Here's just one Google search result, but there is one that has very good
> graphics to show the oceans flows, etc.  I have the paper, but failed to
> bookmark the site :-(
> http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover5.html
>
> {Original Message removed}

2004\08\13@065343 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
Happy to hear your parents are fat cats ... my parents and theirs worked
hard, too, but aren't fat cats ... hmmm ... wonder what happened.  Heh,
maybe everyone's goal isn't to become a fat cat.  My father and his were
both university professors in fields not conducive to fat-catting, yet still
chose to work long, hard hours.  Hope it didn't make them lesser Americans
...

Here's the pentagon paper:
www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html#report
it's probably more interesting in its geopolitical rantings than in the
science, borrowed from elsewhere, but it's noteworthy that it would come
from the same government that walked on the Kyoto Accords.

Perhaps I should flip this and ask you to prove:
1) that the ice-age process has not happened before
2) there is no possibility that it could happen (again)  (depending upon the
outcome of 1).
Given the rather compelling evidence (though not black and white), it would
seem more difficult to disprove.

The problem with sciences that deal with unknowns is that it is unlikely
that there is any way of predicting absolutely any scenario; take weather
for example.  When I was a kid, the weatherman was a joke and knew less
about the weather than I did (having just come in from the rain).  Today,
the prediction is pretty darn good and there is usually an explanation when
it's wrong, yet it is doubtful that there will ever be total exactitude.  I
don't need that kind of precision to know that I want to leave when a Cat 5
hurricane is approaching my home.

Similarly, ice cap melting is measurable, the ocean currents and
temperatures are as well, and ice cores are compelling in their story.
Whether the changes are manmade or not will never be proven to all, nor is
it necessary.  Likely, we will find out soon enough.  Personally, I'm glad
some people have chosen careers where they seek explanations and
understanding, though won't become rich in the process.

{Original Message removed}

2004\08\13@065344 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
Russell,
This is the one that I had looked at before with the compelling graphics:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

{Original Message removed}

2004\08\13@082711 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
BEST PAPER ON GLOBAL WARMING THAT
YOU ARE LIABLE TO SEE ANY TIME SOON.

Ed said

> This is the one that I had looked at before with the compelling graphics:
> http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

**** IF         you think Global Warming is utter rubbish,
**** BUT    you are prepared, with an open mind, to read ONE short paper
****             that might at least make you wonder,
****             then this is probably the paper for you.

This is an utterly superb example on this subject, because.

- Totally respected US research establishment (Woods Hole)
   Not a greenie hot bed.

- Written by director of institute
     Very well respected scientist.
     Good scientific record
     Well qualified academically and practically.

- Relatively recent paper (Jan 27 2003)

- Populist level but well reasoned, well illustrated.

DOESN'T claim to be correct with certainty (an essential feature).
Plausible.
Disturbing.

Read it!!!!!!

Note that this THEORY explains how quite minor effects of GW MIGHT trigger
major global climate changes including ice-age type effects over very short
periods. These effects may not be able to be reversed by man (or woman
:-) ). It explains what measurements are available that appear to confirm
the theories predictions.

NB - as always, many question this THEORY.
Many also find it persuasive.
IF he's right then we are at severe risk.
Any who would reject this out of hand without careful consideration are
dangerous people who you should not stand too close to :-)
(Niven's 2nd law).

For more on this in general:

> Google on thermohaline & atlantic conveyor

>         "atlantic conveyor" thermohaline        =             345 hits
>         "atlantic conveyor" thermohaline  2004  =        102 hits


For more on this man's up to date ideas specifically, Google on

       robert gagosian woods hole global warming 2004

498 hits



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\08\13@141602 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
> It seems to me that our adherence to the scientific method has been
> compromised by other interests.

It generally has... as there is not really something like the "scientific
method". Or, if there is, it boils down to something as trivial as
observing and reaching conclusions that are shared by the majority. Doesn't
really sound "scientific" :)

If you mean the process described by creating theories and trying to
falsify them by experiment (verification is not really possible -- it's
more the absence of false results that kind of "verifies" the theory
temporarily until there are some), then a lot of fields of knowledge that
commonly are considered science are not really science. Most "geo-anything"
are among them: it's difficult to run experiments at that scale.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

2004\08\14@094116 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
There was a very good program series on Swedish television acouple of years ago, that took an very broad and well explained scientific approach to this.

It is incredible how many facts can be dug up, literally, from old sediments in clay under arctic glaciers, air incapsulated in bubbles from deep glaciers, (theese two thousands of years old data), old writings from observers about wether, wehn ice came and braoke up on lake relative to some tree setting flower, etc, and also relatively recent continuous measurement of gases in air, etc.

Receltly i read that temperature can be read out of fossile shells from a kind of snail; the ratio between two oxygen isotopes that get binded in the shell vary with teperature!  The vast ampunt of data and clever tests and verification being used is really astonishing.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the increase in dust and CO2 follow the human activity.  (also it is easy to think about all cola and oul that gatered for millions of years, and now being burnt in a thousandt of that time)  Evidence is overwhelming from many sets of data.

Complicating things are that CO2 have effects both to cool and heat.
Another issue is that solar breakout (not the right word i guess) activity also corresponds somewhat to measured temperature.
Also, if the clima is warming up more genreally, it will not certainly be warmer everywhere on earth, as th eweather system will change.  For example the Golf current wil probably stop, leading to colder clima where i live.

Wa also see that warming already affect some coral reef, whoose some organism is very sensitive to temperature.

Other effets are of course glaciers, and especailly Antarctic melting; antarctic is resting on deep mountains or something that way, and if it melts sea will rise much (i do not remember the details here)

Heating up, some parts of earth will be able produce more food per acre, but desert spreading will be much greater.  Aggregate this with a probaly more instable weather...

Somewhat related are the ozone layer breakdown, haused by various gases humuans produce, and often forgotten are the huge amounts of NOx produced by jet airplanes.  It is strange international lagislation dont put a stop to thoose sily things just as an example...

Before i was somewhat confident that we would probably be ut of coal and oil in hundred years, so it will not go extremely bad, but:

Recently i read that it is found vast amounts of methane bound in permafrost (english?) deep frozen clay/ice around the poles have low concentration, but enpurmous volume, so contain more methane then all known used and future oil and cole together.  Most are too low concentration to use commercially although such projects exist.  The scary part is that as temperature rise only a little vast volume if that ice wil melt, releasing enourmous amounts of methane.  And methane known to aid in warming wen it gets in th eathmosphere.  Some believe that this the mechanism explaining how earth could heat up relatively fast some time in earlier millions of years.

Basically:
Plenty of good reliable data are available
Ther is no doubt we humans change the clima
There is no doubt there is also a natural varioation
 (but *no* natural variation as big as recently in any data!)
Almost all theory (and data extrapolation) show earth wil warm up
Most effects of warm-up will be bad

One big problem is that large companies, even nations hesitate to change as much as needed that is costly for their sort term < 100 years, and in stock market or election 100 year is another world, so they do not care :(

Yet another proble are then "third world" wants to live like western countries, in which case it will definitely go havoc, just compare oil usage between US and china, then calculate how many months known oil supply would last...

my couple of oere
/Morgan
--
Morgan Olsson, Kivik, Sweden

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\08\14@113624 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
There are many people who disagree with the points you list here. And many
others who agree.
Many top scientists are included in both categories.

> Basically:
>  Plenty of good reliable data are available

Interpretation of the data varies widely.
Context of the data collction also needs to be established and
interpretations vary.

>  Ther is no doubt we humans change the climat

Some express great doubt.
(I find it hard to see why, but they definitely exist and are sincere and
often intelligent).
(At least some probably used to be cigarette salesmen :-) )
But there are some good counter points raised for each claim made.

>  There is no doubt there is also a natural variation

All agree on this ! :-)

>   (but *no* natural variation as big as recently in any data!)

Most disagree. There have been large natural variations BUT whether they
produced catastrophic changes is questioned by some.

>  Almost all theory (and data extrapolation) show earth wil warm up

many disagree. many agree.

>  Most effects of warm-up will be bad

Most agree. Whether it occurs is questioned by some.

As you noted, "global warming" MAY lead to sudden and essentially
irreversible cooling.

           RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\08\14@122922 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <KILLspamapptechspamBeGonespamPARADISE.NET.NZ>
<snip>
> >  There is no doubt we humans change the climate
>
> Some express great doubt.
> (I find it hard to see why, but they definitely exist and are sincere and
> often intelligent).
<snip>

I once read somewhere that when Mt. St. Helens erupted back a few years ago
that it spewed more pollution into the air than humans have ever since the
first caveman lit the first camp fire.  Not sure if it's true or not, but it
certainly puts our relatively puny existence back into a bigger picture.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\08\14@134753 by Engineering Info

picon face
Robert, you must be REALLY old to consider 1980 as ONLY a few years ago :-)

Robert B. wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\08\14@164536 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
Oh yeah... I guess I wasn't even born yet!  I do recall doing a geology
project on it sometime in middle school though.


{Original Message removed}

2004\08\14@223939 by Rich

picon face
What do you know about spraying the skies with barium-aluminum spray?  Is it
only in the US or is it taking place elsewhere also?


{Original Message removed}

2004\08\15@023329 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> What do you know about spraying the skies with barium-aluminum spray?  Is
it
> only in the US or is it taking place elsewhere also?

My name was in there but it wasn't my post.
But here's a 1997 paper, *allegedly* co-authored by Edward Teller (of H Bomb
fame) suggesting that it be done.

       http://www.rense.com/general18/scatteringEdTellerwithnotes.pdf

And here's a site that claims it's being done all over.
NB - this is NOT my sort of site at all - I include it here only because it
discusses the subject in question.
A quick glance at other pages on the site tells me to stay away from them
:-)

       http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/chemtrailsworld.htm



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\15@132629 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
There is a nice book about dating that touches on the mass extinction
events and ancient weather patterns and is a very good intro to dating and
what information is available (non technical, layman's introduction):
Clocks for the Ages by Robert Silverberg. It must be oldish but it covers
everything from tree rings to ice core dating through several isotope
based dating methods and thermoluminiscence plus several more I forget. In
between there is plenty of data and clues about weather, catastrophes, ice
age effects etc. The book is definitely a non sequitur wrt GW (it does not
even mention the term - it predates the 'discovery' of GW) and it can be
said to be an impartial source of clues wrt. $SUBJ for that reason imho.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\15@181407 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
>> This is the one that I had looked at before with the compelling graphics:
>> http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html
>
> **** IF         you think Global Warming is utter rubbish,
> **** BUT    you are prepared, with an open mind, to read ONE short paper
> ****             that might at least make you wonder,
> ****             then this is probably the paper for you.

If you look at this graph from that paper
www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef_en4.html
you wonder whether anything that we do has much to do with global
climate...

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\15@190501 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >> This is the one that I had looked at before with the compelling
graphics:
> >>
www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html
> >
> > **** IF         you think Global Warming is utter rubbish,
> > **** BUT    you are prepared, with an open mind, to read ONE short paper
> > ****             that might at least make you wonder,
> > ****             then this is probably the paper for you.
>
> If you look at this graph from that paper
>
www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef_en4.html
> you wonder whether anything that we do has much to do with global
> climate...

That is a valid thing to wonder about

BUT

- are you aware that the implication of your question is almost the exact
opposite of what the people who provided that graph were implying ?
Rather than suggesting that past changes were so large that our current
activities are liable to be minimal, they were pointing out that past
circumstances have 'triggered' essentially instantaneous long term changes
in earth's climate that would be utterly catastrophic if they occurred
today.

As they note

The Medieval Period -An abrupt warming took place about 1,000 years ago. It
was not nearly so dramatic as past events, but it nevertheless allowed the
Norse to establish settlements in Greenland.

The Little Ice Age -The Norse abandoned their Greenland settlements when the
climate turned abruptly colder 700 years ago. Between 1300 and 1850, severe
winters had profound agricultural, economic, and political impacts in
Europe.

While both of these "minor" events were "triggered" by natural causes, the
key question is 'Can WE cause such rapid irreversible changes to occur by
what we are doing to the system?'  Those who say "absolutely not, are you
mad?!!!"  (or equivalent) are liable to be cursed for the next 500 years if
they've got it wrong (provided we last that long :-) ).


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\15@204447 by Ken Pergola

flavicon
face
I definitely can't intelligently discuss this topic, but those participating
in this thread might be interested in the latest issue (August/September
2004) of THE INDUSTRIAL PHYSICIST magazine (http://www.tipmagazine). I received
this issue (paper magazine) a few days ago and immediately thought about
this thread on the PICList.

You should be able to get the PDF version of the article here:

http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p20.html


In the "Letters" section, there are a lot of web links that people might be
interested in checking out. I'm happy to report that the links in the paper
magazine are conveniently placed online:

http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p4.html



There's also an article in the "Features" section:

Narrowing uncertainty in global climate change
----------------------------------------------
by Chris Forest, Mort Webster, and John Reilly

"A series of linked computer models at MIT is being used to predict the
likelihood of serious climate change with and without policies to stabilize
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide."


There was also a previous article in the June/July issue (same magazine)
titled: "Millennia of global warming".


Best regards and happy reading,

Ken Pergola

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\15@222151 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I definitely can't intelligently discuss this topic,

The intelligence required is to be aware that the topic is not a closed one
but still very much open to discussion. You pass that barrier easily :-)

Coming from your reference are these utter goldmines:
Dozens of peer reviewed papers covering the subject in depth.
Reading the abstracts is probably enough for most of us :-)

***** Look at these if at all interested in
***** rational "global warming" discussion.

Publications of the MIT Global Change Joint Program

       http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/reports.html#reports

ABSTRACTS of MIT Global Change Joint Program Publications

       http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/abstracts.html#a99



           RM

__________________________


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\08\16@115628 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
>> If you look at this graph from that paper
>> www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef_en4.html
>> you wonder whether anything that we do has much to do with global
>> climate...
>
> That is a valid thing to wonder about
>
> BUT
>
>  - are you aware that the implication of your question is almost the exact
> opposite of what the people who provided that graph were implying ?

Yes. I just took a slightly different conclusion. It seems to imply that
climate is a locally instable system. That's how I always thought about it.
It also seems to imply that changes in the range of what we are observing
now, and more, seem to have occurred "naturally" and seem to be expected to
continue to occur "naturally". Taken this, it's hard to come up with clear
evidence that what we are observing currently is actually caused by
man-made influences -- the effects of those seem to be buried under the
"noise" in the measurements. ("Noise" in this context being the natural
changes, of which we don't really know the causes and rhythms.)

Of course it also implies that it is possible that our actions could
trigger an instability jump and have far quicker and larger consequences
than many predictions show.

I think there is a sufficient number of good reasons to try to improve our
impact on our environment, so that we don't need to use doubtful reasons
that at this point are speculations.

> Rather than suggesting that past changes were so large that our current
> activities are liable to be minimal, they were pointing out that past
> circumstances have 'triggered' essentially instantaneous long term changes
> in earth's climate that would be utterly catastrophic if they occurred
> today.

Yes. But they came anyway, and independently of us. Who's to say that this
won't happen again, even if we stopped messing with everything related to
the weather? Who's to say it wouldn't happen right now? Who's to say it
wouldn't have happened already 20 years ago if we hadn't burned all that
fuel?

That's not to say that I'm a fan of burning fuel. But this thing about the
global weather is just too uncertain for me to be a good guideline -- or
argument for anything I'd like to see happening.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\08\16@120002 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
When did you ever see the "commission to investigate the big scary problem" say that there really wasn't anything to worry about, and they didn't need any more money?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\08\16@194340 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> When did you ever see the "commission to investigate the big scary
problem" say that there really wasn't anything to worry about, and they
didn't need any more money?

Seldom :-)

But just because there is undoubtedly vast quantities of hype, lies,
misinformation, politics, PCing and profiteering on this subject, it doesn't
mean that there aren't important things to be known. A reasonably rapid scan
over some of the references that I have flagged as being worthwhile should
cause most intelligent engineers (most of us here ? :-) ) to be cautiously
receptive to the idea that there is a problem to be investigated.



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...