Searching \ for '[OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiar' 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=fabricating+global
Search entire site for: 'Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiar'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiar'
2002\08\20@232106 by Jim

flavicon
face
Title: SLIPPERY SLOPE [written by Andrew Stuttaford]

Greenpeace has been showing [these] pictures on its website:

http://www.greenpeace.org/features/details?features%5fid=21871

comparing the current state of some glaciers in
Svalbard (an island some five hundred miles to
the north of Norway) with how they used to be
some eighty years ago.

The picture (ice then, rocks now) seems to give
further weight to the global warming hypothesis.

A dramatic story? Well, no. It turns out that the
Greens didn't bother to check the facts.

The London Daily Telegraph, however, did.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$NUK5BQXEKTSHBQFIQMFCF
FOAVCBQYIV0xml=/news/2002/08/17/wglac17.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/08/17/ixworld.
html&_requestid=74431&_requestid=415539>

One of its correspondents took the trouble to consult
with the marvelously named Professor Ole Humlun, a
leading glaciologist in that part of the world. The
result? It turns out that the glacier melted back in
the 1920s.

As yet, there has been no change to the Greenpeace
website.

This embarrassment comes a few weeks after the New
York Times was shown to have misstated the degree
of warming in Alaska.

If the case for man-made global warming is so clear-cut
as we are always told, why the need for all the exaggeration?

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

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


2002\08\21@024229 by cdb

flavicon
face
Svarlbard - To non Scandinavians - Spitzbergen.

I am one of those not entirely convinced about the Global Warming
argument, namely because it is in pre-history that the Earth has a
geological temperature wobble all of its own.

However having said that, I also believe that there can only be a
positive gain by mankind being cautious and trying to minimise any
effects he/she/they/we maybe having upon the atmosphere.

Just as an aside - I believe that there are two areas in this where
Australia could, if the political and industrial will existed lead
the scientific community - research into Solar Power (Silica is no
problem and there is a guaranteed amount of exposure to the sun all
year) and in Water retention.

It amazes me that in Norway it is the 'drivehuseffekten' has spurred
on the relativiley easy access to solar powered fridges/washing
machines etc and whilst I am the first to admit I always get sunburnt
in Norway they don't have access to guaranteed clement weather.

Queensland - the only place I've lived where the houses are
unbearably hot in the Summer and Colder than a certain allegedly
rainy country of my homeland.

Yes as Ashley can concur it has been drizzling here for the past 3
days. see what happens when I do my washing?

Colin
--
cdb, spam_OUTbodgy1TakeThisOuTspamoptusnet.com.au on 21/08/2002

--
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


2002\08\21@133632 by Mark Perri

picon face
Dear Jim,

I wouldn't exactly refer to Greenpeace and the New York
Times as scientific publications, and therefore you shouldn't
be convinced to believe in or not believe in global warming
based on their stories.  I'm not surprised that they either
exaggerate to sell publications or to win over those who
aren't convinced yet.

But what you should listen to is every single credible
atmospheric scientist and publication that states that
global warming is definitely true and producing significant
climate change.  The problem with getting people
to believe in global climate change is that it is an extremely
difficult and complex problem and therefore involves a good
deal of uncertainty.

I don't have the latest recommendation in front of me,
but it's in the neighborhood of 3 +/- 1 degree C, or
a more conservative number like 2 +/- 2 depending on which
model is run.  Now, here's where the problem lies.  The
scientists who determine these numbers publish them and of
course publish their uncertainties, or else they would be very
dishonest.  To any other scientist, you look at the numbers
and know that about 2-3 degrees of global warming will occur
with a fair amount of certainty.

But if you're someone like President Bush with ulterior motives,
you say, "Wow look at these uncertainties.  Why can't the
scientists have zero error and be 100% correct.  Plus my
science advisors and the general public have no idea about
climate change.  I'll 'Do Little and Delay'"  Which is what ends
up happening here in the US because we'd rather do what's
good for the economy rather than the Earth.  It's too bad
the US administration seems to actually need someone
to exaggerate before they will listen.


At 08:19 PM 8/20/02, you wrote:
{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


2002\08\21@140947 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "every single credible atmospheric scientist and
   publication"

Sorry, but, " *every* single credible atmospheric
scientist and publication" does NOT agree that
global warming is occuring.

I can show you data going back 100 years from a
temp/environment measuring station near here
that shows an actual DECLINE in average
temperature.

Do you recall when this 'calamity' was first predicted?
It's been nearly 12 years now - and 'models' are still
being pointed to as 'proof' while Greenpeace fudges
evidence ...

A little more credible source on this subject and a
site that also provides access to actual temp *data*
going back hundreds of years can be found here:

http://www.co2science.org/

Access to temp records in the US can be accessed by
clicking on "US cliamte" on the side bar. Pick a
station like "Weatherford" from the list then
click "calculate trend" and the average temp from
1846 to 200 shows a steady DECLINE.

While we're on this subject of supposed "Global
Warming" due to increased levels of CO_sub2 owing
to the combustion of recovered hydrocarbon deposits
(NOTE the deference to the term "recovered hydrocarbon
deposits" as opposed to the media-darling term "fossil
fuels") any contributory effect due to Sun and changes
in it's output are excluded -

- why is it that we don't have a corresponding DECREASE
in O_sub2 levels? (Only increased levels of CO_sub2 are
decried ... while I would think the *real* worry should
be concerned with O_sub2 levels.)


RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@144120 by Giles Honeycutt

flavicon
face
Totally off topic:
Jim,
Wow, now I know we are doing good.  We stopped global warming before it even
got started!!
Now I wonder, we have some glaciers that are melting, and I understand we
now have a stream of cold water that is hitting the gulf stream.  Some of
the "credible" experts are predicting some strange and cold winters ahead.
About the only thing interesting that I can see, why are the glaciers
melting? Why did a huge ice shelf brake off of Antarctica?  and this will
cause colder weather.
I think the little ants on this planet that call them selves humans have not
even started to move a rubber tree plant.  Even if we were going to prevent
something, we would need to know if that something was coming, and if what
we were doing was going to help or hurt.  Possibly making a change one
direction would cause a backlash from mother nature in the opposite
direction.

Totally off topic,
Giles
{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@150432 by Jim

flavicon
face
Comments below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Giles Honeycutt" <.....giles-plKILLspamspam@spam@AMTECH-ENG.COM>
To: <PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material?


> Totally off topic:
> Jim,
> Wow, now I know we are doing good.  We stopped global warming before
> it even got started!!


You're assuming an unproven condition. It's a little
silly to even debate this I think. (A 'media' and
"pop-creation" by those who want to 'feel-good'. A
veritable movement instigated by the very same
save-the-whale groups that sees some need to assuage
their guilt because they don't have something to center
their lives/give their existance meaning ... I'll
quit now!)


> Now I wonder, we have some glaciers that are melting, and I
> understand we now have a stream of cold water that is hitting
> the gulf stream.  Some of
                   ^^^^

A key-word was used here: 'some'. It means not all and I
even doubt it is a majority of those in actual possession
of the facts.

Taking this line also allows you to *only* site those
sources that support your position. A LOT of factual
material and evidence is ignored this way.


> the "credible" experts are predicting some strange and cold winters
> ahead.

We *just* had a mild winter (this last winter) and one of the
**mildest** (coolest) summers that I recall in twenty-five
years!


> About the only thing interesting that I can see, why are the glaciers
> melting? Why did a huge ice shelf brake off of Antarctica?  and this will

You don't take into consideration *other* factors  which
you cannot see, for instance, inside-the-earth's-surface
lava flow ... (You *do* know the earth possesses a warm,
nay, hot core - don't you?)


> cause colder weather.
> I think the little ants on this planet that call them selves humans
> have not even started to move a rubber tree plant.  Even if we were
> going to prevent something, we would need to know if that something

Cap a volcano.

Assure me that no more forests will burn.

Write me a warranty on the sun's energy output.

Give me confidence that we can stop *all* under-sea
oil from seeping into the oceans (thereby ALSO
contribiting to greenhouse gases in our ecosystem
and eventually in our atmosphere).

Look- man's actions are indeed SMALL compared to the
scale NATURE moves in.

We *are* ants ...


> was coming, and if what we were doing was going to help or
> hurt.  Possibly making a change one direction would cause a backlash


Like imposing arbitrary and punishing economic sanctions
against the producers in this world via something as
resticting as "Carbon Credit Trading"?

No thanks.

RF Jim


{Quote hidden}

material?
{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


2002\08\21@154029 by Mark Perri

picon face
Jim,

A better place to look than the web would be to
scientific publications, such as Science, May 18,
2001, page 1261, where "A joint statement issued
by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the
Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society
of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of
Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists
Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish
Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council
of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences,
and Royal Society (UK)..." concludes, "The balance
of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now
to avert damaging changes to Earth's climate."

I looked at http://www.co2science.org and found that
Sherwood Idso is the president.  Idso is associated with
the Western Fuels Association that seeks to discredit
Global Warming and to encourage the use of coal.  One
of their major arguments seems to be carbon sequestration
in that increased CO2 into the atmosphere will trigger
an increase in global productivity (trees will grow more)
thus increasing carbon uptake.  However, this has been
hotly debated and now seems to be solved.  If you read:
"Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems
in a CO2-enriched atmosphere" Oren et al, Nature, 411 (6836):
469-472 MAY 24 2001, this is shown to be only temporary
and will soon become limited by available nutrients such as
nitrogen.

Also, you state that outputs from the sun are excluded, but I
don't know where you get this idea.  Seinfeld and Pandis in
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 1998, p. 1085 state
that since 1850, we have had an 0.13% increase in solar
radiation that would produce a warming of 0.26 deg C, but
that is only half of what has been observed.  In the last 25
years, the sun can only account for 1/3 of total warming.

You say the temperature has declined in a station named
"Weatherford" over the past 200 years.  I have to admit
that I don't know enough about this place to say why this is,
but I can say that we're not talking about the temperature
in any one place.  In fact some regions, are actually predicted
to get colder.  We're looking more at a global scale,
which is what's important.  The Asian brown cloud has
reduced the effects of global warming in that region, but the
pollution causes over 2 million deaths each year along
with droughts and flooding.  UNEP and C4 (2002).  The
Asian Brown Cloud:  Climate and Other Environmental
Impacts UNEP, Nairobi.

I don't understand why you're worried about O2 decreasing
in the atmosphere, since there's so much of it we're not
going to run out and suffocate.  But in case you were
wondering, O2 is decreasing due to fossil fuel
burning at a rate of 0.012 parts per thousand per year.
Bender et al, Global Biogeochemical Cycles,
10 (1): 9-21 March 1996


Mark

At 01:08 PM 8/21/02 -0500, you wrote:
{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


2002\08\21@161635 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "You say the temperature has declined
   in a station named "Weatherford" over
   the past 200 years."

The Weatherford climatological station isn't the only
station to show a DECREASE here in the US. This happened
to be one I specifcally remembered. Would you like a dozen
more sites cited?

The burdern of proof still lies with those that seek some
sort of 'control' for the purposes of 'saving' the whole
lot of us based on the outputs of 'models' whose accuracy,
at present, doesn't jibe with globally measured results.

More comments follow below.


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@161930 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
The problem with GW is not the temperature rise. The problem is that the
temperature rise injects an extra amount of energy into the system. That
energy causes most of the storms and floods and climate pattern shifts
that trouble us. The rise in temperature is a measure of that extra
energy, it has nothing to do with the effects that it causes (melting ice
is the least of the troubles). The GW can be measured in the rise of
average temperatures over a year, in most parts of the planet. If you
think that 0.2 degrees is insignificant, translate that into Joules
required to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere alone (without
considering the ocean) by that amount (the amount will be a fraction of
the real energy increase - as most of it goes into making water vapor and
convection currents) and compare to the total energy consumption on earth
per year (grand total everywhere, all energy sources). Adding heat to the
system is not interesting, it's the where it goes that matters. It goes
into potential energy mainly in the form of increased moisture in the air
(by increased evaporation), and 'some' cinetic energy in the form of air
currents and sea currents.

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


2002\08\21@162711 by Jim

flavicon
face
 "The problem with GW is not the temperature
  rise. The problem is that ..."

I like that dodge ... subtle, but bold ...

It takes a temp increase (where are the italics
when I need them!) to 'force' (introduce? inject?
put?) that energy into the system - no?

No temp change - no energy change - no *extra*
energy to evaporate liquid water and create
water vapor ...

RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@170717 by Mark Perri

picon face
Jim,

>Ahhh - A joint statement. Beats a good data set taken
>over 15 decades any day ...

I'd say it beats one non-peer reviewed website.

>Pick just about ANY US climatologocal staion and the
>trend is DOWNWARD.

I pick pretty much the entire US except for the northeast.

You should check the records from NOAA and NCAR
collated at:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/trends/temperature.html

I think it gives a good picture.  In the northeast there is
cooling due to sulfate aerosols.

Also if you go to your site and pick calculate
trend but include all stations, you'll see an increase of
about 0.8 deg C from 1880 on.
http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/ghcn.htm

>The burdern of proof still lies with those that seek some
>sort of 'control' for the purposes of 'saving' the whole
>lot of us based on the outputs of 'models' whose accuracy,
>at present, doesn't jibe with globally measured results.

Current models do actually reproduce the current climate
data.  Where are you getting that they don't?

Can't you see that policy unfortunately follows economics,
not science?

>And some Greenpeace members being avowed communists
>or socialists discredits their efforts? (Only if their datais
>bogus or contrived!)

Of course not.  I'm just saying you need to look at the
motivation behind the people that present these results.  Also,
as I said I'm not looking at greenpeace for any of this data, but
instead a huge community of atmospheric scientists.

>None of the usual lay 'global warmers' seem to attribute
>ANY warming due to the sun. That is my point.

Atmospheric Scientists do.

>Can't REALLY be called "Global Warming" then can it?
>Disingenuous on a large scale I'd say ...

As I said, the global average temperature is rising.

[about the asian brown cloud]
>Oh brother!
>I wonder WHAT these mortality figures were BEFORE!
>Sounds like a case of fitting one's "cause celeb"
>to the facts ...

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Maybe you didn't
read my post very carefully.  It seems like you're thinking
I'm attributing the pollution to global warming?  The pollution
is a separate issue.  I'm just saying that it is actually
reducing the temperature increase that would be seen in
Asia right now, but that's not to suggest that global
warming is not happening in Asia or that pollution is good.


>An increase in CO_sub2 would seem to indicate a decrease
>a O_sub2 (no?). I breathe O_sub2 and therefore I am
>concerned (perhaps a strong word!) with it's continued
>availability.

I don't think you understand how much air there is in the
atmosphere.  CO2 is at about 370 ppm now.  O2 is 20%.
Any change in oxygen from O2 to CO2 isn't going to
significantly decrease it (beyond the per meg level).

>BTW, I take it in your previous post that the statement "every
>single credible atmospheric scientist and publication" only
>includes *those* doctorate types and publications you agree
>with.

I've cited for you papers in Science and Nature as well as a textbook
(one of the best) on Atmospheric Chemistry.  I wouldn't
say it's those that I personally agree with, but that the
scientific community agrees with.  Unfortunately your CO2 website
is a one-sided argument and not peer-reviewed.

>It takes a temp increase (where are the italics
>when I need them!) to 'force' (introduce? inject?
>put?) that energy into the system - no?
>No temp change - no energy change - no *extra*
>energy to evaporate liquid water and create
>water vapor ...

No.  I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you should
go study global warming and how the atmosphere works.
To put it simply, the energy input to the earth comes from
the sun (mostly visible light).  The earth is warmed by the
sun and re-radiates that heat at longer wavelengths
in the infrared.  Greenhouse gases (Not just CO2, also
methane, SF6, and many others) absorb infrared radiation
and re-emit them back to the earth.  You can think of this
as effectively trapping that radiation so that it doesn't
get back out to space.

Thus the "extra energy" you're talking about is energy that is
not radiated back into space from the earth.  It
is "trapped" by the greenhouse gases.

Mark

--
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


2002\08\21@182804 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "I'd say it beats one non-peer reviewed website."

Non-peer reviewed? What a low-blow!

C'mon - we're not talking a Greenpeace-class website
here (talk about non-peer reviewed!) where the PHOTO-
GRAPHIC evidence is fabricated ...

Get real.

I didn't see any crackpot science posted there, however,
I'm not going to extend my self and say that all they've
got there has been extensively peer-reviewed. What they
do *seem* to engage in is *peer-reviewing the works by
others ...

More comments below.

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@184714 by Uri Sabadosh

flavicon
face
Even if there is global warming, how do we know how much is caused by
natural causes?
Uri


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Perri" <KILLspammperriKILLspamspamUCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material?


{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


2002\08\21@193607 by Jim

flavicon
face
Well, the first step in solving any problem is
defining it. In this case it boils down to whose
thermometry data do you believe.

1) The satellite data? 2) The balloon data? 3) Or the various
  weather station data?

I posted earlier an excerpt from the EPA web site that stated
the satellite data and balloon data seem to agree - leaving
some weather station data which disagrees.

Tke likelyhood that some of these Air Temperature Records
taken at various weather station data where temps show to
have increased slightly is due to the follwoing list of
potential sources of error that are known to plague the
taking of this data:

(1) temporal changes in microclimate surrounding the temperature measurement
site, such as urbanization, which go unrecognized or for which insufficient
adjustments are made

(2) long-term degradation of the shelter housing the temperature-measuring
equipment, such as its white paint becoming less reflective and its louvers
partially obstructed

(3) changes in what is actually being measured, such as true daily maximum
and minimum temperatures or temperatures at specified times of day

(4) changes in measurement devices and ways of accessing the data, such as
changing from having to open the shelter door to read the temperature, as
was done in earlier days, to not having to do so due to the automatic
recording of the data, as has become typical in more recent times.

(5) general station degradation and many station closures over time

(6) changing and uneven geographical representation in the surface
temperature network

(7) poor attention to careful acquisition of data in many parts of the
world.



References

Balling Jr., R.C. 2000. Reconsidering reconciliation: Understanding the NRC
report. In: Michaels, P.J. (Ed.). State of the Climate Report: Essays on
Global Climate Change. New Hope Environmental Services, pp. 8-13.

Daly, J.L. 2000. The surface record: "Global mean temperature" and how it is
determined at surface level. Report to the Greening Earth Society. Available
at http://www.greeningearthsociety.org.

Michaels, P.J. and Balling Jr., R.C. 2000. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the
Air About Global Warming. Cato Institute, Washington, DC.


RF Jim




{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@195901 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim,
I'm going to have to thank you for this whole discussion.  I know
someone that I have been trying to convince that Global warming is,
at best, merely a hypothesis for quite some time.  As I was a bit
short on hard evidence, and good sources, I have not been able, as of
yet, to show them that the GPers are a bit out to lunch.  Now, in
this thread, I'm picking up enough info to at least get a really good
argument going >:)
- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWQpGQVk8xtQuK+BEQJHqwCgolz87mUaXcXKiw6gbDO893mMyo4AmwRz
EU5daVEKshR/QcoYXi5QTE8a
=3z7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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


2002\08\21@201703 by Jim

flavicon
face
May I recommend one more missile for your
arsenal? Better build a bunker/missile
launch site for this one, it's a nuke ...

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change
AAPG Studies in Geology # 47

Edited by Lee C. Gerhard, William E. Harrison and Bernold M. Hanson
Published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in
collaboration with the Kansas Geological Survey and the AAPG Division of
Environmental Geosciences; contributions by the U.S. Geological Survey,
March 2001

Excerpts follow:

INTRODUCTION
This highly illuminating volume presents a series of peer-reviewed
scientific papers, selected to provide a geological perspective of current
concerns about anthropogenic effects on Earth's climate.

The selection of papers is both highly relevant and objective. Every effort
has been made to present facts, leaving the reader free to reach his or her
own conclusions on the likelihood of a man-made climate catastrophe
resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases and the advisability of basing
international environmental policies on the IPCC's GCM-based estimates of
climate change in the near future.

Despite the editors' meticulous avoidance of favoring one view over another,
it is impossible not to conclude from the papers selected that the present
warming trend is caused predominantly, if not entirely, by natural
phenomena.

Anthropogenic effects on temperature cannot be distinguished in the present
warming, as the planet recovers from the Little Ice Age with resulting
temperature changes within the expected range. The comparison with past
climate changes and the analysis of all known climate change drivers
effectively deflate the politically-driven sense of urgency to act in order
to avoid a man-made climate calamity. Indeed, the book's collection of
insight seriously questions whether the concept of man-induced climate
change reversal is feasible at all.

...

First order controls include solar system geometry, solar luminosity and
Earth's atmosphere, which evolved over the past 4.5 billion years and makes
Earth's climate some 20 to 400C warmer than it would otherwise be.

Second order controls are given by the distribution of oceans and
continents, which determines the heat-distributing characteristics of ocean
currents. These controls explain the 15 to 200C variations over periods of
up to hundreds of millions of years. Massive climate changes occurred in the
distant past when continental drift obstructed equatorial currents, forcing
warm surface water to be diverted to low latitudes and triggering an
icehouse state such as the one we are in now. In late Cretaceous, some 90
million years ago, there was no land obstacle to fully developed equatorial
currents and the planet was in a greenhouse state with atmospheric CO2
concentrations some three times higher than now.

...

Third order controls include Earth's orbital changes, solar variability,
large-scale oceanographic oscillations and long ocean tide cycles, capable
of causing temperature changes on the order of 5 to 150C over centuries to
hundreds of thousands of years, such as the roughly 100,000-year-long ice
ages predictably occurring in concert with Earth's rythmic orbital changes,
its changes in angle of rotation and its precessive movement.

Fourth order controls comprise a number of drivers affecting minor
temperature changes of as much as 50C over periods of several centuries or
less. El Niqo/La Niqa, volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts and changes in
solar activity are the natural drivers in this category; arguably, one might
also list anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (CH4 and CO2) here as
well.


More ...

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

Copies of the book are available from the Kansas Geological Survey, 1930
Constant Ave., Lawrence, KS 66047 (785) 864-3965 for $49 plus $6 per copy
for postage and handling. Kansas residents should add 6.9% sales tax.


RF Jim





{Original Message removed}

2002\08\21@203000 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> May I recommend one more missile for your
> arsenal? Better build a bunker/missile
> launch site for this one, it's a nuke ...

Now, that's a what I call amunition!  I'm gonna have some real fun
with that one :)
Thanks, Jim!

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWQwZAVk8xtQuK+BEQKg7wCeNQ20LFt9tI5GR4iKcLdYL8uRhhsAoKap
LawqQcXD8/rt0wJ/Ec+cU6ev
=QaHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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


2002\08\21@210547 by Jim

flavicon
face
Brendan,

I found a bit more of this volume online (full
introduction, contents, Climate Drivers -including
some figures- (EVERYONE loves graphics!) at:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/gerhard/index.htm

RF Jim

--
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


2002\08\22@112650 by Giles Honeycutt

flavicon
face
> Even if there is global warming, how do we know how much is caused by
> natural causes?
> Uri
>

My point exactly.  I also wonder if we have global cooling and I think our
understanding of the matter is at the infant stage.  My satire got picked
apart by Jim on the previous thread.  But I see that Jim is in no mood to
see satire on this matter.  Jim,  I apologize for making light on a topic
you feel so strongly about.


Best regards,
Giles

What happened to Smoky the Bear?  "Only you can prevent forest fires" and 50
years later the forest became so full of underbrush that the fires are 100
times larger! (my estimate, and my opinion, please don't bother arguing
this)

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


2002\08\22@121930 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> What happened to Smoky the Bear?  "Only you can prevent forest
> fires" and 50 years later the forest became so full of underbrush
> that the fires are 100 times larger! (my estimate, and my opinion,
> please don't bother arguing this)
>
Giles, Sorry to argue this ;) but I think the change may have come
when someone realised that the occasional forest fire is part of the
natural cycle, and as with almost all natural cycles, impeding it is
to ask for trouble somewhere.  There are some trees and shrubs that
will only grow after a fire.  And, in old growth forests, where
humans are stopping fires, that process can never occur.

My memory of this is very hazy, and possibly inaccurate on several
counts.  However, I remember that there was once an instance of a
large park (I forget where, but I think it was in the US) where the
park rangers refused to let firefighters into the park.  There is one
quote that I do remember distinctly:
News reporter: "But what about all the animals"
Park spokesman: "They stampede."

Just another bit of light on an interesting subject.  I think that in
general, impeding nature is to invite disaster.  How many movies have
the old dam somewhere bursting and wiping out everything downstream?
Nature gets ticked off every so often.  If nature says let it burn,
by all means, let it burn.  Now, when it starts to come close to a
city, village etc.  That's a different story.  In the example I cited
above, I believe that the firefighters camped around the edges of the
park to shut down any fire that started to move out of the park.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWUOlwVk8xtQuK+BEQIOgACgxBOaPeJpPcAqgeSMrHhl4GERNmQAn0r4
0yD7JaRElKt/L8NUVwVdp3jr
=3maY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


2002\08\22@123017 by Giles Honeycutt

flavicon
face
> My memory of this is very hazy, and possibly inaccurate on several
> counts.  However, I remember that there was once an instance of a
> large park (I forget where, but I think it was in the US) where the
> park rangers refused to let firefighters into the park.  There is one
> quote that I do remember distinctly:
> News reporter: "But what about all the animals"
> Park spokesman: "They stampede."

That is very interesting.  Thank you for sharing that.  I will try and find
more info on that at some later date.

Best regards,
Giles

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


2002\08\22@134118 by Jim

flavicon
face
Giles,

There is a saying that is applicable responses that
are not in-line with the original poster's intentions:
"When you're armed and loaded for bear - everything looks
like a bear."

:^O

(One of those classics that I think Yogi Bera may have coined!)

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\22@153444 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> > My memory of this is very hazy, and possibly inaccurate on
> > several counts.  However, I remember that there was once an
> > instance of a large park (I forget where, but I think it was in
> > the US) where the park rangers refused to let firefighters into
> > the park.  There is one quote that I do remember distinctly:
> > News reporter: "But what about all the animals"
> > Park spokesman: "They stampede."
>
> That is very interesting.  Thank you for sharing that.  I will try
> and find more info on that at some later date.

I've recovered some of the info.  It was Elk Island National Park in
Canada.  And, now it is common to have controlled burns in Canada's
parks.  Here is an excerpt from a 1998 park warden's conference:

"With excellent cooperation from the weather, two prescribed burns
were conducted this spring. Good work Brent for the planning and
coordination of two large, safe burn operations."

Canada has some of the best forest fire fighting forces in the world,
so it is a good place to test controlled burn situations.

There is a page detailing why fires are necessary, and the ecology
around fire at:
http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/Fire/Fire_e.htm

It's worth a quick read if it interests you.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWU6jwVk8xtQuK+BEQLLEACgnFK1Agwaef8TdSWqjb3hocVuZgYAn323
phFLTgRtb4UKqpGqNnOdO1LK
=iIhQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


2002\08\22@182735 by llile

flavicon
face
I have been involved in prescribed burns in prairies.  Let me tell you,
they are really amazing!  We plowed a ring around the area, lit backfires
to help contain it, raced across the grass towing a burning gas rag, and
25 of us (including the park rangers) watched as this wall of flame
marched across the area fast as a man could run.  A trick wind started
blowing after we had started the thing, and we thought for a while it
would get out of control.  It was quite a thrill.

Prairie and mixed grass/woodland areas are now being routinely burnt to
preserve thier natural mix of plants.  Smokey has a good idea, but in the
hands of a pro fire is a good tool.

-- Lawrence Lile





Brendan Moran <spamBeGonebmoranspamBeGonespamMILLENNIUM.CA>
Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
08/22/02 02:25 PM
Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list


       To:     RemoveMEPICLISTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
       cc:
       Subject:        Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming  evidentiary material?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

{Quote hidden}

I've recovered some of the info.  It was Elk Island National Park in
Canada.  And, now it is common to have controlled burns in Canada's
parks.  Here is an excerpt from a 1998 park warden's conference:

"With excellent cooperation from the weather, two prescribed burns
were conducted this spring. Good work Brent for the planning and
coordination of two large, safe burn operations."

Canada has some of the best forest fire fighting forces in the world,
so it is a good place to test controlled burn situations.

There is a page detailing why fires are necessary, and the ecology
around fire at:
http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/Fire/Fire_e.htm

It's worth a quick read if it interests you.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWU6jwVk8xtQuK+BEQLLEACgnFK1Agwaef8TdSWqjb3hocVuZgYAn323
phFLTgRtb4UKqpGqNnOdO1LK
=iIhQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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


2002\08\22@202141 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Jim wrote:

>  "The problem with GW is not the temperature
>   rise. The problem is that ..."
>
>I like that dodge ... subtle, but bold ...
>
>It takes a temp increase (where are the italics
>when I need them!) to 'force' (introduce? inject?
>put?) that energy into the system - no?

It depends. If it would be turned into storms or other cinetic energy
instantly then there would be no temperature rise imho.

>No temp change - no energy change - no *extra*
>energy to evaporate liquid water and create
>water vapor ...

I don't know. Try to think what would happen on a planet with a thin
atmosphere and no water vapor and CO2 to change the albedo (mars f.ex.).
Extra energy = instant storm systems == cinetic energy, with probably very
little temperature rise.

I think that on earth things are very complex because the water vapor
travels great distances and 'bunches up' in clouds. So extra sun over the
Pacific means floods in Europe and elsewhere etc. If the rain would fall
daily where or near where it was 'lifted' (f.ex. at nightfall - as in
subtropical climates)  things would be more bearable. It's also a totally
nonlinear system with the clouds doing all sorts of bistable effects. But
I am not a weather expert.

Peter

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


2002\08\22@202234 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Uri Sabadosh wrote:

>Even if there is global warming, how do we know how much is caused by
>natural causes?

If you do some calculations you will quickly arrive to the conclusion that
the warming is not caused directly by heat generated by human activity.
The only other way is by catalytical effect. Increasing CO2 is one of
those. But CO2 increase can be monitored easier than temperature (the gas
diffuses everywhere relatively quickly). The whole question is, how much
are humans guilty of this and how much of a natural cycle are we in. Afaik
the knowledge on long term cycles and their variation is zilch. I am not
an expert but I can theorize that 2-3 meteorites hitting earth in the not
so distant past may have caused weather upheaval that makes our present
problems look like a pleasant summer shower in comparison. Same for more
serious volcanic activity in the past and other things. Nobody knows for
sure what caused the last ice age for example. Or what caused it to cease.
Or what it was like before it started (dinos liked it hot afaik - and it
WAS hot then. *Much* hotter than now. Natural too, no pesky arrogant
know-all mammals around then afaik.). From the spread of dino remains and
other vegetation fossils it seems that the hot areas of the planet
stretched much farther north and south than today. So maybe we are just
riding on the 'tail' of the ice age and the planet is getting back to
being its usual self now, warming up *again*. After all the dino age was
fairly long and it had to be hot as dinos were cold-blooded, and the
respective vegetation was hot weather type. Our 'temperate' age is very
short in comparison, but we already 'know' everything, and are sure to
have done it all by ourselves too. Yeah, right.

Peter

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


2002\08\23@074644 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I've recovered some of the info.  It was Elk Island National Park in
>Canada.  And, now it is common to have controlled burns in Canada's
>parks.  Here is an excerpt from a 1998 park warden's conference:

When I was travelling in Yosemite in 1988 they were doing controlled burns
for the reasons given in previous posts about recognition of a necessity for
them in the natural cycle.

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


2002\08\23@170036 by Uri Sabadosh

flavicon
face
Speaking of pesky arrogant know-all mammals, I recommend reading the book
Galapagos. It introduces the Big Brain theory.
Uri



{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...