About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

From the Canadell, et al., abstract:

"The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO(2) emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO(2) sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions."

Why "anthropogenic" emissions? Are we to belive that carbon sinks discriminate between non-anthropogenic emissions, which they readily absorb, and manmade ones, which they do not?

From Kuerschner, et al., abstract:

"Here we present a CO2 record based on stomatal frequency data from multiple tree species. Our data show striking CO2 fluctuations of approximately 600-300 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Periods of low CO2 are contemporaneous with major glaciations, whereas elevated CO2 of 500 ppmv coincides with the climatic optimum in the Miocene."

If a major glaciation is contrasted with a climactic optimum, then what does that imply that scientists think about warm periods? Are optimal periods sub optimum? Of course this point is really rhetorical, not scientific. But Kuerschner, et al., should be warned, lest they lose their funding.




Post 1

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points, Ted.

Why "anthropogenic" emissions? Are we to belive that carbon sinks discriminate between non-anthropogenic emissions, which they readily absorb, and manmade ones, which they do not?
Apparently so. This line of (faulty?) reasoning was used against me by Chris Merchant (author of SoGGWS) in a recent email! It's one of the aspects of AGW theory that I'm going to see if I will be able to demolish.

:-)

Ed

 




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The problem with such wording in abstracts is not that the points the authors make are necessarily false, but that the implications are. Perhaps anthopogenous CO2 can't be absorbed by the natural CO2 sinks. But if so, then the same is true for the non-anthropogenous CO2. The authors should not let their bias - (presumably) a wish to prove how danverous anthropogenous CO2 is - lead them into making trivial or absurd claims. Scientists do indeed need philosophy - and here rhetoric - to keep them on this side of objectivity.



Post 3

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More notes ...
===========
 J Environ Sci (China). 2004;16(1):86-9.

An estimate on the rainout of atmospheric CO2.

Ecology Center, University of Kiel, Schauenburgerstr 112, DE-24118 Kiel, Germany. cliu@ecology.uni-kiel.de

 

The CO2 in the atmosphere is in contact with water vapor and rain droplets forming CO2 x H2O, HCO3- and CO3(2-) . Global precipitation is about 505 x 1015 kg/a. Based on theoretical calculation for unpolluted air and measurement observations, we estimated that 100-270 x 10(12) gC/a are scavenged from the air by global precipitation.

This roughly equals carbon emissions from volcanic sources or 2-6 per cent of current CO2 emissions. An inventory-based estimate on carbon removal in northwestern Europe supports the above calculation on global scale. With increasing CO2 concentration in the air, precipitation scavenging may increase.

 

 

 Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2007 Dec;58(4):479-86.

[Effects of volcanic eruptions on environment and health]

[Article in Croatian]

Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Medicinski fakultet, Skola narodnog zdravlja, Zagreb, Hrvatska. ezuskin@snz.hr

 

Volcanoes pose a threat to almost half a billion people; today there are approximately 500 active volcanoes on Earth, and every year there are 10 to 40 volcanic eruptions.Volcanic eruptions produce hazardous effects for the environment, climate, and the health of the exposed persons, and are associated with the deterioration of social and economic conditions.

Along with magma and steam (H2O), the following gases surface in the environment: carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon sulphide (CS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen bromide (HBr) and various organic compounds, as well as heavy metals (mercury, lead, gold).

 

 

Nature. 2000 Aug 17;406(6797):695-9.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years.

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, UK. Paul.Pearson@Bristol.ac.uk

 

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales.

Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial.

Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

===========





Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Recently inspired by this news item from Sam Erica, I found this voice of reason from within the scientific community:

... It is pointed out that there has been a debate on the accuracy of temperature reconstructions as well as on the exact impact that CO(2) has on global warming.

Moreover, using three independent sets of data (collected from ice-cores and chemistry) we perform a specific regression analysis which concludes that forecasts about the correlation between CO(2)-concentration and temperature rely heavily on the choice of data used, and one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data) or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming.

A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2).

Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon.

Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.






Recap:
At least one validated model exists predicting less than a 0.05 degree C temperature increase from a 100% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the predominant greenhouse gas behind the idea of man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).

Folks who are "scared" of AGW, however, predict at least a two-degree, global temperature increase in the next century (more than 20 times higher than a doubling of atmospheric CO2 might afford). There's a disparity there -- unless these same scientists are willing to also "predict" that atmospheric CO2 levels can or will increase by more-than-twenty-times in the next 100 years (assuming a linear relationship of greenhouse gas concentration to greenhouse warming effect).

It may be optimal -- in each AGW debate with scientists -- to show this study and to ask the scientist if they are ready and willing to predict that atmospheric CO2 levels can or will increase by more-than-twenty-times current levels.

  
Ed


Source:
[abstract] Florides GA, Christodoulides P. Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences. Environ Int. 2008 Aug 27. [Epub ahead of print] Available: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed [type the PMID#: (18760479) into the "search for" box]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/11, 9:12pm)




Post 5

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a reference point, atmospheric CO2 was at around 384ppm in 2007.

Ed




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, June 19, 2009 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Further reading:

(1) Witty, funny, and still informative:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

(2) Sober analysis that is likely to be psychologically-acceptable to most folks (including some "AGW alarmists"):
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=79

(3) Analysis of propaganda tactics used in this debate:
http://intelligentessays.blogspot.com/2008/03/anthropogenic-global-warming-propaganda.html

(4) A motherload, 82-page .pdf file:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf


Ed
[edited for spacing]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/19, 10:15pm)




Post 7

Saturday, November 5, 2011 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6 percent.
The article goes on to say that:

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University.
Perfect. We have an unheard of, "monster", increase. Now, let's check to see if we get an unheard of, "monster", increase in global mean temperature! And, if not ...

:-)

Ed

Source:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/133211138.html




Post 8

Sunday, May 6, 2012 - 11:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A four-and-a-half minute video I made on directly measuring greenhouse gas effects.

My edited comments from the YouTube page:

First 10 years of data didn't find a greenhouse effect:
Analysis of the first 10 years (1979 to 1988) of satellite measurements of lower atmospheric temperature changes reveals a monthly precision of 0.01 degrees C, large temperature variability on time scales from weeks to several years, but no obvious trend for the 10-year period. The warmest years, in descending order, were 1987, 1988, 1983, and 1980. The years 1984, 1985, and 1986 were the coolest.
--Science. 1990 Mar 30;247(4950):1558-62.

In the study above (by Spencer & Christy) the measured temperature of atmosphere dropped between the years of 1980-1981. But during this time, the average temperature of Earth increased (by 0.03 degrees C). Now, if the temperature increase of Earth (from 1980-1981) was due to a greenhouse effect, then -- during that time -- the temperature of the atmosphere would have increased more than the temperature of Earth. Because it didn't,we can say that that warming wasn't due to a greenhouse effect.

In 1985, atmospheric CO2 concentration was 345.41ppm and Earth's temperature was 13.99 degrees C. By 2010, CO2 rose to 388.53ppm and Earth's temp. rose to 14.54 degrees (about a 1/2-degree temp. increase for a 40ppm CO2 increase). It looks like CO2 increases lead to temp. increases (~1.0 degree C temp. increase for every 80ppm CO2 increase), but try this quiz:
Question 1:
In 1995, CO2 was 360.03 and temp. was 14.33. What temp. would you have predicted in 2000, when CO2 had risen to 368.84? If 40ppm gives a 1/2-degree increase in temp., what would 9ppm do?

Question 2:
Did it?
Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/06, 2:17pm)




Post 9

Friday, January 4 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a link to a study showing a cooling trend at high altitude from 1979-2005 -- the opposite of what you'd predict if a greenhouse gas effect was assumed for that time period:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

You can enlarge the graphs, but to read the whole article, you have to buy it.

Ed




Post 10

Monday, April 1 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a sociology abstract basically saying: "What's up with that?!" about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) breakdown of a former consensus on sea level rise stemming from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS):

The rapid disintegration of projections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
It became too difficult for IPCC assessors to project the range of possible futures for WAIS due to shifts in scientific knowledge as well as in the institutions that facilitated the interpretations of this knowledge.
And here is an abstract where 2 scientists from the UK make the weak conjecture that a rise in temperature of 2 degrees C will eventually -- i.e., in hundreds of years from now -- lead to a 9-meter (over 30-ft) rise in sea level. They claim 68% confidence in that:

Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales.
For instance, with CO(2) stabilized at 400-450 ppm (as required for the frequently quoted "acceptable warming" of 2 °C), or even at AD 2011 levels of 392 ppm, we infer a likely (68% confidence) long-term sea-level rise of more than 9 m above the present.
Ed




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, July 6 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A problem with the theory of anthropogenic climate change (global warming caused by man), hereafter AGW, is that it does not directly subject itself to falsification via a direct test, but rather relies on a motivated compilation (i.e., a "forced integration") of tons of indirect data. A direct test of greenhouse gas theory is to detect an actual greenhouse (actually, the metaphorical 'glass ceiling' of a greenhouse) up in the tropospheric (lower) atmosphere. Here is a study showing that the 20 new and scientifically-popular climate models fail to jive with that kind of a thing:

Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature.
The BASE and O3+V multimodel average TLT trends are similar (0.262 °C and 0.266 °C per decade) and roughly 1.9 times larger than the RSS and UAH lower tropospheric temperature trends (0.139 °C and 0.140 °C per decade). There is no overlap between the 5–95 percentile ranges of the RSS trends and the multimodel average TLT trend results ...
Recap:

The baseline (average of all 20 models) and the ozone- and volcanic aerosol-corrected (12 models) trends predicted increasing temperature in the lower troposphere -- to the tune of over a quarter-degree Celsius per decade (as heat is supposedly trapped by the greenhouse effect). But this is almost twice the observed temperature increase per decade -- as measured by microwave sounding unit (MSU) satellite data from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in Santa Rosa, California (0.139 degrees C per decade) and from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) observational group (0.140 degrees C per decade).

That's a huge discrepancy between theory and fact. If the greenhouse effect predominated (i.e., was the main cause of our warming), then lower troposphere temperature would have risen 0.87 degrees Celsius in the last 33 years of satellite data, but instead, it only rose 0.46 degrees Celsius. Which calls into question the very theory that a greenhouse effect is what caused our recent warming.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/06, 4:32pm)




Post 12

Sunday, July 7 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

There is another issue inherent in this issue; significance.

Temperature of what? To a significance of what? With an uncertainty of what?

With some irony, factual uncertainty selectively 'helps' the AGW position; the effects they are claiming are smaller than our factual ability to measure or detect them (even when they are reported to a precision of 0.001 C!)

Consider the problem of reporting the 'average' temperature of some region of the atmosphere, both spatially, temporally, and even diurnally.

When the model results support the theory of AGW, uncertainty is ignored. When observations refute the theory, uncertainty suddenly comes to the forefront.

Radiosonde/weather balloon data gives us a tiny temporal/spatial path of measurement. Satellite sounder data provides a 'chunk' reading over a big 'chunk' of the atmosphere, and temperatures are inferred.

And so, the wiggle room in what is essentially a political debate. The AGW position is, "Maybe it is happening, we can't tell from the measurements, so prudence dictates that we act as if it is happening."

the latest issue of Technology Review even has acolytes proposing direct manipulation of the atmosphere to counteract what we 'know' is happening...

Seriously. If that doesn't give you pause. Because we can deliberately influence the climate via particulate injection into the atmosphere. (Nuclear winter, widespread fires, industrial particulate pollution.) Also, plans to seed the oceans/algae with ships dumping iron oxide into the water, to spur algae consumption of CO2.

Seriously.

Because of what we know is happening but can't measure, we are going to knock the climate up the side of the head blindly with a hammer, on purpose, to knock the thermostat.

And yet... other domains of climate science recognize the massive role that our massive oceans have, as massive integrators of solar loading, with feedback measured in the hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of years!

And we're going to sail around the seas dumping iron oxide into the ocean in our little boats?

Seriously.

regards,
Fred



Post 13

Sunday, July 7 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
we are going to knock the climate up the side of the head blindly with a hammer, on purpose, to knock the thermostat.
Contrast the progressive appoach to AGW with their approach to species diversity where no one can do anything least it somehow effect the ecological balance of species the tiniest bit, e.g., somewhere a snail darter might need to expend a minute bit more energy to feed.

Of course there are commonalities - which are found in the political actions which amount to total control of all human actions on the planet by an elite for a cause only they truly understand which calls for our altruistic sacrifice. Maybe that's the real goal - control? Or phrased differently, ending free association to make possible the elites exercise of their control freak urges?



Post 14

Sunday, July 7 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points, Fred.

Let me attempt to illustrate the combination of our points with an analogy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Griswold is driving to Vegas (for vacation) with his family in the station wagon, and the wife and kids are determining whether he is putting them all in danger by drinking and driving. It is not known whether he had been drinking or not.

Direct measurement of drunkenness, via breath-alyzer (or simply by asking him), is entirely possible but it is entirely ignored by the family -- because they are all so much more concerned with peripheral data, and how it might all somehow coalesce into a grand, unified theory regarding whether Chevy is drunk or not. They begin to measure the swerving and steering corrections he makes while driving down the road ...

Kid: Hey! Dad is swerving. He's drunk!

Dad: [Keeps driving, looking at the road]

Mom: No, he's not necessarily drunk, everyone swerves a little. Making subtle corrections to steering is a normal part of driving.

Kid: Mom, we need a baseline or standard of how much swerving is "natural" and, therefore, of how much of it is "alcohol-induced" swerving. What should we do?

Mom: Ummmm. Let's either arbitrarily pick a number out of a hat, or let's take some arbitrary measurements of Dad's driving in the past.

Kid: Okay. Heyyyy, as luck would have it, I have full, forward-facing video footage of every road trip we've ever taken -- so, by tracking the change in distance from the centerline of the road, what statisticians call the "delta", you can see how much Dad swerved in the past!

Mom: Oooh, good. Now let me have that footage. Okay ... using my smart phone ... I am generating a statistical mean and a standard deviation of swerving from all our past trips, in relation to one mile of driving ...

Kid: What's the answer, Mom?

Mom: Okay, the average change in distance from the centerline of the road was 4 meters per mile driven, but some miles had a change in distance of up to 9 meters (when there were potholes or pedestrians to avoid), and some only had a change as low as 0.5 meters.

Kid: Oo, oo, oo, I got it, Mom! We need to calculate the probability that in any given mile of driving, that there will be a total swerving and steering correction which exceeds 2 meters! If it does, then that means that Dad is drunk!

Mom: No, that won't work, because half of all the data exceeds 2 meters. The probability would be p = 0.5, which is about as useless as probability ever gets. Instead, we need a buffer zone, beyond which we can be pretty damn confident that Dad is indeed drunk.

Kid: Okay, well, why don't we calculate the probability that in any given mile the swerving exceeds 3 meters? And if the probability of that is less than 0.5, but Dad is found to be guilty of swerving 3 or more meters in a mile -- then we can turn him in to the cops!

Mom: No, that won't work either. What if there are potholes, you know? When there are potholes, a sober driver will swerve even more than a drunk driver -- who may plow right through them.

Kid: Okay Mom, I got it! We track Dad's swerving per mile, we set a standard so that if there is less than a 5% chance to observe the kind of swerving Dad portrays, we add some small margin of error to account for the number of potholes you see on roads like we are on, and Voila!, we have an algorithm for when it's proper to call the cops on Dad!

Mom: Let me see that! [grabs Kid's smart phone ... intensely looking at it] Well, okay, let's roll with this. It's got a big margin of error, though.

Kid: How so?

Mom: Well, according to algorithm, 7 meters of swerving per mile is seen only 5% of the time on a perfectly straight and smooth road, but roads aren't perfect and straight ... and the correction for potholes yields an error margin of 6 meters per mile -- in order to retain the 95% confidence interval we originally agreed upon.

Kid: Well, what does that mean?

Mom: It means that if Dad swerves even 1 meter per mile of driving -- which is even less than the average amount of swerving! -- then we are to assume he is drunk and call the cops on him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed 

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/07, 2:05pm)




Post 15

Sunday, September 1 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And then the kid finally breaks through a rationality barrier:
Oooooo! I got it, Mom! Dad is right here in the car with us, right? Soooo ... why don't we ask him if he has been drinking or not??

:-)

The sad part of the story is that many conventional climate scientists never get that far (to actually seek, and discover, the direct evidence on the issue they so hotly debate).

Ed




Post 16

Sunday, September 1 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Research update

Sun responsible for 22-62% of the global warming since 1950 (which explains why the lower troposphere only warmed by less than 1/2 degree C in the last third of a century):
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperatue records since 1600

Sun getting hotter since 1945; climate assumptions might be "seriously" wrong:
An empirical model of total solar irradiance variation between 1874 and 1988.
It suggests that the mean total irradiance has been rising steadily since about 1945, with the largest peak so far at about 1980 and another large peak expected during the current solar cycle 22. But it is doubtful whether even this rise can contribute significantly to global warming, unless the temperature increase of about 0.02 degrees C that it produces in current energy balance models seriously underestimates the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance changes.
Solar cycle's length, rather than its intensity, explains a whole heck of a lot of recent warming:
Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate.
A set of data that supports the suggestion of a direct influence of solar activity on global climate is the variation of the solar cycle length. This record closely matches the long-term variations of the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature during the past 130 years.
Hairspray and volcanoes explain 76% of the sea surface temperature changes in the North Atlantic:
Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability.
Here we use a state-of-the-art Earth system climate model to show that aerosol emissions and periods of volcanic activity explain 76 per cent of the simulated multidecadal variance in detrended 1860-2005 North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. After 1950, simulated variability is within observational estimates; our estimates for 1910-1940 capture twice the warming of previous generation models but do not explain the entire observed trend.
10 years of flat temps on the surface of Gaia:
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008.
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings.
:-)

The "conclusion" that man is causing global warming is getting more premature as time goes by (which seems logically impossible).

Ed




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, September 7 - 6:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Snowpiercer: coming to theaters.

Synopsis:

Mankind, in a desperate attempt to save the earth from global warming, pulls some nonsense that triggers a massive global ice age.

A small group of somehow selected survivors get on a train pulled by a locomative powered by a perpetual motion machine, and travel around the earth on a set of tracks that curiously never need maintanance. Don't ask me what they eat.

The passengers on this perpetual train devolve into the front half of the train, the first class haves, and the back half of the train, the working class steerage.

A revolt ensues. The front half of the train defends the perpetual motion engine, which they regard as sacred. The back half of the train wants ... the front half of the train.

Question: when allegory needs to bend that far over to create yet another rich vs. poor conflict, isn't it time to see a chiroprachter?





Post 18

Saturday, September 7 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Examine these 3 quotes.

From post 16 above:
... it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings.
... and ...

From the EPA Overview of Greenhouse Gases:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 10% between 1990 and 2011.
From the Guardian (UK):
According to the observatory, the average annual rate of increase for the past 10 years has been 2.07ppm – more than double the increase in the 1960s. The average increase in CO2 levels between 1959 to the present was 1.49ppm per year.
Seems fishy, doesn't it? The more-than-double-the-former-rate* increase in the emission of CO2 coincided with "a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings." Makes you think how it is that that kind of a thing could ever happen.

:-)

Ed

*More than double the rate of increase in CO2 emissions observed back in the 1960s, but only about 40% higher (which is a whole heck-of-a-lot higher!) than the 50-yr average increase when viewed over a larger scope encompassing the last half-century. To put this in colloquial terms, we are releasing increasing amounts of CO2 every year, and that yearly increase is 40% higher than "usual." What that means is that anyone who tells you that anthropogenic forcings aren't increasing all that much is lying (though they could covertly hide this lie, by lumping up anthropogenic forcings with natural ones).

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/07, 11:39am)




Post 19

Tuesday, November 5 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's up with the sea at Skagway and Juneau?

If you go to: http://www.psmsl.org/products/trends/trends.txt then you can see the trends in changes in sea levels from various stations around the planet. However, there are 2 stations in the U.S. with numbers that dominate all the rest (Skagway and Juneau) -- and they show sea levels falling big-time (by over 10 mm per year!). Now, the link says that the data are not corrected for vertical changes in land mass, so there is a possibility that the U.S. is merely rising up out of the sea like some kind of a leviathan or something (instead of the sea level falling, or the sea drying up due to ice build-up at the poles and at altitude).

Taking Skagway as an example, how on earth can you start from the year 1945, track sea level change through to 2011, and get a trend of negative (-) 17.36 mm per year?! If you extrapolate that trend then, using 1945 as the baseline, sea level, at this one station, fell by more than a full meter by 2011!

What gives?

Ed




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.