Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Bob and Ralph.

Another evasion, I note.

You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do you,
Jay?

Really, Dan, there's no reason to be rude. I just thought I'd lighten you
up a bit. To no avail, I see.

Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:

http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=35203

It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will be
strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that increased
rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.

Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good thing,
indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa bloom even more
than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.

I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard to
do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D.
in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in
various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one
was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise,
and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would
not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of
about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate
researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real,
isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.


You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.


Bertie

LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can prove
it. You know I will.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:50:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Roger wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
-
sjc.supernews.net:

In article
9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal mair_fh...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US
technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure
our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who
couldnt
see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

It's a mating ritual where like attracts like.
sorta like Democrates make more Democrats and Republicans make more
republicans. I think it's a race to see which one can produce the
most voters the fastest.


everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
takes one deep breath
and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane


Neijing would have considerably less air.

Cleaner too.

Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air they've
seen in decades.


A bit PKB for someone from near enough detroit, eh?

PKB?

I'm a good 120 milesNNW (UPWIND) of Detroit where the summer smog is
created by the corn fields and swamps rather than industry. :-)) Even
the thunderstorms create more Ozone than we let industry put out.

Our streams have been cleaned up to the point where we now have black
flies. Nothing like the number in the Tundra, but the little buggers
still bite. Of course we make up for those lack of numbers by letting
our mosquitoes spread the West Nile Virus and a couple other nasties.

OTOH way back in the early 60's I once followed the smog
(foul...fowl...nasty smelling cloud) from an un-named company for a
100 miles and I could still see it clear to the horizon ahead from
5000 feet. Of course climbing that high and flying that far in a piper
Colt used most of my afternoon and meant I should head for a gas
station soonest so I never did find out how far that cloud went.
However the thing I found remarkable was at 100 miles the thing wasn't
much more than 3 miles wide. That ain't much dispersion.

I haven't seen one of those clouds in years and the smell has improved
remarkably as well. That is with one exception (sdtill many years ago)
when something spilled and killed all the bacteria in some setteling
ponds. GAWD but that was POTENT! And here I'll bet most people didn't
realize **** can spoile:-)) Of course you only need to be down wind
from a setteling pond at turnover time to become a believer.

AND accouding to official "State of Michigan" figures, our winters are
between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50 years ago.

Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

it.

Dan

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"John T" wrote in
:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any
more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
the fallacy of your belief in AGW.



it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned to
watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...

At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
fulness of time..

At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.

Not much, but it will have to do.

Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"aluckyguess" wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Dan wrote in
news:bd53a4da-10c7-445f-a2ac-bf7ce8b1dabc@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000
signatures will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a
Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to
identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the
petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three
did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not
answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition
supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a
respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the
climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do
with climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were
climate researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is
real, isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.


You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.


Bertie

LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can
prove it. You know I will.

What, you haven't already?


Shouldn't cost you much.


Bertie

On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an
excuse to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help
me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question:
Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200
years), or will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.

But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?

Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
definitely will not be?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.

Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.

Bertie

I Did. See previous post.

But I left out this part: "For the next two decades, a warming of
about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
scenarios. --- Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and
aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ---- {10.3, 10.7}"

In an essay supporting the consensus view, we find this gem, "The
scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for failing to act on what is not known."

To which the answer is -- Yes we can be faulted for "acting on what is
not known." Especially since "acting" will have measurably harmful as
well as a host of unintended impacts.

As far as sea level rise, consider "The widely quoted altimetric
global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being
inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ
observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely
difficult given the realities of space-time sampling and model
approximations. Systematic
errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change:
published values and error bars should be used very
cautiously." [http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/
Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf]

Also consider: "Changes in the Earth's radiation budget are driven by
changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of
the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation
entering the climate system depends on the Sun's irradiance and the
Earth's reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy
measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in
efforts to probe the Sun's role in past climate change. With new
helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth's reflectance, we can
usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net
sunlight's two components, while probing the degree of their linkage.
First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most
precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more
profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since
irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth's
climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar
activity--the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example--would
then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in
the Sun's spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a
linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net
sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun's
varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this
difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our
understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of
climate." [http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/goode1349.pdf]

Threats to the planet are multiple and varied. Why haven't we
empowered an intergovernmental panel to combat tsunamis? Volcanoes?
Meteorites? Mudslides? Earthquakes?


Dan

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:

http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=35203

It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will be
strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that increased
rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.

Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good thing,
indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa bloom even more
than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.

I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard to
do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.
--

Well, goodie for Iowa, eh?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007...l_warming.html

"Dan" wrote:

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

That is because scientific theories are always evolving. Scientists realize
they don't know everything and never will.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?


IF governments could be trusted with such powers, it may be a good
move, if the threat is as you say it is.

But the older I get the less I trust government. And I've never had
much trust in bureaucracy.

No reason you should.

But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

The founders believed that centralized powers only results in bad to
worse. Factions (ie, differing opinions/ parties/ groups/ causes) all
wrestling in the political arena keeps those same people from killing
each other in the streets.

Things get ugly when one side accuses the other of criminality,
treason, lack of compassion, or care. Then we get beyond the wrestling
and head towards the shooting. And if you think I'm being overly
dramatic, please review US history prior to 1861.

Thus I think the more reasonable approach is civil debate on the
nature of the problem, the possible means to address the problem
that's framed at the conclusion of the debate, and then consensus on
the way forward.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:


Dan wrote:

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global warming
is
starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of the
data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
temperature trends.


Good grief.


How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is such
damage done?

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.