I Will Never Understand Wind

"Jay Honeck" writes:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?

Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?

Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?

What climate scientists (be sure of your references before responding, they
might not be all you believe)?

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the
(anti-industry, ant-growth, anti-social, socialist) climate(pseudo)
scientists are wrong, then?


Sounds like a pretty accurate statement to me.

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?

Bullsquat.

Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

Until then, they rank right up there amongst the many other snake oil and
Chicken Little charlatans of the world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
climate change.

A climatologist is NOT a meterologist. They don't try and predict the
weather tomorrow or this weekend; that's up to the meteorologist. Think
of it this way: a climatologist might be able to tell you that
generally, the weather in the north Irish Sea for the last 300 years has
followed a certain pattern (mild, wet winters seldom going much below
freezing, mild, wet summers seldom going above 20 degrees Celcius). A
meteorologist will tell you 'there is a 30% chance of isolated
thunderstorms this afternoon'. Although the two fields are related, they
are VERY different.

As a metaphor for this, imagine a large pan of water on a gas stove and
turn the gas on full. You can predict quite accurately that the water
will boil, and when it will boil. However, predicting where individual
bubbles of boiling water, or a specific convection in the pan of boiling
water is a completely different science. The meteorologist is predicting
the bubbles and convection, where it will occur and what effect it will
have on a specific square millimetre of the pan's surface, the
climatologist is saying some time in the future the water in the pan as
a whole will boil, based on calculating the energy going in, the energy
being lost, the specific heat capacity of water etc.

Equally, it is proven scientific fact that if you increase the
concentration of carbon dioxide, more solar radiation is trapped. The
concentration of carbon dioxide has provably increased in the last 50
years. The concentration of chloroflourocarbons ahs provably increased
in the last 50 years. The concentration of methane has provably
increased. Given the proven fact that CO2, CFCs and CH4 reduce the
escape of infrared radiation from the planet, and that the sun's output
has not decreased, just as 1+1=2, the planet's energy balance (heat in
versus heat out) has also changed towards keeping more heat in. It
doesn't even take a degree in climatology to prove that this is true.

Just as it's difficult to predict where the bubbles appear in a pot of
water being brought to the boil, it's difficult to predict what effect
it will have on the day to day meteorology of a given location on the
Earth's surface. But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Those that deny otherwise are simply in denial about the laws of
physics.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution)

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10
billion tons/year.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.

Certainly. The oil industry has a huge interest in this and is spending
millions if not billions into publicity. Successfully, as it seems.

Stefan

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
equivalent of 400 years of man-made air pollution)

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?

Only if you live a very sheltered life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?
Only if you live a very sheltered life.

As for laying awake worrying, that does no one any good - you need a
good night's sleep to think straight enough to develop fixes. Besides,
no one where I live has a sheltered life, this island is a forbidding
windswept place in the winter! [0]

In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

so it's prudent to try and find ways to conserve the fossil fuels we
have and try and figure out how to make better use of sustainable fuels
to ensure that our way of life has a future in the long term. In the
short term, this is probably going to require a serious re-evaluation of
nuclear energy, and in the long term, replacements for oil. (One of the
things that a shortage of cheap oil would bring is the market forces to
increase research into viable alternatives, at the moment oil is still too
cheap for the market to deem it worthwhile).

If we just bury our heads and carry on regardless, ignoring not just the
possibility of man-caused climate change, but all the other things
listed above, sooner or later it WILL turn around and bite us. It's
nothing to do with being a 'tree hugging commie', it's to do with
ensuring that our values of freedom, apple pie and light aircraft
can still be enjoyed in 200 years time.

[0] yes, I'm just being flippant, but if man-made climate change
increases the frequency of the winter storms, it's going to suck. It's
not unusual to have at least one hurricane force storm in the winter
here, and I don't relish the thought of more. Those nights you DO lie
awake worrying, it's difficult to sleep when a house made with three
foot thick stone walls is groaning and vibrating, and you can hear your
neighbour's roof slates bouncing off your roof)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21...
It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
equivalent of 400 years of man-made air pollution)

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring
in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?

Only if you live a very sheltered life.

And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
uninhabitable due to COLD.