Al Gore's Private Jet

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

Why are you so obsessed with this, Larry? About 1/3 of the
posts in this thread are yours! You're normally so sensible.

Larry? Sensible?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

Why?
Fundemental law of science.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

Why?
Fundemental law of science.

where is this proven or stated as an assumption?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote:

Where do you get your science?

Science references and resources

Could you be more specific?

why? the question wasn't specific. Which "science" are you
referring to?

It's a serious question.

I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which to
base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I find
out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
grinders:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3

I'm looking for something as free as possible from political cant. It's
starting to feel like a hopeless search.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

Why?
Fundemental law of science.

where is this proven or stated as an assumption?

Well, gee...starting with Aristotle's law of contradiction about 2500 years
ago...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote:

Where do you get your science?

Science references and resources

Could you be more specific?

why? the question wasn't specific. Which "science" are you
referring to?

It's a serious question.

I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which
to base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything
I find out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or
right-wing axe grinders:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3

I'm looking for something as free as possible from political cant. It's
starting to feel like a hopeless search.

Well, CEI is an ECONOMIC organization...

IAC, your remarks sounds something akin to the old "Jewish Science", or
"Bourgeoisie Science" that brought about Lymarckianism.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message news:
...

I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which to
base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I find
out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
grinders:

I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.

The first thing you can dismiss is the doom-mongering
headlines about species extinction, rampant disease,
and apocalyptic hurricanes. These are *corollaries*,
and would be true (assuming the science is exact) if
the earth were to warm in any manner, not just through
human actions. They might make alarmist headlines, but they
should form no part in anyone's opinion as to the validity
of man-made global warming itself. The fact that these
corollaries are given prominence in the IPCC report should
throw up a red flag that they are being touted to deflect
detailed analysis of the underlying science.

Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
particular opinion one way or another on man-made
global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
the validity of any proposed model.

Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.

Second, the climate has been changing and appears
always to have done so. The direct evidence for this
goes back only 200 years or so. Before that, evidence
is less certain than simply looking at the thermometer --
it is based upon extrapolations from the historical
record (rivers freezing, crop yields etc.) Before that,
one can extrapolate from species range and tree rings.
Assess recent evidence carefully -- one Cambridge
professor spent a weekend looking a "global warming"
and decided recent warming could be explained by
man-made "heat" generated in the cities where the
measurements were taken. Cities are typically 5 degrees
hotter these days, and all this must be corrected for
carefully if one is looking for increases in the 0.5 degree
range.

Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
went unreported by historians.

With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
the claims upon which their theory rests.

1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
man made or natural.

3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
around which water droplets can condense.

Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.

Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which
to
base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I
find
out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
grinders:

I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.

sigh All right. I retract my withdrawal from the conversation and I'll try
again with an attempt at staying cool and humble.


The first thing you can dismiss is the doom-mongering
headlines about species extinction, rampant disease,
and apocalyptic hurricanes. These are *corollaries*,
and would be true (assuming the science is exact) if
the earth were to warm in any manner, not just through
human actions. They might make alarmist headlines, but they
should form no part in anyone's opinion as to the validity
of man-made global warming itself. The fact that these
corollaries are given prominence in the IPCC report should
throw up a red flag that they are being touted to deflect
detailed analysis of the underlying science.

I dismiss them, anyway. I'm used to out-of-context distortion of scientific
discoveries by the popular media. But I'm convinced that they are born of
the need to peddle ads, not cover up weak science. How can weak science be
hidden from the whole scientific community? How does it escape the
peer-review filter? Are we to believe in a vast conspiracy? The nay-sayers
are becoming fewer and fewer. Are all the others lying?

Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
particular opinion one way or another on man-made
global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
the validity of any proposed model.

But Tony, if you don't understand the mechanisms, how can you critcise the
science?

Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.


What about the claim that volcanoes at the same time produce enormous
quantities of persistent sulfur aerosols that reflect the solar IR before it
can be trapped by the CO2?


Second, the climate has been changing and appears
always to have done so. The direct evidence for this
goes back only 200 years or so. Before that, evidence
is less certain than simply looking at the thermometer --
it is based upon extrapolations from the historical
record (rivers freezing, crop yields etc.) Before that,
one can extrapolate from species range and tree rings.
Assess recent evidence carefully -- one Cambridge
professor spent a weekend looking a "global warming"
and decided recent warming could be explained by
man-made "heat" generated in the cities where the
measurements were taken. Cities are typically 5 degrees
hotter these days, and all this must be corrected for
carefully if one is looking for increases in the 0.5 degree
range.


I have seen this claim and seen it refuted by reference to data produced by
other means.

Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
went unreported by historians.

The refutation I have seen of this is that world-wide warming for that period
is not supported by evidence. Therefore, sea levels would not have risen.
In fact, the absence of a sea level rise is evidence that the warming was
*not* global, since sea levels would *have* to have risen if it were.


With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
the claims upon which their theory rests.

1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

I've seen a refutation of this, but I can't find it. If I do, I'll post it
for criticism.

2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
man made or natural.

What about the claim that CO2 and temperature rises are reinforcing, and that
the present unusual position of CO2 leading temperature is one of the
arguments for AGW?

3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
around which water droplets can condense.

Another one I've seen refuted. I've got some more digging to do. No doubt
you'll be able to refute the refutation, and I'll find a refutation of the
refutation of the refutation and on and on...

Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.

Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.

Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the human
race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.

If human generated environmental catastrophe is ahead--and I believe it is
sooner or later, given the species' inability to understand that the planet's
natural systems are not indestructible--it won't do much good to predict it.
People gotta eat, people gotta have places to live, every new generation
expects to have more stuff than the last one, and there are more people all
the time.

What will happen will happen; mass extinctions are part of life on Planet
Earth, and there's little reason to believe we humans are immune. Most
likely I'll be long gone before anything big happens, but in the meantime,
I'm interested in the current controversy. Thanks for your input.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Tony Cox" wrote:


I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.

sigh All right. I retract my withdrawal from the conversation and I'll try
again with an attempt at staying cool and humble.

I didn't know you had. I thought you were asking how to
assess the evidence. I'm happy to help. And I doubt you'll
stay humble, nor would I wish you to!

Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
particular opinion one way or another on man-made
global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
the validity of any proposed model.

But Tony, if you don't understand the mechanisms, how can you critcise the
science?

I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
complex business. Models that are over-parameterized can
fit just about anything. Models that extrapolate, especially
time series phenomena, are doubly suspect. Models that
deliberately choose sub-sets of data to fit and ignore the
entire data available to them better have a good justification
if they're not to be dismissed as a put-up job.

I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
the medieval warming period).

A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
climate variation which can't be measured until after
the proponents have conveniently retired. This
doesn't give one much confidence.

Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.


What about the claim that volcanoes at the same time produce enormous
quantities of persistent sulfur aerosols that reflect the solar IR before it
can be trapped by the CO2?

Given that volcanic emissions differ in constituents, I'd
find it remarkable that each major eruption has produced
just the right combination of sulphur and CO2 to make
a "zero sum" on the climate. Further, sulphur aerosols drop
out of the atmosphere quickly, whereas CO2 remains for
much longer periods of time.

So on the face of it, this claim doesn't stand up.

Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
went unreported by historians.

The refutation I have seen of this is that world-wide warming for that period
is not supported by evidence. Therefore, sea levels would not have risen.
In fact, the absence of a sea level rise is evidence that the warming was
*not* global, since sea levels would *have* to have risen if it were.

Well, the warming in Northern Europe during the 13th century is
very well documented. It is hard to imagine this phenomena
being localized. You're saying it couldn't be global because the
sea level didn't rise? That seems to be a reach. The population
data for China indicates a 3-fold increase in from 1000 to 1200,
consistent with the population rise from increased crop yields evident
in Northern Europe. Where,exactly, do you think global warming
didn't actually occur?

So on the face of it, this claim doesn't stand up either.



With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
the claims upon which their theory rests.

1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

I've seen a refutation of this, but I can't find it. If I do, I'll post it
for criticism.

Yes. You do that.


2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
man made or natural.

What about the claim that CO2 and temperature rises are reinforcing, and that
the present unusual position of CO2 leading temperature is one of the
arguments for AGW?

My description had a typo. CO2 trails temperature. Therefore
there can be no coupling between CO2 and temperature, if
TGGWS is correct.


3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
around which water droplets can condense.

Another one I've seen refuted. I've got some more digging to do. No doubt
you'll be able to refute the refutation, and I'll find a refutation of the
refutation of the refutation and on and on...

Good. You do that digging.


Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.

Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.

Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the human
race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.

What a pessimist. I have no such doubts.

"Tony Cox" wrote:


Good. You do that digging.

In progress. It is a very deep pile to dig in, and a great deal of it is
political fertilizer.


Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the
human
race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.

What a pessimist. I have no such doubts.

The record of human societies attempting to "fix" things makes you
optimistic?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM