"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

Joe Fischer > writes:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:34:02 +0900, Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

>>Sequence is not proof of causality.

>Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means the
>proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.

Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.

Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
relationship, according to the laws of nature.

>My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
>but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
>18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
>stopped yet.

There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150 ybp.

>CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
>coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
>disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
>it falls to Earth.

CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.
Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
of dissolved CO2.

That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that from the burning
of fossil fuels by human activity.

>But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times the
>shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.

There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by preventing
free convection. The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing. They
simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the
molecular arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of
the radiation; and warm themselves. The molecules can't get a
"second bite" of radiation already absorbed by other molecules;
either of the same gas or others. The resulting temperature increase
is logarithmic; not linear.

Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
(in places) for humans.

The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
activity was, until quite recently (<10 years) at a maximum similar
to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.

Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.

Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.

Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do
computational fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary
conditions... and adjust the fudge-factors until the output looks
right.

Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and
indirectly.

If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
it's actually possible to measure such a thing.

We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
(more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

In article >, Joe Fischer wrote
in part:

> And in the 1950s, in the midwest, 100 + F
>was common, and I haven't seen 3 days of 100 F
>in the last 16 years.

Where were you in mid-July 1995? Also, is past 16 years chosen to
exclude 1991, which had some nasty heat?

If you want past midwest heat, look at early July 1936, which was a high
point of the "dust bowl" heatwaves. I think about 20 US states, mostly
Plains-Midwest but also Pennsylvania have statewide alltime record highs
from that single heatwave.
And farming techniques were since changed over hundreds of thousands of
square miles of USA farmland to stop and reverse what appears to me
desertifying of much of the Plains and Midwest due to the farming
techniques of the 1930's and earlier. Some of the improvement took time -
Illinois has its statewide alltime record high temperature in the late
1950's IIRC, at East St. Louis.
Meanwhile, yearround temperatures in the Plains/Midwest have shown a
trend of getting warmer in the past decade or two, despite summer peaks
not breaking the more spectacular dustbowl records.

Now, for Philadelphia: January 1932 was freakishly warm, possibly
unbeatable even for the next 100 years. The alltime high for Philadelphia
was from an early August day at a time back when the official thermometer
was downtown - it's now close to a half-mile-wide river. Since the mid
1980's there has been a trend of things getting warmer, despite lack of
alltime July record high since 1964 or alltime August high since much
farther back.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Joe Fischer wrote:
>On Fri, Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>> Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
>>> ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
>>> shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
>>> but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
>>> lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
>>> that condition.
>>
>>They are possible but never any recorded damage in California until
>>recently.
>
> Are you sure? One thing that is not talked
>about is that record low temperatures are more
>common than record high temperatures, and there
>is probably a good reason for that.
> And just the right conditions of very cold air
>aloft and heavy precipitation may not coincide often,
>the tornados in Florida last night were pretty fierce.

Winter and early spring tornadoes in southern tier USA, as far west as
LA Basin and as far east as Florida, have always occurred. And they have
always upticked during El Nino. We are currently having an El Nino.

El Nino tends to make winter in the southern tier of the USA cooler and
stormier.

Also, Florida has the USA's worst "tornado alley" in terms of tornado
count per 10,000 square miles per year. The Plains "tornado alley" only
gets worse than that of Florida when considering size, duration and
strength of the tornadoes.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Joe Fischer wrote:
>On 2 Feb 2007 09:46:18 -0800, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 2, 11:20 am, "Lee K" > wrote:
>>> Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere
>>>
>>> Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes,
>>> there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al
>>> Gore and the mainstream media.
>>
>>You send your resume here...
>>
>>US think tank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202...y_070202142458
>
> More yahoo stuff, yahoo?
>
>>You could argue that you make black look white, that hot is cold,
>
> No, I can't but global warming story tellers insist
>that global warming can bring on a long hard winter,
>and more snow.

I know a couple explanations:

1) Warmer winter-storm-feeding waters can make more intense snowstorms,
up until the time it gets too warm for those (or they move farther from
the equator).

2) Harsher winters in the British Isles and nearby Western Europe
are considered a possible effect of the Gulf Stream being weakened and
pushed southward by cold freshwater runoff from melting of Greenland's
icecap.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Wayne Pein wrote:
>John Thompson wrote:
>
>> As a bicycle commuter myself, I can commiserate with you. Automobiles in
>> general are a very energy-inefficient means of transporting people and
>> public transportation should be encouraged as a way (not the only way!)
>> to reduce overall energy consumption. A huge amount of resources are
>> dedicated to providing infrastructure to an automobile society. If we
>> can reduce dependence on automobiles not only will it become easier for
>> pedestrians and bicyclists, but money can be freed for other worthwhile
>> projects to make our urban areas safer for everybody.
>
>Public transportation generally requires approximately the same BTUs per
>passenger mile, about 3500, as do private motor vehicles on average.
>Short haul public transportation is also a bigger competitor to walking
>and biycling than it is to automobiles. That is, short haul public
>transportation reduces bicycling and walking to a greater extent than it
>does car use, turning low energy users into chauffered big energy users.
>If short haul public transportation didn't exist, how would those users
>get around? They'd walk, bike, drive alone, or carpool.
>
>Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
>something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
>over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.
>
>Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
>Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.

I speak from experience in an urban area where a significant portion of
within-urban-area public transit passenger miles are on electric transit
vehicles. By a huge factor the single biggest transit route in
Philadelphia is the "Market Frankford Subway-Elevated" or "The El". I
think 2nd place is the "Broad St. Subway". In addition there are the
"Regional Rails" (electric trains), the three "Red Arrow Division" trolley
lines, two fairly distinct (but having a minor interconnection) sets of
"City Transit Division" trolley lines, and at least a couple "trackless
trolley" lines that I think of as "external wire powered electric buses".

NYC has a major subway network with an average day's ridership well into
6 figures, all electric powered, as well as regional electric trains
operated by New Jersey Transit.

Washington DC has its "Metro", a very popular set of electric rail
transit lines. San Francisco has the "BART", electric rail transit.
Toronto has some subway/rail lines, electric. Paris has their "Metro" and
London has major high ridership subway lines - electric. Chicago has
their "El" with at least two heavy ridership lines - electric. Tokyo
has electric commuting trains so popular that they get so densely
packed that at least some stations have "ushers", big guys with white
gloves, that sometimes to some extent push people into trains to pack
them! And I am sure I have not been thorough in naming specific electric
transit lines!

Given existence of nuclear power plants, hydropower, and wind farms and
to a lesser extent solar electricity generating stations, a significant
amount of electricity is made by means without generation of greenhouse
gases (other than by trucks bringing in supplies and cars carrying in some
workers).

- Don Klipstein )

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:18:17 +0900, Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

>Joe Fischer > writes:
>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:34:02 +0900, Bernd Felsche
> wrote:
>>>Sequence is not proof of causality.
>
>>Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means the
>>proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.
>
>Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
>gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
>simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.
>
>Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
>relationship, according to the laws of nature.
>[snip]

But how can all scientists in a working group
supported agree, yet there are obviously scientists,
even climatologists with data analysis training that
are unsure, skeptical, or strongly disagree?

It seems to me that some that disagree with
the stories told by Al Gore are "former" office or
chair holders, could there be some preference
in hiring or pressures to conform or hit the road?

I would expect a certain amount of agreement
amongst professionals to at least marginally support
each other to uphold the dignity of science, but how
can there be polarized science opinions from the
same data?

Joe Fischer

On Sat, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote in part:
>> And in the 1950s, in the midwest, 100 + F
>>was common, and I haven't seen 3 days of 100 F
>>in the last 16 years.
>
> Where were you in mid-July 1995? Also, is past 16 years chosen to
>exclude 1991, which had some nasty heat?

Fort Knox.

> If you want past midwest heat, look at early July 1936, which was a high
>point of the "dust bowl" heatwaves.

Were they heat waves or local droughts? I remember
the 1930s very well, some of my fingers and fingernails are curved
and they are the ones that got frostbite in the cold winters.

>I think about 20 US states, mostly
>Plains-Midwest but also Pennsylvania have statewide alltime record highs
>from that single heatwave.

I only lived in the Pennsylvania during the 1970s,
and the last half was cold with lots of snow, they had
to fly Air Force snow blowers from Alaska to dig us
out, normal snow plows were useless.

> And farming techniques were since changed over hundreds of thousands of
>square miles of USA farmland to stop and reverse what appears to me
>desertifying of much of the Plains and Midwest due to the farming
>techniques of the 1930's and earlier. Some of the improvement took time -
>Illinois has its statewide alltime record high temperature in the late
>1950's IIRC, at East St. Louis.

The early 1950s was the only time I have seen
brick pavement upheave from heat, and those streets
were put in before 1930. (Cleveland)

> Meanwhile, yearround temperatures in the Plains/Midwest have shown a
>trend of getting warmer in the past decade or two, despite summer peaks
>not breaking the more spectacular dustbowl records.

Warmer than the 60s in the midwest for sure,
that entire decade was an average of 10 degrees
below normal, and now one degree is suppose to
scare people into giving up partial use of energy.

> Now, for Philadelphia: January 1932 was freakishly warm, possibly
>unbeatable even for the next 100 years. The alltime high for Philadelphia
>was from an early August day at a time back when the official thermometer
>was downtown - it's now close to a half-mile-wide river. Since the mid
>1980's there has been a trend of things getting warmer, despite lack of
>alltime July record high since 1964 or alltime August high since much
>farther back.
> - Don Klipstein )

Austin in the 1980s was bad enough for me,
99 is almost a constant thing there in summer.
But the 50s in Cleveland and 1964 in Pasadena
were the two warmest spells I have seen.

But temperature alone does not cause the
big weather events, it takes both heat and a cold
source to cause big storms and cyclonics.

Joe Fischer

Bernd Felsche > wrote
> Joe Fischer > writes
>> Bernd Felsche > wrote

>>> Sequence is not proof of causality.

>> Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means
>> the proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.

> Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
> gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
> simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.

> Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
> relationship, according to the laws of nature.

Wrong.

>> My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
>> but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
>> 18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
>> stopped yet.

> There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
> approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
> optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
> just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
> Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150 ybp.

>> CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
>> coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
>> disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
>> it falls to Earth.

> CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
> why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.

Wrong.

> Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
> and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
> the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
> of dissolved CO2.

Wrong.

> That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that
> from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity.

>> But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times
>> the shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.

> There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by preventing free convection.

Wrong. They work by reducing the radiation of long wavelength IR.

> The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing.

They do however stop the earth radiating as much, just like real greenhouses do.

> They simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the molecular
> arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of the radiation;

Meaningless gobbledegook.

> and warm themselves.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

> The molecules can't get a "second bite" of radiation already absorbed by other molecules;

Meaningless gobbledegook.

> either of the same gas or others. The resulting
> temperature increase is logarithmic; not linear.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

> Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
> the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
> (in places) for humans.

> The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
> activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
> recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
> activity was, until quite recently (<10 years) at a maximum similar
> to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.

> Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
> radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
> experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
> likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
> increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
> heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.

> Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
> That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
> the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
> reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
> cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.

> Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
> equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
> chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do computational
> fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary conditions... and adjust
> the fudge-factors until the output looks right.

> Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
> of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and indirectly.

> If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
> thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
> outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
> it's actually possible to measure such a thing.

> We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
> high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
> governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
> (more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.

On Feb 2, 12:19 pm, Joe Fischer > wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 07:55:19 -0800, "donquijote1954"
>
> > wrote:
> >See what they are doing in Canada...
>
> Go away spammer, this is the renewable energy
> newsgroup, not a do without, go hungry and freeze
> to death newsgroup.
>
> Joe Fischer

I hear about a dimming theory somewhere, and must be somehow related
to it... Don't you realize pedal power is renewable? Not a bad idea
for lazy fat Americans...

"The Pedal-a-Watt bike was designed to keep the user aerobically fit
while creating some extra power that may be sent to a bank of
batteries. These batteries may then be tapped at a later time, after
dark for example, when the energy is needed to power lights or
appliances. The Pedal-a-Watt bicycle is an excellent addition to an
existing battery system that may already be charged from the
photovoltaic panels, 120 VAC grid power or wind power. The concept
behind the Pedal-a-Watt bicycle is that electricity can be created
from human effort and then stored in batteries.

The average rider will produce between 150 and 200 watts using the
Pedal-a-Watt. While this may not seem like much power, solid state
equipment draws very little power and can be powered for long spans of
time with small amounts of power. VHF/UHF Ham Radios, laptops, and DC
stereos all draw small amounts of current at 12 volts DC. In
addition, LED lighting and high efficiency fluorescent lighting now
allow 200 watts to go a long way. A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/WCEE/keep/Re...PedalPower.htm

On Feb 2, 1:30 pm, "nash" > wrote:

> I always thought it was the Lions against the Christians anyway.
> Moneyed vs the poor.

The Christians (as did the Jews) learned that instead of facing the
lion is better to become one. They still playing the victim though.