Caution: this article may prove to be more satisfying to global-warming cranks than to global-warming believers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwar... The linked "References and detailed calculations" PDF file is a 40-page "force multiplier": if the article pleases you, the PDF file will probably please you more; if the article displeases you, the PDF file will likely increase your displeasure. :-)
slas@2nerds.com wrote:
Caution: this article may prove to be more satisfying to global-warming cranks than to global-warming believers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwar...
Greetings. Not a lot of feedback concerning this article. Interesting. There is always a concern when the U.N. gets involved in anything because various national agendas are hard to discern from our vantage point, but usually anti-free world politics are the motivation. Also not mentioned much in the media ( and you would think some NASA folks would chime in) is the fact that global temperatures have gone up on Mars and Jupiter recently. Are the rovers really powered by Briggs & Stratton spewing CO into the Martian atmosphere? In reality the extent and causes of the alleged global warming are open for debate but certain entities sieze the opportunity for power, money, or political advantage by terrifying the masses and then naming a culprit and soliciting support ($$$$,votes) to fix the problem. Just my two cents. P.S. I mentioned Mars and Jupiter so I am not off topic. : ) Ron Vanderhule
I didn't read the article; I delete most non-astro posts these days due to lack of time or interest, but I'd like to comment on Ron's post: --- Ron Vanderhule <nitesite@lgcy.com> wrote:
In reality the extent and causes of the alleged global warming are open for debate but certain entities sieze the opportunity for power, money, or political advantage by terrifying the masses and then naming a culprit and soliciting support ($$$$,votes) to fix the problem.
Likewise, there are certain entities whom deny the alleged problem to continue making money (and/or votes). And really, the corroboration by science entities with nothing to gain is just too huge to dismiss anymore. It has grown beyond partisanism. Now I can't say with certainty that global warming isn't man-caused or at least contributed-to by humans, but after I weigh all the evidence, it does seem that way- convincingly. I am a hard-core capitalist. Rocking certain ecconomic foundations runs against the grain, but I'm not sure that the Emperor is clothed anymore. It's only natural to support leadership that at least wants to examine things more closely and take an activist stance. Being somewhat of an amateur astronomer, I know that a runaway greenhouse effect can be bad for one's health, and we already have one Venus in the Solar System. Some evidence states that the process can get out of hand in a short time- we can't afford to gamble that it won't. -The Martians and Jovians are on their own. Good to see you're still with us, Ron! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
The history of global warming is a fact that global warming alarmists can't really explain. Warmer climate conditions than we now have existed during the Medieval Warming Period and during the Greek, Persian and the early Roman era. These temperature records are validated both by Sargasso Sea data and Greenland ice cores. Any theory of global warming that attributes most of the current warming to man-made causes must explain why the earth was warmer during these periods. I think variability of the sun is the main factor controlling global warming with man made influences mainly in the noise of the data. In fact particulate emissions may actually have a cooling effect as seen briefly after 9/11 when flights were grounded and the temperature rose. This may have been a coincidence. The Clear Sky Clock predicts clear weather in Salt Lake until this evening for the transit of Mercury. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of slas@2nerds.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:55 AM To: utah-astronomy@lists.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Climate chaos? Caution: this article may prove to be more satisfying to global-warming cranks than to global-warming believers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/ nwarm05.xml The linked "References and detailed calculations" PDF file is a 40-page "force multiplier": if the article pleases you, the PDF file will probably please you more; if the article displeases you, the PDF file will likely increase your displeasure. :-) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I am surprised that so many fine scientists are stampeded into saying humans caused global warming. I wonder who was the blame when the various ice ages ended -- did some poor Neanderthal family burn too much firewood while shivering in the cave? Those bonehead! The cry goes out that global warming is causing the Arctic tundra to thaw, releasing greenhouse gases that were locked in frozen vegetation. But where did that vegetation come from in the first place? Also, I have seen estimates of an average difference of half a degree per century attributable to global warming. How does one half a degree either way make any difference to the ice sheets? How many centuries has this been going on to make a significant difference? Do we attribute human-caused global warming to the thaw that allowed the Vikings to settle Greenland? Who was to blame when the climate got colder again? I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how civilization is doing all this. At one time after life emerged on Earth, an event called "Snowball Earth" took place. That is, our planet froze over completely. But somehow, it thawed. Maybe some microbe burned too much firewood. Or just possibly a great period of volcanism put out so much smoke and ash that it covered the ice and snow, and the dark material absorbed a lot of sunlight. Concerning our present warming cycle, I bet periodic changes in volcanism has a big role to play. Has any scientist come up with a volcanism budget? That is, weighed how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are expelled by huge volcanic explosions? Time and again, we see humans giving themselves far too much credit for long-term changes, good or bad. I think Nature is far stronger than tiny man. -- Joe B.
Nobody disputes prehistoric climate change or the increasing solar output over time. I feel that introducing these facts misses the point. What the debate is about, as I understand it, is that the current warming trend has happened far faster and to a greater degree than any historical or pre-historic change for a given amount of time, and it clearly coincides with the huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions of 20th-century industrial growth. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Hi Chuck, On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Chuck Hards wrote:
What the debate is about, as I understand it, is that the current warming trend has happened far faster and to a greater degree than any historical or pre-historic change for a given amount of time, and it clearly coincides with the huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions of 20th-century industrial growth.
It's unfortunate that you don't have time to review the article posted at the beginning of this thread. One of the theses of that article is that the supposed recent unprecedented rise in global temperature simply does not exist. The author of the article makes the case that the "hockey stick" seen in U.N. temperature graphs is the result of flaws in climate models as well as careful selection ("cherry picking"?) of historical climate data. Indeed, models which show the sudden recent rise in temperature produce the same rise when fed random data. This fact doesn't give me confidence that real science is being done. Chris
Thanks, Chris, I'll catch-up to it as time permits. But I've heard the "cherry-picking" argument by both sides, and often. One can just as easily, judging by the press, come to the conclusion that neither side has done good science. We always seem to return to demonization of one's opponents, unfortunately. We need to let scientific peer-review steer the course- and yes there will be dissenters even in that venue. Ultimately, it's moral issue. Even if the planet can absorb a certain amount of man-made pollution, should we pollute? Like tossing-out an empty soda can in the woods- the eco-system won't collapse, but is it the right thing to do? --- slas@2nerds.com wrote:
Hi Chuck, It's unfortunate that you don't have time to review the article posted at the beginning of this thread. One of the theses of that article is that the supposed recent unprecedented rise in global temperature simply does not exist.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment! http://www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
Ultimately, it's moral issue. Even if the planet can absorb a certain amount of man-made pollution, should we pollute? Like tossing-out an empty soda can in the woods- the eco-system won't collapse, but is it the right thing to do?
That pretty much sums it up for me. Global warming or not, human-accelerated warming or not, we as a people produce too much pollution and efforts to curb that are a good thing, in my opinion. <back to lurking> Rich Allen
Hi Chris, Thanks for contributing the link to the article. I think it was a very well sourced article. I'm afraid that a lot of "scientists" have lost objectivity when it comes to human-caused global warming. When we lose objectivity are we really doing science? I do find it very troubling that the UN authors appear to have cooked the books a bit. It's interesting to me that what kept concepts such as the Ptolemaic system and the "flat earth" was itself - consensus. Let's study both sides and let the chips fall where they may. Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of slas@2nerds.com Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Climate chaos?
Hi Chuck,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Chuck Hards wrote:
What the debate is about, as I understand it, is that the current warming trend has happened far faster and to a greater degree than any historical or pre-historic change for a given amount of time, and it clearly coincides with the huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions of 20th-century industrial growth.
It's unfortunate that you don't have time to review the article posted at the beginning of this thread. One of the theses of that article is that the supposed recent unprecedented rise in global temperature simply does not exist. The author of the article makes the case that the "hockey stick" seen in U.N. temperature graphs is the result of flaws in climate models as well as careful selection ("cherry picking"?) of historical climate data. Indeed, models which show the sudden recent rise in temperature produce the same rise when fed random data. This fact doesn't give me confidence that real science is being done.
Chris
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The problem that is often ignored is that the earth cooled from 1940 to the late 1970's. This has never been adequately explained by the models. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:11 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Climate chaos? Nobody disputes prehistoric climate change or the increasing solar output over time. I feel that introducing these facts misses the point. What the debate is about, as I understand it, is that the current warming trend has happened far faster and to a greater degree than any historical or pre-historic change for a given amount of time, and it clearly coincides with the huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions of 20th-century industrial growth. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
It was the music- Jazz in the '40's, then rock and roll through the '70's. Cool. --- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
The problem that is often ignored is that the earth cooled from 1940 to the late 1970's. This has never been adequately explained by the models.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's - in less than one year. http://www.findtherightschool.com
A different conclusion: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml --- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
I think variability of the sun is the main factor controlling global warming with man made influences mainly in the noise of the data.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
I'm sorry about my outburst yesterday. I was going through a personally difficult time and then I felt as if fellow amateur astronomers I care about were attacking me. I lashed out and should not have. -- Joe
It's all good Joe. If nobody cared one way or the other, the world would be even messier (and I don't mean Charles)! ;o) --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I'm sorry about my outburst yesterday. I was going through a personally difficult time and then I felt as if fellow amateur astronomers I care about were attacking me. I lashed out and should not have. -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
I second Rich's sentiments, Joe. This country was, after all, founded on dissent. The day the nation has 100% consensus is the day we crumble and the great experiment fails. You are a valued member of the amateur astronomy community and I, at least, think you're a terrific guy as well. It can be hard at times, but don't take anything posted here personally, unless they come right out and say bad things about your heredity. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's all good Joe. If nobody cared one way or the other, the world would be even messier (and I don't mean Charles)! ;o)
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I'm sorry about my outburst yesterday. I was going through a personally difficult time and then I felt as if fellow amateur astronomers I care about were attacking me. I lashed out and should not have. -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
From the other side: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ And, since British newspapers oped pages are worth quoting here, maybe a quote from the news section is appropriate: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1291217,00.html Bill B On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:54 AM, slas@2nerds.com wrote:
Caution: this article may prove to be more satisfying to global-warming cranks than to global-warming believers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/ nosplit/nwarm05.xml
The linked "References and detailed calculations" PDF file is a 40-page "force multiplier": if the article pleases you, the PDF file will probably please you more; if the article displeases you, the PDF file will likely increase your displeasure. :-)
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (9)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
Don J. Colton -
Joe Bauman -
Rich Allen -
Richard Tenney -
Ron Vanderhule -
slas＠2nerds.com -
William Biesele