Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Global Warming] Re: Models

Expand Messages
  • Herbert
    Why is lie a too strong word ??? What I think, is that a lot of data is not only manipulated out of the reason of incorrect sience, but more because of the $$
    Message 1 of 67 , Jan 1, 2010
      Why is lie a too strong word ???
      What I think, is that a lot of data is not only manipulated out of the reason of incorrect sience, but more because of the $$ MONEY $$ which is to be earned by shouting loud that the earth is near a catastrophe. Since Nostradamus we know, that there are enough people
      which believe in "prophets", which are telling us, that the "apocalypse" is comming.
      We , and with we I means the human race, are following like a herdle of sheep those stupid ideas, giving our money to feed some people
      which are the winners in that game.
      I am not an American, as to be seen from my bad English, but I like
      some simple ideas of the Americans. One is the idea to follow the money, to find out why people are telling you something and why politicians are acting a.s.o. .
      Doing so you will see, that there are some people earning a lot of money in the first line by telling us some half truth or even lies.
      Beginning with the publication inmmedia like TV a.s.o. and not stopping with the Ban Ki-moon, the general secretary of UN, telling that until 2013 the polarbears will die out.
      It might be a strand kind of humor, that Greenpeace was telling before, that until 2030 the polarbears will die out,and that they then had to step back from this nonsense, but Ban Ki-moon seemed not to know about this and then mixes 2030 with 2013 - sounds similar.
      Might be , it is like my old proffesor told us, that somebody who is with knowledge of sience and is active, has no time to publish in books or journals or even TV and that the others, which are always publishing - or having position where they need to do so, are without deep knowledge.
      We are not having the best as leaders, but the once with the strongest elbows or the "best poloitical behaviour".

      The only thing that I fear is, that in this way of treating the
      problem of GW , some crazy sientist will experiment with the sience of geo-engineering. There are already some Frankensetin ideas like putting SO2 into the atmosphere to build an umbrella. That SO2 which costed us a lot of money to remove from the exhausted gases from Cars a.s.o. because it was named to be the erason of acid rain, which the reason of the overestimated changes in forests in the 70s and 80s.

      Best wishes for a new year with less supid ideas about the GW !




      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "stevehudson001" <stevehudson001@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Lie may be too strong a word .. Collective stupidity is perhaps a more relevant term.
      >
      > For Myself, a lot of my interest in global warming is not so much the warming itself but the way people respond to claims of its happening.
      >
      > For example, a few years ago it was not unusual to hear people here (Melbourne Australia) say that summer is not what it used to be.. that it used to get hot in November and stay hot till May .. and when they say hot they mean temps over 40C. those same people now complain of it being HOT when its just 29 or 30C. Their interpretation of things has changed. Melbourne weather is not much different now than it was 40 years ago when I first came here from the UK as a kid of 13. Its very variable.. 4 seasons in one day is an accurate depiction .. but I remember people saying the weather wasnt what it used to be when we came here in 1968 ...
      >
      > I do think melbourne is more humid now than I remember in summer..so I myself do think there has been some small change
      > But the way people respond to the weather has changed more ...people used to look forward to the heat.. now they cant stand the heat. Perhaps this is just from them spending too much time in climate controled offices.
      >
      > Recently I spoke to a woman that siad that the climate has deffinately changed as she remembers as a kid easter weather used to be like so. but this year it was like so.. .. when i told her that the actual date of easter change from year to year and the earliest and latest dates for easter were over a month apart .. she asked me when they started doing that .. I told her its been like that for over 1000 years.
      > Iwas very surprised that she didnt know that easter isnt on the same date every year.
      > Here the case is that her own ignorance lead her to a false conclusion and i suspect she may not be the only one doing that.
      >
      >
      > One more anecdote.. I remember someone telling me that climate change was obviously real as Viking vilages had been exposed by retreating glaciers in Greenland.. their logic.. the glaciers were retreating so the earth was warming up
      > My answer to them was how did these vilages get to be under the glaier in the first place? They were not willing to entetain the idea that climate change might be normal long term cylic variation.It conflicted with their own viewpoint and they became rather agressive in defending their view.
      >
      > Point I wish to make is that people generally do not want to be "outsiders" and will go along readily with peer group pressure no matter how illogical an idea the pressure forces them to adopt, simply so that they feel some "belonging". Global warming is trendy and that in my view, rather than a ooncerted campaign of lies does more to perpetuate the idea than any propaganda campaign ever could.
      >
      > I look to the Greenpeace and other social activists of the 60's and 70's who in some cases had good motives but in other cases simply adopted an environmentalist stance because they felt alienated by their governments. Their environmentalism was motivated by nothing more than a spiritof rebeliousness.
      > Their ecological value system has since then caught on big time and even governments now have become caught up in a snowball effect (no pun intended) of group think which pays no attention to the actual facts of the issue. and in fact even hides the facts of the matter whatver they may be.
      >
      > Steve
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Chris Miller <harvardiv@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Now that we all agree that man made global warming is a half truth hoax, the question is "why" is it (the lie) being created?
      >
    • Chris Miller
      Charles:   What makes you question that?  Prove anything I ve said as wrong.  ... From: charles goodnight Subject: Re: [Global
      Message 67 of 67 , Jan 6, 2010
        Charles:
         
        What makes you question that?  Prove anything I've said as wrong. 

        --- On Wed, 1/6/10, charles goodnight <goodnightcharles@...> wrote:


        From: charles goodnight <goodnightcharles@...>
        Subject: Re: [Global Warming] Re: Models
        To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 1:45 PM


         



        do you live in this universe, Chris?

         

        --- On Tue, 1/5/10, Chris Miller <harvardiv@yahoo. com> wrote:

        From: Chris Miller <harvardiv@yahoo. com>
        Subject: Re: [Global Warming] Re: Models
        To: globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 11:27 PM

         

        Wayne:
         
        The meltwater would not raise the sea level, but gw promoters like Al Gore aka "Chicken Little" claim otherwise in my opinion.

        --- On Sat, 1/2/10, lwaynes_world <kb0syf@gmail. com> wrote:

        From: lwaynes_world <kb0syf@gmail. com>
        Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Models
        To: globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 10:26 AM

         

        Since the melt water would raise the level of the ocean, it would seem to me that the sea basin would subside... Interesting. No doubt it would trigger some seismic activity. I think that I read an article somewhere that stated seismic activity had increased . Found a reference. http://environment. about.com/ od/globalwarming /a/earthquakes. htm

        --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "stevehudson001" <stevehudson001@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > This is just a question on something I heard sometime ago.
        >
        > If the weight of Ice pressing Down on Antarctica were removed.. By melting entirely . then there would be some upliting of the Antarctic continent..
        >
        > Seems to me that if Antarctica were to "uplift" then some other parts of the world would would have to move down
        >
        > comments anyone ?
        >
        > Steve
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@ > wrote:
        > >
        > > Ah, but to lose support of the bedrock a VERY substantial amount of their mass must be supported by their own buoyancy. As such, no ice shelf can possibly "break off" unless it's already displacing most of its mass. Its break-up was only a matter of time...not temperature under those circumstances.
        > >
        > > However, if you'll look up the total volume of ice worldwide in glaciers and ice shelves...you' ll find that they are incapable of contributing substantially to sea level rise...although again, it is unfair to include ice shelves as most of their total displacement is already accounted for because they're already well in the water.
        > >
        > > You will of course notice that the public is NEVER informed of the difference between ice sheets, ice shelves and glaciers. The IPCC reports and alarmists always mention the mass of the ice SHEETS, then segway into glaciers and ice shelves AS IF those had the tiniest thing to do with the main mass of the greenland/antarctic ice sheets. Even using alarmist figures for the "alarming" rate of melt, the total contribution to sea level rise would be at most, 1mm per year in addition to thermal expansion (which constitutes the bulk of the sea level rise).
        > >
        > > It would take TWENTY TIMES that rate of melt (and again, ice sheets don't count the same way) to cause sea levels to rise by 2 additional meters in 100 years. Quoting 2 meters by 2100 is CRIMINAL and clearly meant to panic people. Worse still...2 meters by 2100 wouldn't actually be anywhere near as bad as people think. That's almost 4 generations, only .5 meters per generaion. (reality is about .07 meters per year...which will likely fall now that the cold period has begun)
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > poitsplace,
        > > >
        > > > I agree, but that's not exactly what I have in mind. Look at SLR using
        > > > a glaciologist hierarchical structure where icebergs calve from ice
        > > > sheets which are attached to ice shelves which, in turn, are sitting on
        > > > bedrock. The icebergs and the ice sheets from which they calve are
        > > > already in the ocean, more or less as I think you say, so they
        > > > wouldn't contribute much to SLR.
        > > >
        > > > The ice shelves however are a different kettle of fish. Should they lose
        > > > the support of the bedrock, break off or slide into the ocean, their
        > > > added mass will raise sea levels. The ice shelves from Greenland and
        > > > West Antarctica (if solid?) are more than deep enough so that their
        > > > volume - 3D - could cause big SLR. They don't even have to melt,
        > > > floating could do it.
        > > >
        > > > My Australian geologist denier says ice shelves can't losen from GW
        > > > alone, it would take (big) seismic or geothermal activity to loosen a
        > > > shelf from the bedrock. OTOH, where is today's meltwater really going?
        > > >
        > > > I'm trying to pursue my education with some second and third opinions.
        > > > The recent analyses of the structure of the Antarctica shelves is
        > > > fascinating. ..
        > > >
        > > > TIA
        > > >
        > > > j
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@ >
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Since the ice is actually IN the water... the size of the ice shelves
        > > > ... is pretty inconsequential. I realize a few thousand square miles
        > > > over the course of 30 years may sound like a lot...
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Poitsplace,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > AFAIK as yet, ice shelves breaking-off in Antarctica/Greenlan d isn't
        > > > > > really addressed by IPCC WG. Breaking would seem more extreme and
        > > > might
        > > > > > be more interesting than other meltings of polar ice.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Any ideas/references for the ice shelf breaking-off arena?
        > > > Especially in
        > > > > > Antarctica.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > j
        > > > > > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@ >
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > ... just to give you an idea of how unimaginably wrong people are
        > > > about
        > > > > > the "melting" greenland ice sheet...
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.