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

2003 slated to be even warmer

Expand Messages
  • dmgan106
    Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
    Message 1 of 27 , Jan 1, 2003
      Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
      By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
      http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html

      "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could match or beat
      the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were raised sharply
      by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean currents that
      warms the atmosphere.

      El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new one is
      brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain relatively weak,
      experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying warming trend
      could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.

      Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate variation,
      but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain without
      including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of carbon
      dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks and
      tailpipes.

      The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate warming has
      raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider their
      reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping emissions.

      At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
      administration this month, White House officials said President Bush
      was no longer locked into the stance he announced last year — calling
      for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth in emissions
      until 2012.

      And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph I.
      Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce legislation
      early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory greenhouse gas
      restrictions and a system in which companies could trade credits they
      would earn by making emissions cuts.

      The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers have
      ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in effect, will
      require them to make reductions.

      The growing shift toward action in the American debate over
      greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting evidence that
      the recent warming is caused mainly by rising concentrations of such
      substances.

      The main means of tracking climate change has been to synthesize
      hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around the world
      into a global average.

      This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot, but it
      is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the planet
      in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory still
      headed upward.

      According to the Commerce Department, the global average surface
      temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per 100 years
      over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been warming at
      the rate of about three degrees per century.

      The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain put
      the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the temperature record
      set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space
      Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new sun-
      blocking volcano or the like.

      A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak in solar
      intensity can account for only part of the overall warming, he said,
      adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."

      The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in 1998, while
      the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.

      Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002 at 57.9
      degrees.

      Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in patterns that
      largely match projections produced by computer simulations of the
      climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.

      The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported this
      month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on Greenland's
      vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any time in the
      24-year satellite record.

      Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before in that
      span, the agency said."
    • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
      To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter taking great liberties with scientific information. I could point to many statements in the
      Message 2 of 27 , Jan 1, 2003
        To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter taking
        great liberties with scientific information. I could point to many
        statements in the article but one sticks out above the others as
        being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.

        "This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot, but it
        is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
        planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory
        still headed upward."

        I have the following questions or comments regarding this statement:

        1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
        Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water, how can
        they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the numbers
        collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago? What sort
        of weighted average is used and what data is available for prior
        periods?

        2) I would like someone to point me to the data that proves that
        the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can anyone
        show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have accurate
        surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy data is
        just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine enough to
        make this kind of statement.

        3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the 1700's or the
        Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that the 140+
        years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is silly. To
        assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions of CO2
        when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is silly.
        To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause all this
        and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than 2002 is
        silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003 HAS TO BE
        wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring fossil
        fuels and still causing global warming.......unless......something
        else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe that is just
        too obvious for most people to comprehend.

        Sincerely,

        Steve L.




        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
        > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
        >
        > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could match or
        beat
        > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were raised
        sharply
        > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean currents that
        > warms the atmosphere.
        >
        > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new one is
        > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain relatively weak,
        > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying warming
        trend
        > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
        >
        > Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate
        variation,
        > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain without
        > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of carbon
        > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks and
        > tailpipes.
        >
        > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate warming
        has
        > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider their
        > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
        emissions.
        >
        > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
        > administration this month, White House officials said President
        Bush
        > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last year —
        calling
        > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth in
        emissions
        > until 2012.
        >
        > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph
        I.
        > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce legislation
        > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory greenhouse
        gas
        > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade credits
        they
        > would earn by making emissions cuts.
        >
        > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers have
        > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in effect, will
        > require them to make reductions.
        >
        > The growing shift toward action in the American debate over
        > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting evidence
        that
        > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising concentrations of
        such
        > substances.
        >
        > The main means of tracking climate change has been to synthesize
        > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around the world
        > into a global average.
        >
        > This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot, but
        it
        > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
        planet
        > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory still
        > headed upward.
        >
        > According to the Commerce Department, the global average surface
        > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per 100 years
        > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been warming
        at
        > the rate of about three degrees per century.
        >
        > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain
        put
        > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the temperature
        record
        > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the National
        > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space
        > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new sun-
        > blocking volcano or the like.
        >
        > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak in
        solar
        > intensity can account for only part of the overall warming, he
        said,
        > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
        >
        > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in 1998, while
        > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
        >
        > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002 at 57.9
        > degrees.
        >
        > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in patterns
        that
        > largely match projections produced by computer simulations of the
        > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
        >
        > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported this
        > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on Greenland's
        > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any time in
        the
        > 24-year satellite record.
        >
        > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before in that
        > span, the agency said."
      • dmgan106
        This is not an example of a media writter taking great liberties with scientific information as you say. It is very convenient to dismiss all newspaper
        Message 3 of 27 , Jan 1, 2003
          This is not an "example of a media writter taking great liberties
          with scientific information" as you say. It is very convenient to
          dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and more
          specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist and since
          most articles published in scientific journals are too technical and
          complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole issue is
          sidestepped.

          If you really want to know how average global temperatures are
          calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are excellent
          websites (such as http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html) that
          have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists on this
          issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how they
          calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The real question
          is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't look for it
          here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
          <stevell88@y...> wrote:
          > To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter taking
          > great liberties with scientific information. I could point to many
          > statements in the article but one sticks out above the others as
          > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
          >
          > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot, but
          it
          > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
          > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory
          > still headed upward."
          >
          > I have the following questions or comments regarding this statement:
          >
          > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
          > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water, how can
          > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the numbers
          > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago? What
          sort
          > of weighted average is used and what data is available for prior
          > periods?
          >
          > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that proves that
          > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can anyone
          > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have accurate
          > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy data is
          > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine enough to
          > make this kind of statement.
          >
          > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the 1700's or
          the
          > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that the 140+
          > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is silly. To
          > assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions of CO2
          > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is silly.
          > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause all this
          > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than 2002 is
          > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003 HAS TO BE
          > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring fossil
          > fuels and still causing global warming.......unless......something
          > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe that is
          just
          > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > Steve L.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
          > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
          > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
          > >
          > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could match or
          > beat
          > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were raised
          > sharply
          > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean currents that
          > > warms the atmosphere.
          > >
          > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new one is
          > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain relatively weak,
          > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying warming
          > trend
          > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
          > >
          > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate
          > variation,
          > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain without
          > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of carbon
          > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks and
          > > tailpipes.
          > >
          > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate warming
          > has
          > > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider their
          > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
          > emissions.
          > >
          > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
          > > administration this month, White House officials said President
          > Bush
          > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last year —
          > calling
          > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth in
          > emissions
          > > until 2012.
          > >
          > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator
          Joseph
          > I.
          > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce legislation
          > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory greenhouse
          > gas
          > > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade credits
          > they
          > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
          > >
          > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers have
          > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in effect, will
          > > require them to make reductions.
          > >
          > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate over
          > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting evidence
          > that
          > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising concentrations of
          > such
          > > substances.
          > >
          > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to synthesize
          > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around the world
          > > into a global average.
          > >
          > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot, but
          > it
          > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
          > planet
          > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory still
          > > headed upward.
          > >
          > > According to the Commerce Department, the global average surface
          > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per 100 years
          > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been warming
          > at
          > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
          > >
          > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain
          > put
          > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the temperature
          > record
          > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the National
          > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for
          Space
          > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new sun-
          > > blocking volcano or the like.
          > >
          > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak in
          > solar
          > > intensity can account for only part of the overall warming, he
          > said,
          > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
          > >
          > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in 1998,
          while
          > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
          > >
          > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002 at 57.9
          > > degrees.
          > >
          > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in patterns
          > that
          > > largely match projections produced by computer simulations of the
          > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
          > >
          > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported this
          > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
          Greenland's
          > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any time in
          > the
          > > 24-year satellite record.
          > >
          > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before in
          that
          > > span, the agency said."
        • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
          I know exactly how they calculate Global Average Temperature. Do you? You didn t answer any of my questions. Why? Since we do not have good accurate records
          Message 4 of 27 , Jan 2, 2003
            I know exactly how they calculate Global Average Temperature. Do
            you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?

            Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures around
            the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we know that
            2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?

            How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth of a
            degree when the actual measurements are far from that accuate. Well
            you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to the first
            or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +- 1
            degree not to the first decimal.

            How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island effect?
            We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient tempertures due
            to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out these non-
            GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a guess. For
            example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only about 1
            degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they publish
            the Global Average Temperature they use a number that implies
            accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not Scientific!
            It's a guess.

            Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate of the
            Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural temperature
            measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere near
            the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed, why is
            the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting Europe?

            The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We don't
            have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How do they
            calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's? What data
            do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data is from
            China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that the glass
            bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a degree?
            How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature readings
            were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when they do
            the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a degree???

            I will give you another little piece of scientific information. The
            models used to project massive global warming do not consider the
            SUN an important factor in determining future climate change. Now
            how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years the SUN
            was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they do not
            know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't bother
            with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's real
            Science isn't it???

            Happy New Year,

            Steve L.



            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great liberties
            > with scientific information" as you say. It is very convenient to
            > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and more
            > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist and
            since
            > most articles published in scientific journals are too technical
            and
            > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole issue is
            > sidestepped.
            >
            > If you really want to know how average global temperatures are
            > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are excellent
            > websites (such as http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
            that
            > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists on this
            > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how they
            > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The real
            question
            > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't look for
            it
            > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
            >
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
            > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
            > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter
            taking
            > > great liberties with scientific information. I could point to
            many
            > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the others as
            > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
            > >
            > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot,
            but
            > it
            > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
            > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
            trajectory
            > > still headed upward."
            > >
            > > I have the following questions or comments regarding this
            statement:
            > >
            > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
            > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water, how
            can
            > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the
            numbers
            > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago? What
            > sort
            > > of weighted average is used and what data is available for prior
            > > periods?
            > >
            > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that proves
            that
            > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can
            anyone
            > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have accurate
            > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy data
            is
            > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine enough
            to
            > > make this kind of statement.
            > >
            > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the 1700's or
            > the
            > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that the
            140+
            > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is silly.
            To
            > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions of
            CO2
            > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is
            silly.
            > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause all
            this
            > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than 2002
            is
            > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003 HAS TO
            BE
            > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring
            fossil
            > > fuels and still causing global
            warming.......unless......something
            > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe that is
            > just
            > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
            > >
            > > Sincerely,
            > >
            > > Steve L.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
            > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
            > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
            > > >
            > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could match
            or
            > > beat
            > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were raised
            > > sharply
            > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean currents
            that
            > > > warms the atmosphere.
            > > >
            > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new one
            is
            > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain relatively
            weak,
            > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying warming
            > > trend
            > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
            > > >
            > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate
            > > variation,
            > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain without
            > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of
            carbon
            > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks and
            > > > tailpipes.
            > > >
            > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate
            warming
            > > has
            > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider their
            > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
            > > emissions.
            > > >
            > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
            > > > administration this month, White House officials said
            President
            > > Bush
            > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last year —
            > > calling
            > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth in
            > > emissions
            > > > until 2012.
            > > >
            > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator
            > Joseph
            > > I.
            > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
            legislation
            > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
            greenhouse
            > > gas
            > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade
            credits
            > > they
            > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
            > > >
            > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers
            have
            > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in effect,
            will
            > > > require them to make reductions.
            > > >
            > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate over
            > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting evidence
            > > that
            > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising concentrations
            of
            > > such
            > > > substances.
            > > >
            > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
            synthesize
            > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around the
            world
            > > > into a global average.
            > > >
            > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot,
            but
            > > it
            > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
            > > planet
            > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory
            still
            > > > headed upward.
            > > >
            > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global average
            surface
            > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per 100
            years
            > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been
            warming
            > > at
            > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
            > > >
            > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in
            Britain
            > > put
            > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the temperature
            > > record
            > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the National
            > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for
            > Space
            > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new sun-
            > > > blocking volcano or the like.
            > > >
            > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak in
            > > solar
            > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall warming, he
            > > said,
            > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
            > > >
            > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in 1998,
            > while
            > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
            > > >
            > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002 at
            57.9
            > > > degrees.
            > > >
            > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
            patterns
            > > that
            > > > largely match projections produced by computer simulations of
            the
            > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
            > > >
            > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported
            this
            > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
            > Greenland's
            > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any time
            in
            > > the
            > > > 24-year satellite record.
            > > >
            > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before in
            > that
            > > > span, the agency said."
          • dmgan106
            What I understand from your questions is that you don t believe what the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature. When you questions the
            Message 5 of 27 , Jan 2, 2003
              What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe what
              the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature. When you
              questions the measurements given for previous years I take it you are
              saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I have
              another question, do you believe there is no global warming then? If
              that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to you,
              there is no way to measure global temperature?

              As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
              things?


              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
              <stevell88@y...> wrote:
              > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average Temperature. Do
              > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
              >
              > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures around
              > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we know that
              > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
              >
              > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth of a
              > degree when the actual measurements are far from that accuate.
              Well
              > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to the
              first
              > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +- 1
              > degree not to the first decimal.
              >
              > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island effect?
              > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient tempertures due
              > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out these non-
              > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a guess.
              For
              > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only about 1
              > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they publish
              > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that implies
              > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not Scientific!
              > It's a guess.
              >
              > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate of the
              > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural temperature
              > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere near
              > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed, why is
              > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting Europe?
              >
              > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We don't
              > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How do they
              > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's? What data
              > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data is
              from
              > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that the
              glass
              > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a degree?
              > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature readings
              > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when they do
              > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a degree???
              >
              > I will give you another little piece of scientific information.
              The
              > models used to project massive global warming do not consider the
              > SUN an important factor in determining future climate change. Now
              > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years the SUN
              > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they do not
              > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't bother
              > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's real
              > Science isn't it???
              >
              > Happy New Year,
              >
              > Steve L.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
              wrote:
              > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great liberties
              > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very convenient to
              > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and more
              > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist and
              > since
              > > most articles published in scientific journals are too technical
              > and
              > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole issue is
              > > sidestepped.
              > >
              > > If you really want to know how average global temperatures are
              > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are excellent
              > > websites (such as http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
              > that
              > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists on this
              > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how they
              > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The real
              > question
              > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't look
              for
              > it
              > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
              > >
              > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
              > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
              > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter
              > taking
              > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could point to
              > many
              > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the others
              as
              > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
              > > >
              > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot,
              > but
              > > it
              > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts the
              > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
              > trajectory
              > > > still headed upward."
              > > >
              > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding this
              > statement:
              > > >
              > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
              > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water, how
              > can
              > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the
              > numbers
              > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago? What
              > > sort
              > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available for
              prior
              > > > periods?
              > > >
              > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that proves
              > that
              > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can
              > anyone
              > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have accurate
              > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy data
              > is
              > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine enough
              > to
              > > > make this kind of statement.
              > > >
              > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the 1700's
              or
              > > the
              > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that the
              > 140+
              > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is silly.
              > To
              > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions of
              > CO2
              > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is
              > silly.
              > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause all
              > this
              > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than
              2002
              > is
              > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003 HAS TO
              > BE
              > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring
              > fossil
              > > > fuels and still causing global
              > warming.......unless......something
              > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe that is
              > > just
              > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
              > > >
              > > > Sincerely,
              > > >
              > > > Steve L.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
              > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
              > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
              > > > >
              > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could match
              > or
              > > > beat
              > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were raised
              > > > sharply
              > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean currents
              > that
              > > > > warms the atmosphere.
              > > > >
              > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new one
              > is
              > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain relatively
              > weak,
              > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying warming
              > > > trend
              > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
              > > > >
              > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate
              > > > variation,
              > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain
              without
              > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of
              > carbon
              > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks and
              > > > > tailpipes.
              > > > >
              > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate
              > warming
              > > > has
              > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider their
              > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
              > > > emissions.
              > > > >
              > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
              > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
              > President
              > > > Bush
              > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last year —
              > > > calling
              > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth in
              > > > emissions
              > > > > until 2012.
              > > > >
              > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator
              > > Joseph
              > > > I.
              > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
              > legislation
              > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
              > greenhouse
              > > > gas
              > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade
              > credits
              > > > they
              > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
              > > > >
              > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers
              > have
              > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in effect,
              > will
              > > > > require them to make reductions.
              > > > >
              > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate over
              > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
              evidence
              > > > that
              > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising concentrations
              > of
              > > > such
              > > > > substances.
              > > > >
              > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
              > synthesize
              > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around the
              > world
              > > > > into a global average.
              > > > >
              > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular spot,
              > but
              > > > it
              > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts
              the
              > > > planet
              > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory
              > still
              > > > > headed upward.
              > > > >
              > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global average
              > surface
              > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per 100
              > years
              > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been
              > warming
              > > > at
              > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
              > > > >
              > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in
              > Britain
              > > > put
              > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the temperature
              > > > record
              > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
              National
              > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for
              > > Space
              > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new sun-
              > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
              > > > >
              > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak in
              > > > solar
              > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall warming,
              he
              > > > said,
              > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
              > > > >
              > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in 1998,
              > > while
              > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
              > > > >
              > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002 at
              > 57.9
              > > > > degrees.
              > > > >
              > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
              > patterns
              > > > that
              > > > > largely match projections produced by computer simulations of
              > the
              > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
              > > > >
              > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported
              > this
              > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
              > > Greenland's
              > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any time
              > in
              > > > the
              > > > > 24-year satellite record.
              > > > >
              > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before in
              > > that
              > > > > span, the agency said."
            • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
              Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think. What I understand from your questions is that you don t believe what the scientists are saying and
              Message 6 of 27 , Jan 3, 2003
                Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.

                "What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                what the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature."

                No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about Warmest
                Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for sure
                because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand how
                they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make these
                statements Scientifically.

                "When you questions the measurements given for previous years I take
                it you are saying that that is unknowable."

                I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence in the
                accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not allow for
                the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are being
                used. When the range of error in your data is so large you can not
                make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy guess
                of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read out
                device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2 degrees???

                "But I have another question, do you believe there is no global
                warming then?"

                Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on for
                approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within that
                10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer. Very
                recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period that many
                Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current warming
                period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends but to
                claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                rediculous.

                Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my opinion we
                can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The issue
                is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it good or
                bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has very
                little to do with our current warming and what effect it does have
                is GOOD.

                In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will be
                faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than any
                Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100 years.

                "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                things?"

                The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the Sun
                variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and the
                Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                greenhouse effect.

                They are now having to rethink this position.

                Areas to Watch in 2003
                SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298

                From the above Science Article:

                "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                change. They have included solar variability in their
                simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                clouds."

                Further references....."the climate system is far more
                sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-1737,
                November 29, 2002.

                For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential impact
                on Climate see:

                http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm

                Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                questions. I do attempt to answer yours.

                Sincerely,

                Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D






                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                what
                > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature. When
                you
                > questions the measurements given for previous years I take it you
                are
                > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I have
                > another question, do you believe there is no global warming then?
                If
                > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to you,
                > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                >
                > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                > things?
                >
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average Temperature.
                Do
                > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                > >
                > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                around
                > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we know
                that
                > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                > >
                > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth of
                a
                > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that accuate.
                > Well
                > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to the
                > first
                > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +- 1
                > > degree not to the first decimal.
                > >
                > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                effect?
                > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient tempertures
                due
                > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out these
                non-
                > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a guess.
                > For
                > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only about 1
                > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                publish
                > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that implies
                > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not Scientific!
                > > It's a guess.
                > >
                > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate of
                the
                > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                temperature
                > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere
                near
                > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed, why
                is
                > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                Europe?
                > >
                > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We
                don't
                > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How do
                they
                > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's? What
                data
                > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data is
                > from
                > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that the
                > glass
                > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                degree?
                > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                readings
                > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when they
                do
                > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a degree???
                > >
                > > I will give you another little piece of scientific information.
                > The
                > > models used to project massive global warming do not consider
                the
                > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate change.
                Now
                > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years the
                SUN
                > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they do
                not
                > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                bother
                > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's real
                > > Science isn't it???
                > >
                > > Happy New Year,
                > >
                > > Steve L.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                liberties
                > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very convenient
                to
                > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and more
                > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist and
                > > since
                > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                technical
                > > and
                > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole issue
                is
                > > > sidestepped.
                > > >
                > > > If you really want to know how average global temperatures are
                > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                excellent
                > > > websites (such as
                http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                > > that
                > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists on
                this
                > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how they
                > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The real
                > > question
                > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't look
                > for
                > > it
                > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                > > >
                > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter
                > > taking
                > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could point
                to
                > > many
                > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                others
                > as
                > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                > > > >
                > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                spot,
                > > but
                > > > it
                > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts
                the
                > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                > > trajectory
                > > > > still headed upward."
                > > > >
                > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding this
                > > statement:
                > > > >
                > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
                > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water,
                how
                > > can
                > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the
                > > numbers
                > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago?
                What
                > > > sort
                > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available for
                > prior
                > > > > periods?
                > > > >
                > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that proves
                > > that
                > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can
                > > anyone
                > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                accurate
                > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy
                data
                > > is
                > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine
                enough
                > > to
                > > > > make this kind of statement.
                > > > >
                > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                1700's
                > or
                > > > the
                > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that
                the
                > > 140+
                > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                silly.
                > > To
                > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions
                of
                > > CO2
                > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is
                > > silly.
                > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause all
                > > this
                > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than
                > 2002
                > > is
                > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003 HAS
                TO
                > > BE
                > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring
                > > fossil
                > > > > fuels and still causing global
                > > warming.......unless......something
                > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe that
                is
                > > > just
                > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                > > > >
                > > > > Sincerely,
                > > > >
                > > > > Steve L.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                <no_reply@y...>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                > > > > >
                > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could
                match
                > > or
                > > > > beat
                > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were
                raised
                > > > > sharply
                > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                currents
                > > that
                > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new
                one
                > > is
                > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                relatively
                > > weak,
                > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying
                warming
                > > > > trend
                > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural climate
                > > > > variation,
                > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain
                > without
                > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels of
                > > carbon
                > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks
                and
                > > > > > tailpipes.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate
                > > warming
                > > > > has
                > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider
                their
                > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
                > > > > emissions.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
                > > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
                > > President
                > > > > Bush
                > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last
                year —
                > > > > calling
                > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth
                in
                > > > > emissions
                > > > > > until 2012.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                Senator
                > > > Joseph
                > > > > I.
                > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
                > > legislation
                > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
                > > greenhouse
                > > > > gas
                > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade
                > > credits
                > > > > they
                > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial powers
                > > have
                > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                effect,
                > > will
                > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate
                over
                > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
                > evidence
                > > > > that
                > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                concentrations
                > > of
                > > > > such
                > > > > > substances.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
                > > synthesize
                > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around
                the
                > > world
                > > > > > into a global average.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                spot,
                > > but
                > > > > it
                > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts
                > the
                > > > > planet
                > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the trajectory
                > > still
                > > > > > headed upward.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global average
                > > surface
                > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per
                100
                > > years
                > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been
                > > warming
                > > > > at
                > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in
                > > Britain
                > > > > put
                > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                temperature
                > > > > record
                > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
                > National
                > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute
                for
                > > > Space
                > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new
                sun-
                > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a peak
                in
                > > > > solar
                > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                warming,
                > he
                > > > > said,
                > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in
                1998,
                > > > while
                > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002
                at
                > > 57.9
                > > > > > degrees.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
                > > patterns
                > > > > that
                > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer simulations
                of
                > > the
                > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                reported
                > > this
                > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
                > > > Greenland's
                > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any
                time
                > > in
                > > > > the
                > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done before
                in
                > > > that
                > > > > > span, the agency said."
              • dmgan106
                The GCM s models do include a very limited contribution of the Sun variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and the Delta S or variation in
                Message 7 of 27 , Jan 4, 2003
                  "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the Sun
                  variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and the
                  Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                  has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                  greenhouse effect.

                  They are now having to rethink this position."

                  Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally close to
                  the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and the
                  other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and the
                  Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the Earth
                  has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon does
                  not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the Sun's
                  effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.




                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                  <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                  > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                  >
                  > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                  > what the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature."
                  >
                  > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about Warmest
                  > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for sure
                  > because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                  > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand how
                  > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make these
                  > statements Scientifically.
                  >
                  > "When you questions the measurements given for previous years I
                  take
                  > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                  >
                  > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence in the
                  > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not allow
                  for
                  > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are being
                  > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you can not
                  > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy guess
                  > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read out
                  > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                  > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2 degrees???
                  >
                  > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no global
                  > warming then?"
                  >
                  > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on for
                  > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within that
                  > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                  > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer. Very
                  > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period that
                  many
                  > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current warming
                  > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                  > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends but to
                  > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                  > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                  > rediculous.
                  >
                  > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my opinion
                  we
                  > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The issue
                  > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it good or
                  > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has very
                  > little to do with our current warming and what effect it does have
                  > is GOOD.
                  >
                  > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will be
                  > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than any
                  > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100 years.
                  >
                  > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                  > things?"
                  >
                  > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the Sun
                  > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                  the
                  > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                  > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                  > greenhouse effect.
                  >
                  > They are now having to rethink this position.
                  >
                  > Areas to Watch in 2003
                  > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                  > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                  >
                  > From the above Science Article:
                  >
                  > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                  > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                  > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                  > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                  > change. They have included solar variability in their
                  > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                  > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                  > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                  > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                  > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                  > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                  > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                  > clouds."
                  >
                  > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                  > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                  > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                  > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                  > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                  > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-1737,
                  > November 29, 2002.
                  >
                  > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential
                  impact
                  > on Climate see:
                  >
                  > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                  >
                  > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                  > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  >
                  > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                  > what
                  > > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature. When
                  > you
                  > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take it you
                  > are
                  > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I
                  have
                  > > another question, do you believe there is no global warming then?
                  > If
                  > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to you,
                  > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                  > >
                  > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                  > > things?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                  > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                  > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average Temperature.
                  > Do
                  > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                  > > >
                  > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                  > around
                  > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we know
                  > that
                  > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                  > > >
                  > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth of
                  > a
                  > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that accuate.
                  > > Well
                  > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to the
                  > > first
                  > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +- 1
                  > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                  > > >
                  > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                  > effect?
                  > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient tempertures
                  > due
                  > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out these
                  > non-
                  > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                  guess.
                  > > For
                  > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only about
                  1
                  > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                  > publish
                  > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that implies
                  > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                  Scientific!
                  > > > It's a guess.
                  > > >
                  > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate of
                  > the
                  > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                  > temperature
                  > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere
                  > near
                  > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed, why
                  > is
                  > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                  > Europe?
                  > > >
                  > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We
                  > don't
                  > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How do
                  > they
                  > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's? What
                  > data
                  > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data is
                  > > from
                  > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that the
                  > > glass
                  > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                  > degree?
                  > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                  > readings
                  > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when
                  they
                  > do
                  > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                  degree???
                  > > >
                  > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                  information.
                  > > The
                  > > > models used to project massive global warming do not consider
                  > the
                  > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate change.
                  > Now
                  > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years the
                  > SUN
                  > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they do
                  > not
                  > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                  > bother
                  > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's
                  real
                  > > > Science isn't it???
                  > > >
                  > > > Happy New Year,
                  > > >
                  > > > Steve L.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                  > liberties
                  > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                  convenient
                  > to
                  > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and more
                  > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist
                  and
                  > > > since
                  > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                  > technical
                  > > > and
                  > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole issue
                  > is
                  > > > > sidestepped.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If you really want to know how average global temperatures
                  are
                  > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                  > excellent
                  > > > > websites (such as
                  > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                  > > > that
                  > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists on
                  > this
                  > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how they
                  > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The real
                  > > > question
                  > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't
                  look
                  > > for
                  > > > it
                  > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                  <stevell88@y...>"
                  > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                  > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media writter
                  > > > taking
                  > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could point
                  > to
                  > > > many
                  > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                  > others
                  > > as
                  > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                  > spot,
                  > > > but
                  > > > > it
                  > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it puts
                  > the
                  > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                  > > > trajectory
                  > > > > > still headed upward."
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding this
                  > > > statement:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global Average
                  > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being water,
                  > how
                  > > > can
                  > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare the
                  > > > numbers
                  > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years ago?
                  > What
                  > > > > sort
                  > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available for
                  > > prior
                  > > > > > periods?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that
                  proves
                  > > > that
                  > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium. Can
                  > > > anyone
                  > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                  > accurate
                  > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900? Proxy
                  > data
                  > > > is
                  > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine
                  > enough
                  > > > to
                  > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                  > 1700's
                  > > or
                  > > > > the
                  > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume that
                  > the
                  > > > 140+
                  > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                  > silly.
                  > > > To
                  > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's emmissions
                  > of
                  > > > CO2
                  > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2 is
                  > > > silly.
                  > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause
                  all
                  > > > this
                  > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer than
                  > > 2002
                  > > > is
                  > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003
                  HAS
                  > TO
                  > > > BE
                  > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still buring
                  > > > fossil
                  > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                  > > > warming.......unless......something
                  > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe
                  that
                  > is
                  > > > > just
                  > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Sincerely,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Steve L.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                  > <no_reply@y...>
                  > > > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                  > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                  > > > > > >
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could
                  > match
                  > > > or
                  > > > > > beat
                  > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were
                  > raised
                  > > > > > sharply
                  > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                  > currents
                  > > > that
                  > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A new
                  > one
                  > > > is
                  > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                  > relatively
                  > > > weak,
                  > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying
                  > warming
                  > > > > > trend
                  > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                  climate
                  > > > > > variation,
                  > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain
                  > > without
                  > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising levels
                  of
                  > > > carbon
                  > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by smokestacks
                  > and
                  > > > > > > tailpipes.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to climate
                  > > > warming
                  > > > > > has
                  > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to reconsider
                  > their
                  > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-trapping
                  > > > > > emissions.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the Bush
                  > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
                  > > > President
                  > > > > > Bush
                  > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last
                  > year —
                  > > > > > calling
                  > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the growth
                  > in
                  > > > > > emissions
                  > > > > > > until 2012.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                  > Senator
                  > > > > Joseph
                  > > > > > I.
                  > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
                  > > > legislation
                  > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
                  > > > greenhouse
                  > > > > > gas
                  > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could trade
                  > > > credits
                  > > > > > they
                  > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial
                  powers
                  > > > have
                  > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                  > effect,
                  > > > will
                  > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate
                  > over
                  > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
                  > > evidence
                  > > > > > that
                  > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                  > concentrations
                  > > > of
                  > > > > > such
                  > > > > > > substances.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
                  > > > synthesize
                  > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures around
                  > the
                  > > > world
                  > > > > > > into a global average.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                  > spot,
                  > > > but
                  > > > > > it
                  > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                  puts
                  > > the
                  > > > > > planet
                  > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                  trajectory
                  > > > still
                  > > > > > > headed upward.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global average
                  > > > surface
                  > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree per
                  > 100
                  > > > years
                  > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has been
                  > > > warming
                  > > > > > at
                  > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in
                  > > > Britain
                  > > > > > put
                  > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                  > temperature
                  > > > > > record
                  > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
                  > > National
                  > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute
                  > for
                  > > > > Space
                  > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big new
                  > sun-
                  > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a
                  peak
                  > in
                  > > > > > solar
                  > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                  > warming,
                  > > he
                  > > > > > said,
                  > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in
                  > 1998,
                  > > > > while
                  > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in 2002
                  > at
                  > > > 57.9
                  > > > > > > degrees.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
                  > > > patterns
                  > > > > > that
                  > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                  simulations
                  > of
                  > > > the
                  > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                  > reported
                  > > > this
                  > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
                  > > > > Greenland's
                  > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at any
                  > time
                  > > > in
                  > > > > > the
                  > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done
                  before
                  > in
                  > > > > that
                  > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                  You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to maintain a liveable temperature for life
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jan 4, 2003
                    You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                    atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to maintain a
                    liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to it.
                    However if we are going to discuss the function of the atmosphere in
                    this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the greenhouse
                    effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a Greenhouse.
                    Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                    by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is clear we
                    can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared to
                    other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.

                    In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what you
                    believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be good
                    if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                    Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How would
                    you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                    measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time you
                    were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What would
                    it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?

                    Sincerely,

                    Steve L.


                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                    Sun
                    > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                    the
                    > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                    > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                    > greenhouse effect.
                    >
                    > They are now having to rethink this position."
                    >
                    > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally close
                    to
                    > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and the
                    > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and the
                    > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                    Earth
                    > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon does
                    > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the Sun's
                    > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                    > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                    > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                    > >
                    > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                    > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature."
                    > >
                    > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                    Warmest
                    > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for
                    sure
                    > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                    > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand
                    how
                    > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                    these
                    > > statements Scientifically.
                    > >
                    > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous years I
                    > take
                    > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                    > >
                    > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence in
                    the
                    > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not allow
                    > for
                    > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                    being
                    > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you can
                    not
                    > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                    guess
                    > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read out
                    > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                    > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2 degrees???
                    > >
                    > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no global
                    > > warming then?"
                    > >
                    > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on
                    for
                    > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within that
                    > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                    > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer. Very
                    > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period that
                    > many
                    > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                    warming
                    > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                    > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends but
                    to
                    > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                    > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                    > > rediculous.
                    > >
                    > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                    opinion
                    > we
                    > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                    issue
                    > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it good
                    or
                    > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has
                    very
                    > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it does
                    have
                    > > is GOOD.
                    > >
                    > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will be
                    > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than any
                    > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100 years.
                    > >
                    > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                    > > things?"
                    > >
                    > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                    Sun
                    > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                    > the
                    > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                    and
                    > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                    > > greenhouse effect.
                    > >
                    > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                    > >
                    > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                    > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                    > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                    > >
                    > > From the above Science Article:
                    > >
                    > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                    > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                    > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                    > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                    > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                    > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                    > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                    > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                    > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                    > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                    > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                    > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                    > > clouds."
                    > >
                    > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                    > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                    > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                    > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                    > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                    > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-
                    1737,
                    > > November 29, 2002.
                    > >
                    > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential
                    > impact
                    > > on Climate see:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                    > >
                    > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                    > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                    > >
                    > > Sincerely,
                    > >
                    > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                    believe
                    > > what
                    > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature.
                    When
                    > > you
                    > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take it
                    you
                    > > are
                    > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I
                    > have
                    > > > another question, do you believe there is no global warming
                    then?
                    > > If
                    > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to
                    you,
                    > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                    > > >
                    > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                    these
                    > > > things?
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                    > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                    > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                    Temperature.
                    > > Do
                    > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                    > > around
                    > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                    know
                    > > that
                    > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth
                    of
                    > > a
                    > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                    accuate.
                    > > > Well
                    > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to
                    the
                    > > > first
                    > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +-
                    1
                    > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                    > > effect?
                    > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                    tempertures
                    > > due
                    > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                    these
                    > > non-
                    > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                    > guess.
                    > > > For
                    > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                    about
                    > 1
                    > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                    > > publish
                    > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                    implies
                    > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                    > Scientific!
                    > > > > It's a guess.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate
                    of
                    > > the
                    > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                    > > temperature
                    > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere
                    > > near
                    > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed,
                    why
                    > > is
                    > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                    > > Europe?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We
                    > > don't
                    > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How
                    do
                    > > they
                    > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's?
                    What
                    > > data
                    > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data
                    is
                    > > > from
                    > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that
                    the
                    > > > glass
                    > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                    > > degree?
                    > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                    > > readings
                    > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when
                    > they
                    > > do
                    > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                    > degree???
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                    > information.
                    > > > The
                    > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                    consider
                    > > the
                    > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                    change.
                    > > Now
                    > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years
                    the
                    > > SUN
                    > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they
                    do
                    > > not
                    > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                    > > bother
                    > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's
                    > real
                    > > > > Science isn't it???
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Happy New Year,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Steve L.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                    <no_reply@y...>
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                    > > liberties
                    > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                    > convenient
                    > > to
                    > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and
                    more
                    > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist
                    > and
                    > > > > since
                    > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                    > > technical
                    > > > > and
                    > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole
                    issue
                    > > is
                    > > > > > sidestepped.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > If you really want to know how average global temperatures
                    > are
                    > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                    > > excellent
                    > > > > > websites (such as
                    > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                    > > > > that
                    > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists
                    on
                    > > this
                    > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how
                    they
                    > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                    real
                    > > > > question
                    > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't
                    > look
                    > > > for
                    > > > > it
                    > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                    > <stevell88@y...>"
                    > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                    > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                    writter
                    > > > > taking
                    > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could
                    point
                    > > to
                    > > > > many
                    > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                    > > others
                    > > > as
                    > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                    > > spot,
                    > > > > but
                    > > > > > it
                    > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                    puts
                    > > the
                    > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                    > > > > trajectory
                    > > > > > > still headed upward."
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                    this
                    > > > > statement:
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                    Average
                    > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                    water,
                    > > how
                    > > > > can
                    > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare
                    the
                    > > > > numbers
                    > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                    ago?
                    > > What
                    > > > > > sort
                    > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available
                    for
                    > > > prior
                    > > > > > > periods?
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that
                    > proves
                    > > > > that
                    > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium.
                    Can
                    > > > > anyone
                    > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                    > > accurate
                    > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                    Proxy
                    > > data
                    > > > > is
                    > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine
                    > > enough
                    > > > > to
                    > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                    > > 1700's
                    > > > or
                    > > > > > the
                    > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                    that
                    > > the
                    > > > > 140+
                    > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                    > > silly.
                    > > > > To
                    > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                    emmissions
                    > > of
                    > > > > CO2
                    > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2
                    is
                    > > > > silly.
                    > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause
                    > all
                    > > > > this
                    > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer
                    than
                    > > > 2002
                    > > > > is
                    > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003
                    > HAS
                    > > TO
                    > > > > BE
                    > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                    buring
                    > > > > fossil
                    > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                    > > > > warming.......unless......something
                    > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe
                    > that
                    > > is
                    > > > > > just
                    > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Sincerely,
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Steve L.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                    > > <no_reply@y...>
                    > > > > > wrote:
                    > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                    > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                    > > > > > > >
                    > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could
                    > > match
                    > > > > or
                    > > > > > > beat
                    > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were
                    > > raised
                    > > > > > > sharply
                    > > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                    > > currents
                    > > > > that
                    > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A
                    new
                    > > one
                    > > > > is
                    > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                    > > relatively
                    > > > > weak,
                    > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying
                    > > warming
                    > > > > > > trend
                    > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                    > climate
                    > > > > > > variation,
                    > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain
                    > > > without
                    > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                    levels
                    > of
                    > > > > carbon
                    > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                    smokestacks
                    > > and
                    > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                    climate
                    > > > > warming
                    > > > > > > has
                    > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                    reconsider
                    > > their
                    > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                    trapping
                    > > > > > > emissions.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the
                    Bush
                    > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
                    > > > > President
                    > > > > > > Bush
                    > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last
                    > > year —
                    > > > > > > calling
                    > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                    growth
                    > > in
                    > > > > > > emissions
                    > > > > > > > until 2012.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                    > > Senator
                    > > > > > Joseph
                    > > > > > > I.
                    > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
                    > > > > legislation
                    > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
                    > > > > greenhouse
                    > > > > > > gas
                    > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                    trade
                    > > > > credits
                    > > > > > > they
                    > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial
                    > powers
                    > > > > have
                    > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                    > > effect,
                    > > > > will
                    > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate
                    > > over
                    > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
                    > > > evidence
                    > > > > > > that
                    > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                    > > concentrations
                    > > > > of
                    > > > > > > such
                    > > > > > > > substances.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
                    > > > > synthesize
                    > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                    around
                    > > the
                    > > > > world
                    > > > > > > > into a global average.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                    > > spot,
                    > > > > but
                    > > > > > > it
                    > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                    > puts
                    > > > the
                    > > > > > > planet
                    > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                    > trajectory
                    > > > > still
                    > > > > > > > headed upward.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                    average
                    > > > > surface
                    > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree
                    per
                    > > 100
                    > > > > years
                    > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has
                    been
                    > > > > warming
                    > > > > > > at
                    > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research
                    in
                    > > > > Britain
                    > > > > > > put
                    > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                    > > temperature
                    > > > > > > record
                    > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
                    > > > National
                    > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                    Institute
                    > > for
                    > > > > > Space
                    > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big
                    new
                    > > sun-
                    > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a
                    > peak
                    > > in
                    > > > > > > solar
                    > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                    > > warming,
                    > > > he
                    > > > > > > said,
                    > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in
                    > > 1998,
                    > > > > > while
                    > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in
                    2002
                    > > at
                    > > > > 57.9
                    > > > > > > > degrees.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
                    > > > > patterns
                    > > > > > > that
                    > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                    > simulations
                    > > of
                    > > > > the
                    > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    > > reported
                    > > > > this
                    > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
                    > > > > > Greenland's
                    > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at
                    any
                    > > time
                    > > > > in
                    > > > > > > the
                    > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                    > > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done
                    > before
                    > > in
                    > > > > > that
                    > > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                  • John Shotsky
                    Perhaps most important of all - let s determine the average global climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand years. Since we know that
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jan 4, 2003
                      Perhaps most important of all - let's determine the average global
                      climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand years.
                      Since we know that earth spends 90% of its time in glacial mode, rather
                      than interglacial mode, we would begin to understand that we're on a
                      most precarious pinnacale of global warming from which earth *always*
                      defaults to the norm - ice age.

                      It would be incredulous indeed, if we could thwart this dead certainty
                      with the mild salvation of burning of 'fossil' fuels....


                      John

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Steve <stevell88@...> [mailto:stevell88@...]
                      Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 15:52
                      To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [Global Warming] Re: 2003 slated to be even warmer


                      You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                      atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to maintain a
                      liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to it.
                      However if we are going to discuss the function of the atmosphere in
                      this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the greenhouse
                      effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a Greenhouse.
                      Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                      by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is clear we
                      can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared to
                      other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.

                      In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what you
                      believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be good
                      if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                      Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How would
                      you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                      measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time you
                      were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What would
                      it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?

                      Sincerely,

                      Steve L.


                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                      Sun
                      > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                      the
                      > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                      > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                      > greenhouse effect.
                      >
                      > They are now having to rethink this position."
                      >
                      > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally close
                      to
                      > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and the
                      > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and the
                      > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                      Earth
                      > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon does
                      > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the Sun's
                      > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                      > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                      > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                      > >
                      > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't believe
                      > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature."
                      > >
                      > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                      Warmest
                      > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for
                      sure
                      > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                      > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand
                      how
                      > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                      these
                      > > statements Scientifically.
                      > >
                      > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous years I
                      > take
                      > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                      > >
                      > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence in
                      the
                      > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not allow
                      > for
                      > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                      being
                      > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you can
                      not
                      > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                      guess
                      > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read out
                      > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                      > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2 degrees???
                      > >
                      > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no global
                      > > warming then?"
                      > >
                      > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on
                      for
                      > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within that
                      > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                      > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer. Very
                      > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period that
                      > many
                      > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                      warming
                      > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                      > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends but
                      to
                      > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                      > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                      > > rediculous.
                      > >
                      > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                      opinion
                      > we
                      > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                      issue
                      > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it good
                      or
                      > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has
                      very
                      > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it does
                      have
                      > > is GOOD.
                      > >
                      > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will be
                      > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than any
                      > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100 years.
                      > >
                      > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get these
                      > > things?"
                      > >
                      > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                      Sun
                      > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                      > the
                      > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                      and
                      > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                      > > greenhouse effect.
                      > >
                      > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                      > >
                      > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                      > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                      > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                      > >
                      > > From the above Science Article:
                      > >
                      > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                      > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                      > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                      > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                      > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                      > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                      > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                      > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                      > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                      > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                      > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                      > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                      > > clouds."
                      > >
                      > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                      > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                      > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                      > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                      > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                      > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-
                      1737,
                      > > November 29, 2002.
                      > >
                      > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential
                      > impact
                      > > on Climate see:
                      > >
                      > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                      > >
                      > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                      > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                      > >
                      > > Sincerely,
                      > >
                      > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                      believe
                      > > what
                      > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature.
                      When
                      > > you
                      > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take it
                      you
                      > > are
                      > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I
                      > have
                      > > > another question, do you believe there is no global warming
                      then?
                      > > If
                      > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to
                      you,
                      > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                      > > >
                      > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                      these
                      > > > things?
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                      > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                      > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                      Temperature.
                      > > Do
                      > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                      > > around
                      > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                      know
                      > > that
                      > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the tenth
                      of
                      > > a
                      > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                      accuate.
                      > > > Well
                      > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to
                      the
                      > > > first
                      > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in +-
                      1
                      > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                      > > effect?
                      > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                      tempertures
                      > > due
                      > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                      these
                      > > non-
                      > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                      > guess.
                      > > > For
                      > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                      about
                      > 1
                      > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                      > > publish
                      > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                      implies
                      > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                      > Scientific!
                      > > > > It's a guess.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the rate
                      of
                      > > the
                      > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                      > > temperature
                      > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend anywhere
                      > > near
                      > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed,
                      why
                      > > is
                      > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                      > > Europe?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We
                      > > don't
                      > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How
                      do
                      > > they
                      > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's?
                      What
                      > > data
                      > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature data
                      is
                      > > > from
                      > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that
                      the
                      > > > glass
                      > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                      > > degree?
                      > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                      > > readings
                      > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when
                      > they
                      > > do
                      > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                      > degree???
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                      > information.
                      > > > The
                      > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                      consider
                      > > the
                      > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                      change.
                      > > Now
                      > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years
                      the
                      > > SUN
                      > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer is...they
                      do
                      > > not
                      > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                      > > bother
                      > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's
                      > real
                      > > > > Science isn't it???
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Happy New Year,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Steve L.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                      <no_reply@y...>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                      > > liberties
                      > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                      > convenient
                      > > to
                      > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and
                      more
                      > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or alarmist
                      > and
                      > > > > since
                      > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                      > > technical
                      > > > > and
                      > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole
                      issue
                      > > is
                      > > > > > sidestepped.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > If you really want to know how average global temperatures
                      > are
                      > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                      > > excellent
                      > > > > > websites (such as
                      > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                      > > > > that
                      > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists
                      on
                      > > this
                      > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how
                      they
                      > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                      real
                      > > > > question
                      > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't
                      > look
                      > > > for
                      > > > > it
                      > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                      > <stevell88@y...>"
                      > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                      > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                      writter
                      > > > > taking
                      > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could
                      point
                      > > to
                      > > > > many
                      > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                      > > others
                      > > > as
                      > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                      > > spot,
                      > > > > but
                      > > > > > it
                      > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                      puts
                      > > the
                      > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                      > > > > trajectory
                      > > > > > > still headed upward."
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                      this
                      > > > > statement:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                      Average
                      > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                      water,
                      > > how
                      > > > > can
                      > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare
                      the
                      > > > > numbers
                      > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                      ago?
                      > > What
                      > > > > > sort
                      > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available
                      for
                      > > > prior
                      > > > > > > periods?
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that
                      > proves
                      > > > > that
                      > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium.
                      Can
                      > > > > anyone
                      > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                      > > accurate
                      > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                      Proxy
                      > > data
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine
                      > > enough
                      > > > > to
                      > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                      > > 1700's
                      > > > or
                      > > > > > the
                      > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                      that
                      > > the
                      > > > > 140+
                      > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                      > > silly.
                      > > > > To
                      > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                      emmissions
                      > > of
                      > > > > CO2
                      > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of CO2
                      is
                      > > > > silly.
                      > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's cause
                      > all
                      > > > > this
                      > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer
                      than
                      > > > 2002
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT. 2003
                      > HAS
                      > > TO
                      > > > > BE
                      > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                      buring
                      > > > > fossil
                      > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                      > > > > warming.......unless......something
                      > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe
                      > that
                      > > is
                      > > > > > just
                      > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Sincerely,
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Steve L.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                      > > <no_reply@y...>
                      > > > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                      > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                      > > > > > > >
                      > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003 could
                      > > match
                      > > > > or
                      > > > > > > beat
                      > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were
                      > > raised
                      > > > > > > sharply
                      > > > > > > > by El Ni�o, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                      > > currents
                      > > > > that
                      > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > El Ni�o that year was the strongest ever measured. A
                      new
                      > > one
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                      > > relatively
                      > > > > weak,
                      > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying
                      > > warming
                      > > > > > > trend
                      > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                      > climate
                      > > > > > > variation,
                      > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to explain
                      > > > without
                      > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                      levels
                      > of
                      > > > > carbon
                      > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                      smokestacks
                      > > and
                      > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                      climate
                      > > > > warming
                      > > > > > > has
                      > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                      reconsider
                      > > their
                      > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                      trapping
                      > > > > > > emissions.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the
                      Bush
                      > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
                      > > > > President
                      > > > > > > Bush
                      > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced last
                      > > year �
                      > > > > > > calling
                      > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                      growth
                      > > in
                      > > > > > > emissions
                      > > > > > > > until 2012.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                      > > Senator
                      > > > > > Joseph
                      > > > > > > I.
                      > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
                      > > > > legislation
                      > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish mandatory
                      > > > > greenhouse
                      > > > > > > gas
                      > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                      trade
                      > > > > credits
                      > > > > > > they
                      > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial
                      > powers
                      > > > > have
                      > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                      > > effect,
                      > > > > will
                      > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American debate
                      > > over
                      > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
                      > > > evidence
                      > > > > > > that
                      > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                      > > concentrations
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > > such
                      > > > > > > > substances.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
                      > > > > synthesize
                      > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                      around
                      > > the
                      > > > > world
                      > > > > > > > into a global average.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                      > > spot,
                      > > > > but
                      > > > > > > it
                      > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                      > puts
                      > > > the
                      > > > > > > planet
                      > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                      > trajectory
                      > > > > still
                      > > > > > > > headed upward.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                      average
                      > > > > surface
                      > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree
                      per
                      > > 100
                      > > > > years
                      > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has
                      been
                      > > > > warming
                      > > > > > > at
                      > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research
                      in
                      > > > > Britain
                      > > > > > > put
                      > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                      > > temperature
                      > > > > > > record
                      > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
                      > > > National
                      > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                      Institute
                      > > for
                      > > > > > Space
                      > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big
                      new
                      > > sun-
                      > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a
                      > peak
                      > > in
                      > > > > > > solar
                      > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                      > > warming,
                      > > > he
                      > > > > > > said,
                      > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees in
                      > > 1998,
                      > > > > > while
                      > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in
                      2002
                      > > at
                      > > > > 57.9
                      > > > > > > > degrees.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming, in
                      > > > > patterns
                      > > > > > > that
                      > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                      > simulations
                      > > of
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                      > > reported
                      > > > > this
                      > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions on
                      > > > > > Greenland's
                      > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at
                      any
                      > > time
                      > > > > in
                      > > > > > > the
                      > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done
                      > before
                      > > in
                      > > > > > that
                      > > > > > > > span, the agency said."



                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                      ADVERTISEMENT

                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
                      948926:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x
                      ?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>

                      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egrou
                      pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=507143542>

                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • dmgan106
                      John: You are talking about a long term trend in climate, just like those scientists were in the article recently quoted by Steve ( Antarctic Ice May Vanish in
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                        John: You are talking about a long term trend in climate, just like
                        those scientists were in the article recently quoted by Steve
                        ("Antarctic Ice May Vanish in 7,000 Years"). Anthropogenic GW is by
                        definition a short term problem. Sooner or later we will move into a
                        non-fossil fuel economy whether we like it or not. The problem with
                        anthropogenic GW is that it operates a lot more quickly than the
                        natural cycles. I have no problem with Antarctic ice gradually
                        vanishing in 7,000 years but I have a problem with it vanishing in
                        the next 100 years. I have no problem with an ice age even in the
                        next 1,000 years but I have a problem with it in the next 25.

                        Steve: I think it is a very good thing that they are establishing
                        long term trends in climate (in this case Antarctic ice melting) so
                        that we can detect departures from the trend at a time when we are so
                        massively interfering with nature.

                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                        wrote:
                        > Perhaps most important of all - let's determine the average global
                        > climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand
                        years.
                        > Since we know that earth spends 90% of its time in glacial mode,
                        rather
                        > than interglacial mode, we would begin to understand that we're on a
                        > most precarious pinnacale of global warming from which earth
                        *always*
                        > defaults to the norm - ice age.
                        >
                        > It would be incredulous indeed, if we could thwart this dead
                        certainty
                        > with the mild salvation of burning of 'fossil' fuels....
                        >
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Steve <stevell88@y...> [mailto:stevell88@y...]
                        > Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 15:52
                        > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: 2003 slated to be even warmer
                        >
                        >
                        > You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                        > atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to maintain
                        a
                        > liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to it.
                        > However if we are going to discuss the function of the atmosphere
                        in
                        > this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the greenhouse
                        > effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a Greenhouse.
                        > Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                        > by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is clear
                        we
                        > can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared to
                        > other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.
                        >
                        > In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what you
                        > believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be good
                        > if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                        > Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How
                        would
                        > you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                        > measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time you
                        > were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What would
                        > it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?
                        >
                        > Sincerely,
                        >
                        > Steve L.
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                        > Sun
                        > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                        > the
                        > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1% and
                        > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                        > > greenhouse effect.
                        > >
                        > > They are now having to rethink this position."
                        > >
                        > > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally close
                        > to
                        > > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and the
                        > > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and
                        the
                        > > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                        > Earth
                        > > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon
                        does
                        > > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the Sun's
                        > > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                        > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                        > > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                        > > >
                        > > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                        believe
                        > > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure
                        temperature."
                        > > >
                        > > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                        > Warmest
                        > > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for
                        > sure
                        > > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                        > > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand
                        > how
                        > > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                        > these
                        > > > statements Scientifically.
                        > > >
                        > > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous years I
                        > > take
                        > > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                        > > >
                        > > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence in
                        > the
                        > > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not
                        allow
                        > > for
                        > > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                        > being
                        > > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you can
                        > not
                        > > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                        > guess
                        > > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read
                        out
                        > > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                        > > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2 degrees???
                        > > >
                        > > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no global
                        > > > warming then?"
                        > > >
                        > > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on
                        > for
                        > > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within
                        that
                        > > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                        > > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer.
                        Very
                        > > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period that
                        > > many
                        > > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                        > warming
                        > > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                        > > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends
                        but
                        > to
                        > > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                        > > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                        > > > rediculous.
                        > > >
                        > > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                        > opinion
                        > > we
                        > > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                        > issue
                        > > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it good
                        > or
                        > > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has
                        > very
                        > > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it does
                        > have
                        > > > is GOOD.
                        > > >
                        > > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will be
                        > > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than
                        any
                        > > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100
                        years.
                        > > >
                        > > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                        these
                        > > > things?"
                        > > >
                        > > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                        > Sun
                        > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                        and
                        > > the
                        > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                        > and
                        > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                        the
                        > > > greenhouse effect.
                        > > >
                        > > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                        > > >
                        > > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                        > > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                        > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                        > > >
                        > > > From the above Science Article:
                        > > >
                        > > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                        > > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                        > > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                        > > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                        > > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                        > > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                        > > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                        > > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                        > > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                        > > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                        > > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                        > > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                        > > > clouds."
                        > > >
                        > > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                        > > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                        > > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                        > > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                        > > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                        > > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-
                        > 1737,
                        > > > November 29, 2002.
                        > > >
                        > > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential
                        > > impact
                        > > > on Climate see:
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                        > > >
                        > > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                        > > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                        > > >
                        > > > Sincerely,
                        > > >
                        > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                        > believe
                        > > > what
                        > > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature.
                        > When
                        > > > you
                        > > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take it
                        > you
                        > > > are
                        > > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But I
                        > > have
                        > > > > another question, do you believe there is no global warming
                        > then?
                        > > > If
                        > > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to
                        > you,
                        > > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                        > these
                        > > > > things?
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                        <stevell88@y...>"
                        > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                        > > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                        > Temperature.
                        > > > Do
                        > > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                        > > > around
                        > > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                        > know
                        > > > that
                        > > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the
                        tenth
                        > of
                        > > > a
                        > > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                        > accuate.
                        > > > > Well
                        > > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to
                        > the
                        > > > > first
                        > > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in
                        +-
                        > 1
                        > > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                        > > > effect?
                        > > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                        > tempertures
                        > > > due
                        > > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                        > these
                        > > > non-
                        > > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                        > > guess.
                        > > > > For
                        > > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                        > about
                        > > 1
                        > > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                        > > > publish
                        > > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                        > implies
                        > > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                        > > Scientific!
                        > > > > > It's a guess.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the
                        rate
                        > of
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                        > > > temperature
                        > > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend
                        anywhere
                        > > > near
                        > > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed,
                        > why
                        > > > is
                        > > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                        > > > Europe?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA. We
                        > > > don't
                        > > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's. How
                        > do
                        > > > they
                        > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's?
                        > What
                        > > > data
                        > > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature
                        data
                        > is
                        > > > > from
                        > > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that
                        > the
                        > > > > glass
                        > > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                        > > > degree?
                        > > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                        > > > readings
                        > > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet when
                        > > they
                        > > > do
                        > > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                        > > degree???
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                        > > information.
                        > > > > The
                        > > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                        > consider
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                        > change.
                        > > > Now
                        > > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years
                        > the
                        > > > SUN
                        > > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer
                        is...they
                        > do
                        > > > not
                        > > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                        > > > bother
                        > > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now that's
                        > > real
                        > > > > > Science isn't it???
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Happy New Year,
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Steve L.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                        > <no_reply@y...>
                        > > > > wrote:
                        > > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                        > > > liberties
                        > > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                        > > convenient
                        > > > to
                        > > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and
                        > more
                        > > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or
                        alarmist
                        > > and
                        > > > > > since
                        > > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                        > > > technical
                        > > > > > and
                        > > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole
                        > issue
                        > > > is
                        > > > > > > sidestepped.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > If you really want to know how average global
                        temperatures
                        > > are
                        > > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                        > > > excellent
                        > > > > > > websites (such as
                        > > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                        > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists
                        > on
                        > > > this
                        > > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how
                        > they
                        > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                        > real
                        > > > > > question
                        > > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do, don't
                        > > look
                        > > > > for
                        > > > > > it
                        > > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                        > > <stevell88@y...>"
                        > > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                        > > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                        > writter
                        > > > > > taking
                        > > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could
                        > point
                        > > > to
                        > > > > > many
                        > > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                        > > > others
                        > > > > as
                        > > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any particular
                        > > > spot,
                        > > > > > but
                        > > > > > > it
                        > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                        > puts
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                        > > > > > trajectory
                        > > > > > > > still headed upward."
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                        > this
                        > > > > > statement:
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                        > Average
                        > > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                        > water,
                        > > > how
                        > > > > > can
                        > > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they compare
                        > the
                        > > > > > numbers
                        > > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                        > ago?
                        > > > What
                        > > > > > > sort
                        > > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available
                        > for
                        > > > > prior
                        > > > > > > > periods?
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that
                        > > proves
                        > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium.
                        > Can
                        > > > > > anyone
                        > > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                        > > > accurate
                        > > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                        > Proxy
                        > > > data
                        > > > > > is
                        > > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures fine
                        > > > enough
                        > > > > > to
                        > > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                        > > > 1700's
                        > > > > or
                        > > > > > > the
                        > > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                        > that
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > 140+
                        > > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                        > > > silly.
                        > > > > > To
                        > > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                        > emmissions
                        > > > of
                        > > > > > CO2
                        > > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of
                        CO2
                        > is
                        > > > > > silly.
                        > > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's
                        cause
                        > > all
                        > > > > > this
                        > > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer
                        > than
                        > > > > 2002
                        > > > > > is
                        > > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT.
                        2003
                        > > HAS
                        > > > TO
                        > > > > > BE
                        > > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                        > buring
                        > > > > > fossil
                        > > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                        > > > > > warming.......unless......something
                        > > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example. Maybe
                        > > that
                        > > > is
                        > > > > > > just
                        > > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > Sincerely,
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > Steve L.
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                        > > > <no_reply@y...>
                        > > > > > > wrote:
                        > > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                        > > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003
                        could
                        > > > match
                        > > > > > or
                        > > > > > > > beat
                        > > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures were
                        > > > raised
                        > > > > > > > sharply
                        > > > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                        > > > currents
                        > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A
                        > new
                        > > > one
                        > > > > > is
                        > > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                        > > > relatively
                        > > > > > weak,
                        > > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent underlying
                        > > > warming
                        > > > > > > > trend
                        > > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                        > > climate
                        > > > > > > > variation,
                        > > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to
                        explain
                        > > > > without
                        > > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                        > levels
                        > > of
                        > > > > > carbon
                        > > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                        > smokestacks
                        > > > and
                        > > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                        > climate
                        > > > > > warming
                        > > > > > > > has
                        > > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                        > reconsider
                        > > > their
                        > > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                        > trapping
                        > > > > > > > emissions.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the
                        > Bush
                        > > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials said
                        > > > > > President
                        > > > > > > > Bush
                        > > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced
                        last
                        > > > year —
                        > > > > > > > calling
                        > > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                        > growth
                        > > > in
                        > > > > > > > emissions
                        > > > > > > > > until 2012.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                        > > > Senator
                        > > > > > > Joseph
                        > > > > > > > I.
                        > > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to introduce
                        > > > > > legislation
                        > > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish
                        mandatory
                        > > > > > greenhouse
                        > > > > > > > gas
                        > > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                        > trade
                        > > > > > credits
                        > > > > > > > they
                        > > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial
                        > > powers
                        > > > > > have
                        > > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                        > > > effect,
                        > > > > > will
                        > > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American
                        debate
                        > > > over
                        > > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of mounting
                        > > > > evidence
                        > > > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                        > > > concentrations
                        > > > > > of
                        > > > > > > > such
                        > > > > > > > > substances.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been to
                        > > > > > synthesize
                        > > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                        > around
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > world
                        > > > > > > > > into a global average.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any
                        particular
                        > > > spot,
                        > > > > > but
                        > > > > > > > it
                        > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                        > > puts
                        > > > > the
                        > > > > > > > planet
                        > > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                        > > trajectory
                        > > > > > still
                        > > > > > > > > headed upward.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                        > average
                        > > > > > surface
                        > > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree
                        > per
                        > > > 100
                        > > > > > years
                        > > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has
                        > been
                        > > > > > warming
                        > > > > > > > at
                        > > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research
                        > in
                        > > > > > Britain
                        > > > > > > > put
                        > > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                        > > > temperature
                        > > > > > > > record
                        > > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the
                        > > > > National
                        > > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                        > Institute
                        > > > for
                        > > > > > > Space
                        > > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a big
                        > new
                        > > > sun-
                        > > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and a
                        > > peak
                        > > > in
                        > > > > > > > solar
                        > > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                        > > > warming,
                        > > > > he
                        > > > > > > > said,
                        > > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human forcing."
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees
                        in
                        > > > 1998,
                        > > > > > > while
                        > > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in
                        > 2002
                        > > > at
                        > > > > > 57.9
                        > > > > > > > > degrees.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming,
                        in
                        > > > > > patterns
                        > > > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                        > > simulations
                        > > > of
                        > > > > > the
                        > > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                        > > > reported
                        > > > > > this
                        > > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions
                        on
                        > > > > > > Greenland's
                        > > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at
                        > any
                        > > > time
                        > > > > > in
                        > > > > > > > the
                        > > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done
                        > > before
                        > > > in
                        > > > > > > that
                        > > > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        >
                        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17
                        05
                        >
                        948926:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687
                        ;x
                        > ?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                        >
                        > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                        M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egrou
                        > pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=507143542>
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                        John and All: Your point is well taken and seldom acknowledged. If there is a normal climatary state of the Earth it is not a pleasent one at least for most
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                          John and All: Your point is well taken and seldom acknowledged. If
                          there is a normal climatary state of the Earth it is not a pleasent
                          one at least for most of the Species we know and love.

                          However, we are collectively being directed to a Global measurement
                          of temperature as being the "trigger" or "litmus test" of our
                          Planets "well being" as in Warm is Bad and no change is Good. Yet
                          Colder is the inevitable scenario and is unpreventable.

                          In addition, the great majority of people believe that there is a
                          measurment at any point in time. The term "Global Average
                          Temperature" or "Global Temperature" are the coined phrase. Can we
                          pause a second and look objectively at what we are doing here?

                          Allow me to provide a little Theater to the discussion.

                          Let's assume for a moment we are presented by the Gods, or None-Gods
                          if you so desire, with a gift. It is the shape of a Basketball and
                          it is an exact relica of the planet earth and all it's wonderous
                          atmosphere and physical properties locked in a specific state of
                          time. Perfectly insulated in an invisable "thermal" shield that
                          protects it's thermodynamic properties from being effected by
                          anything the Orb is contained in or on, such as our hand or the room
                          temperature we have it in.

                          We hold it in our collective hands and it has the amazing property
                          of feeling warm and cold and wet and dry depending on where we place
                          our fingers. We decide to determine the "Global Average
                          Temperature" of the wonderful gift.

                          This seems like an easy chore. We take a thermometer and place it
                          on the Orbs' surface. It reads 40C. That's warm! Yet when we put
                          the probe over here on this surface area it reads -15C. Strange?
                          Maybe we are going to have to "average" these temperatures as the
                          surface temp isn't the same at all places.

                          We ponder this a little and take some more measurements. We begin
                          to notice that as our temperature probe enters the atmosphere of the
                          Orb the temperature changes with the distance our probe protrudes
                          towards the surface. Hummmm, this is a two dimensional problem. We
                          have surface temperatue and we have temperatures that vary with the
                          distance from the surface.

                          We notice that most of the surface of our Orb is water. We place
                          our probe close to the water surface. We notice the temperature.
                          We place the probe a little deeper into the water and we get another
                          temperature reading? Which one should we use? The surface or the
                          water, and how high above or deep into the water should we read?

                          This is a fairly large Orb, we must decide how many measurements we
                          should take and where and at what altitudes and depths. We then
                          have to decide how many to take and how to use the data to determine
                          the single number that represents the "Global Temperature".

                          The Orb is 18" (4.57cm) in diameter. The surface area is 1,018 in2.
                          If I would cut it open and lay it flat on the table it would be
                          about 32" x 32"(after piecing the pieces together in a neat
                          square). That's pretty big. Doesn't fit on my desk without hanging
                          over the top and bottom edge.

                          Our class in statistics was a long time ago. We do know that if we
                          want our statistic to be accurate I need to take them at randomly
                          selected places and the sample size must be large enough to account
                          for the amount of variations that may occure.

                          Someone propses that do to time and attention span constraints we do
                          the following; The parts that are hanging over the top and bottom
                          of the desk are too hard to reach, so let's just take a couple of
                          measurments there and assume they represent the whole area.

                          The areas that are water are tough to check because it is hard to
                          tell if the probe is at the surface or above or below the surface.
                          If we only take a few measurements there, we are sure that it won't
                          matter in the long run.

                          Now what about the rest of the surface. Well the areas right under
                          my arms on the upper part of the surface, as it lays on my desk, are
                          easy to get to. I suggest that to save time I will take most of my
                          measurements there. Near my left hand and right hand. Since these
                          are easy, I will take a lot of them. The group wholehearted approves

                          What about the temperature gradient that we found when we moved the
                          probe off the surface. That's tough. Let's just forget about it
                          because it probably doesn't matter anyway.

                          Now what do we do with our readings? We took a lot of them.
                          However, we took them at convenient locations rather than random
                          locations. Someone suggests that we make up for that by "adjusting"
                          some of them with a formula that takes into account that we have
                          more in certain areas than others. We can adjust the thickly
                          covered area with a "weighting" factor that adjusts their
                          significence lower and the ones we took in the upper and lower
                          sections can be weighted heavier because these are covering larger
                          areas with fewer measurements.

                          Now let's just apply our factors then add them all up and divide by
                          the total number of measurements and HURRAY! We have the "Global
                          Average Temperature" of our gift.

                          We are pleased with oursleves and decide to open a cold beer in
                          celebration of our accomplishment. We have determined to our
                          satisfaction the "Global Average Temperature" GAT. Well, we have
                          calculated a statistic that represents the GAT. Haven't we?

                          The beers flow and we continue to bask in our achievement. Well,
                          maybe we just determined a number that represents something that
                          might be construed as a representation of a GAT. Afterall, we only
                          took mesurements where it was convenient and we did play around a
                          little with "weights" and stuff.

                          To everyones surprise there is a knock on the door. The door opens
                          and God (None-God) peers around the door at our little
                          party. "Hey!, God exclaims. "What did you do with the Gift?" "We
                          did some great things, we calculated the GAT for the Orb" one of our
                          group proudly proclaims. "That's impossible.", God (Non-God)
                          chuckles, "There is no such thing". After a reflective moment, one
                          of our group, meekly points out, "Well, we kind of made it up but it
                          was real interesting to do".

                          God (Non-God) smiled knowingly. "Well maybe by doing it more often
                          you can learn that it doesn't exit. I am going to give you a new
                          Gift every hour for the next 50 years and then you can see how
                          futile your efforts are".

                          "Oh dear, what have we done?" Exclaimed a member of our bewildered
                          group. We all sat back in a confused funk. Then, one of our
                          Business majors in the group suggested, "Maybe we can get someone
                          to pay us to do all this measuring?. "That's rediculous" chimed a
                          practical minded member of the disenchanted group, "no one would pay
                          for us to generate a number that doesn't exist. Would they?"

                          If anyone reading this believes that I have taken liberties with the
                          way the "Global Average Temperture" is really calculated, I will
                          agree. I have taken the liberty of making it look more Scientific
                          than it really is.

                          Thanks go to Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick for there book,
                          Taken By Storm, The troubles Science, Policy and Politics of Global
                          Warming, Key Porter Books, 2002 for giving me the idea for the above.
                          A must read for the open mind.

                          Sincerely,

                          Steve L.















                          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                          wrote:
                          > Perhaps most important of all - let's determine the average global
                          > climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand
                          years.
                          > Since we know that earth spends 90% of its time in glacial mode,
                          rather
                          > than interglacial mode, we would begin to understand that we're on
                          a
                          > most precarious pinnacale of global warming from which earth
                          *always*
                          > defaults to the norm - ice age.
                          >
                          > It would be incredulous indeed, if we could thwart this dead
                          certainty
                          > with the mild salvation of burning of 'fossil' fuels....
                          >
                          >
                          > John
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Steve <stevell88@y...> [mailto:stevell88@y...]
                          > Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 15:52
                          > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: 2003 slated to be even warmer
                          >
                          >
                          > You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                          > atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to maintain
                          a
                          > liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to it.
                          > However if we are going to discuss the function of the atmosphere
                          in
                          > this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the greenhouse
                          > effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a Greenhouse.
                          > Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                          > by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is clear
                          we
                          > can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared to
                          > other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.
                          >
                          > In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what you
                          > believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be
                          good
                          > if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                          > Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How
                          would
                          > you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                          > measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time
                          you
                          > were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What would
                          > it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?
                          >
                          > Sincerely,
                          >
                          > Steve L.
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                          > Sun
                          > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S) and
                          > the
                          > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                          and
                          > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the
                          > > greenhouse effect.
                          > >
                          > > They are now having to rethink this position."
                          > >
                          > > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally
                          close
                          > to
                          > > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and
                          the
                          > > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and
                          the
                          > > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                          > Earth
                          > > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon
                          does
                          > > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the
                          Sun's
                          > > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                          > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                          > > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                          > > >
                          > > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                          believe
                          > > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure
                          temperature."
                          > > >
                          > > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                          > Warmest
                          > > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know for
                          > sure
                          > > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-randomly
                          > > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do understand
                          > how
                          > > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                          > these
                          > > > statements Scientifically.
                          > > >
                          > > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous years
                          I
                          > > take
                          > > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                          > > >
                          > > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence
                          in
                          > the
                          > > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not
                          allow
                          > > for
                          > > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                          > being
                          > > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you
                          can
                          > not
                          > > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                          > guess
                          > > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read
                          out
                          > > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer without
                          > > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2
                          degrees???
                          > > >
                          > > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no
                          global
                          > > > warming then?"
                          > > >
                          > > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going on
                          > for
                          > > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within
                          that
                          > > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and cold
                          > > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer.
                          Very
                          > > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period
                          that
                          > > many
                          > > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                          > warming
                          > > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only a
                          > > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends
                          but
                          > to
                          > > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the first
                          > > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880 is
                          > > > rediculous.
                          > > >
                          > > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                          > opinion
                          > > we
                          > > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                          > issue
                          > > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it
                          good
                          > or
                          > > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2 has
                          > very
                          > > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it does
                          > have
                          > > > is GOOD.
                          > > >
                          > > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will
                          be
                          > > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than
                          any
                          > > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100
                          years.
                          > > >
                          > > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                          these
                          > > > things?"
                          > > >
                          > > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of the
                          > Sun
                          > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                          and
                          > > the
                          > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                          > and
                          > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                          the
                          > > > greenhouse effect.
                          > > >
                          > > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                          > > >
                          > > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                          > > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                          > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                          > > >
                          > > > From the above Science Article:
                          > > >
                          > > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                          > > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                          > > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                          > > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                          > > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                          > > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                          > > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                          > > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                          > > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                          > > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                          > > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                          > > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                          > > > clouds."
                          > > >
                          > > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                          > > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                          > > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                          > > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                          > > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al., 2002.
                          > > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp. 1732-
                          > 1737,
                          > > > November 29, 2002.
                          > > >
                          > > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns potential
                          > > impact
                          > > > on Climate see:
                          > > >
                          > > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                          > > >
                          > > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of my
                          > > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                          > > >
                          > > > Sincerely,
                          > > >
                          > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                          > > wrote:
                          > > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                          > believe
                          > > > what
                          > > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure temperature.
                          > When
                          > > > you
                          > > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take
                          it
                          > you
                          > > > are
                          > > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there. But
                          I
                          > > have
                          > > > > another question, do you believe there is no global warming
                          > then?
                          > > > If
                          > > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according to
                          > you,
                          > > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                          > these
                          > > > > things?
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                          <stevell88@y...>"
                          > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                          > > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                          > Temperature.
                          > > > Do
                          > > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of temperatures
                          > > > around
                          > > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                          > know
                          > > > that
                          > > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the
                          tenth
                          > of
                          > > > a
                          > > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                          > accuate.
                          > > > > Well
                          > > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it to
                          > the
                          > > > > first
                          > > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read in
                          +-
                          > 1
                          > > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat Island
                          > > > effect?
                          > > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                          > tempertures
                          > > > due
                          > > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                          > these
                          > > > non-
                          > > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                          > > guess.
                          > > > > For
                          > > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                          > about
                          > > 1
                          > > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when they
                          > > > publish
                          > > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                          > implies
                          > > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                          > > Scientific!
                          > > > > > It's a guess.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the
                          rate
                          > of
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                          > > > temperature
                          > > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend
                          anywhere
                          > > > near
                          > > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally distributed,
                          > why
                          > > > is
                          > > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is effecting
                          > > > Europe?
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA.
                          We
                          > > > don't
                          > > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's.
                          How
                          > do
                          > > > they
                          > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the 1930's?
                          > What
                          > > > data
                          > > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature
                          data
                          > is
                          > > > > from
                          > > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think that
                          > the
                          > > > > glass
                          > > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of a
                          > > > degree?
                          > > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface temperature
                          > > > readings
                          > > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet
                          when
                          > > they
                          > > > do
                          > > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                          > > degree???
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                          > > information.
                          > > > > The
                          > > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                          > consider
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                          > change.
                          > > > Now
                          > > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of years
                          > the
                          > > > SUN
                          > > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer
                          is...they
                          > do
                          > > > not
                          > > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they don't
                          > > > bother
                          > > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now
                          that's
                          > > real
                          > > > > > Science isn't it???
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Happy New Year,
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Steve L.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                          > <no_reply@y...>
                          > > > > wrote:
                          > > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking great
                          > > > liberties
                          > > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                          > > convenient
                          > > > to
                          > > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues (and
                          > more
                          > > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or
                          alarmist
                          > > and
                          > > > > > since
                          > > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                          > > > technical
                          > > > > > and
                          > > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the whole
                          > issue
                          > > > is
                          > > > > > > sidestepped.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > If you really want to know how average global
                          temperatures
                          > > are
                          > > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                          > > > excellent
                          > > > > > > websites (such as
                          > > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                          > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-scientists
                          > on
                          > > > this
                          > > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know how
                          > they
                          > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                          > real
                          > > > > > question
                          > > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do,
                          don't
                          > > look
                          > > > > for
                          > > > > > it
                          > > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                          > > <stevell88@y...>"
                          > > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                          > > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                          > writter
                          > > > > > taking
                          > > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I could
                          > point
                          > > > to
                          > > > > > many
                          > > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above the
                          > > > others
                          > > > > as
                          > > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any
                          particular
                          > > > spot,
                          > > > > > but
                          > > > > > > it
                          > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and it
                          > puts
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                          > > > > > trajectory
                          > > > > > > > still headed upward."
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                          > this
                          > > > > > statement:
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                          > Average
                          > > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                          > water,
                          > > > how
                          > > > > > can
                          > > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they
                          compare
                          > the
                          > > > > > numbers
                          > > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                          > ago?
                          > > > What
                          > > > > > > sort
                          > > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is available
                          > for
                          > > > > prior
                          > > > > > > > periods?
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data that
                          > > proves
                          > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a millennium.
                          > Can
                          > > > > > anyone
                          > > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                          > > > accurate
                          > > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                          > Proxy
                          > > > data
                          > > > > > is
                          > > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures
                          fine
                          > > > enough
                          > > > > > to
                          > > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since the
                          > > > 1700's
                          > > > > or
                          > > > > > > the
                          > > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                          > that
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > 140+
                          > > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet is
                          > > > silly.
                          > > > > > To
                          > > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                          > emmissions
                          > > > of
                          > > > > > CO2
                          > > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of
                          CO2
                          > is
                          > > > > > silly.
                          > > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's
                          cause
                          > > all
                          > > > > > this
                          > > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be warmer
                          > than
                          > > > > 2002
                          > > > > > is
                          > > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT.
                          2003
                          > > HAS
                          > > > TO
                          > > > > > BE
                          > > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                          > buring
                          > > > > > fossil
                          > > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                          > > > > > warming.......unless......something
                          > > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example.
                          Maybe
                          > > that
                          > > > is
                          > > > > > > just
                          > > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > Sincerely,
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > Steve L.
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                          > > > <no_reply@y...>
                          > > > > > > wrote:
                          > > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                          > > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003
                          could
                          > > > match
                          > > > > > or
                          > > > > > > > beat
                          > > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures
                          were
                          > > > raised
                          > > > > > > > sharply
                          > > > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific Ocean
                          > > > currents
                          > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured. A
                          > new
                          > > > one
                          > > > > > is
                          > > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                          > > > relatively
                          > > > > > weak,
                          > > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent
                          underlying
                          > > > warming
                          > > > > > > > trend
                          > > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record highs.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                          > > climate
                          > > > > > > > variation,
                          > > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to
                          explain
                          > > > > without
                          > > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                          > levels
                          > > of
                          > > > > > carbon
                          > > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                          > smokestacks
                          > > > and
                          > > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                          > climate
                          > > > > > warming
                          > > > > > > > has
                          > > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                          > reconsider
                          > > > their
                          > > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                          > trapping
                          > > > > > > > emissions.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by the
                          > Bush
                          > > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials
                          said
                          > > > > > President
                          > > > > > > > Bush
                          > > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced
                          last
                          > > > year —
                          > > > > > > > calling
                          > > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                          > growth
                          > > > in
                          > > > > > > > emissions
                          > > > > > > > > until 2012.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and
                          > > > Senator
                          > > > > > > Joseph
                          > > > > > > > I.
                          > > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to
                          introduce
                          > > > > > legislation
                          > > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish
                          mandatory
                          > > > > > greenhouse
                          > > > > > > > gas
                          > > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                          > trade
                          > > > > > credits
                          > > > > > > > they
                          > > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other industrial
                          > > powers
                          > > > > > have
                          > > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once in
                          > > > effect,
                          > > > > > will
                          > > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American
                          debate
                          > > > over
                          > > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of
                          mounting
                          > > > > evidence
                          > > > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                          > > > concentrations
                          > > > > > of
                          > > > > > > > such
                          > > > > > > > > substances.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been
                          to
                          > > > > > synthesize
                          > > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                          > around
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > world
                          > > > > > > > > into a global average.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any
                          particular
                          > > > spot,
                          > > > > > but
                          > > > > > > > it
                          > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and
                          it
                          > > puts
                          > > > > the
                          > > > > > > > planet
                          > > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                          > > trajectory
                          > > > > > still
                          > > > > > > > > headed upward.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                          > average
                          > > > > > surface
                          > > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one degree
                          > per
                          > > > 100
                          > > > > > years
                          > > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth has
                          > been
                          > > > > > warming
                          > > > > > > > at
                          > > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and
                          Research
                          > in
                          > > > > > Britain
                          > > > > > > > put
                          > > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                          > > > temperature
                          > > > > > > > record
                          > > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of
                          the
                          > > > > National
                          > > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                          > Institute
                          > > > for
                          > > > > > > Space
                          > > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a
                          big
                          > new
                          > > > sun-
                          > > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions and
                          a
                          > > peak
                          > > > in
                          > > > > > > > solar
                          > > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                          > > > warming,
                          > > > > he
                          > > > > > > > said,
                          > > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human
                          forcing."
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0 degrees
                          in
                          > > > 1998,
                          > > > > > > while
                          > > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature in
                          > 2002
                          > > > at
                          > > > > > 57.9
                          > > > > > > > > degrees.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper warming,
                          in
                          > > > > > patterns
                          > > > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                          > > simulations
                          > > > of
                          > > > > > the
                          > > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                          > > > reported
                          > > > > > this
                          > > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface conditions
                          on
                          > > > > > > Greenland's
                          > > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than at
                          > any
                          > > > time
                          > > > > > in
                          > > > > > > > the
                          > > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had done
                          > > before
                          > > > in
                          > > > > > > that
                          > > > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          >
                          > ADVERTISEMENT
                          >
                          >
                          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1
                          705
                          >
                          948926:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;758668
                          7;x
                          > ?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                          >
                          > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                          M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egrou
                          > pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=507143542>
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                          I agree that we should develope trends and data that tell us of the past and the present. We have many of those and certainly need many more. The information
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                            I agree that we should develope trends and data that tell us of the
                            past and the present. We have many of those and certainly need many
                            more. The information that the Western Anartic Ice is not changing
                            it's 10,000 year melt rate is good to know.

                            However, what does one decern from the existing data when it shows
                            that we are not dramatically changing something that has occurred
                            for the past 10,000 years, the trend is not changing in a rapid
                            fashion and that changes that are occurring are well within the
                            expected variability of Climate? Well, we just keep looking for
                            more because we just have to be doing something wrong, right?

                            You stated that, "Anthropogenic GW is by definition a short term
                            problem.". Anthropogenic GW is by definition a construct based on
                            the Thermodynamic Theory of gases that has yet to be demonstrated to
                            exist in the real world or if it is a problem if it did exist.
                            Before we decide if it is short or a problem it is necessary to
                            scrape away all the BS and determine if it exists, to what actual
                            effect and to what actual end.

                            You have concluded that it has in fact been proven to be real
                            outside of Theory AND has a large impact on Climate in the short
                            term and that impact is bad. I, on the other hand agree with it in
                            Theory but have yet to see any evidence as to is it's significant
                            existance in the real world or it's significant effect on Climate on
                            any time scale good or bad.

                            Could you provide me with the facts to change my mind?

                            Steve L.




                            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > John: You are talking about a long term trend in climate, just
                            like
                            > those scientists were in the article recently quoted by Steve
                            > ("Antarctic Ice May Vanish in 7,000 Years"). Anthropogenic GW is
                            by
                            > definition a short term problem. Sooner or later we will move into
                            a
                            > non-fossil fuel economy whether we like it or not. The problem
                            with
                            > anthropogenic GW is that it operates a lot more quickly than the
                            > natural cycles. I have no problem with Antarctic ice gradually
                            > vanishing in 7,000 years but I have a problem with it vanishing in
                            > the next 100 years. I have no problem with an ice age even in the
                            > next 1,000 years but I have a problem with it in the next 25.
                            >
                            > Steve: I think it is a very good thing that they are establishing
                            > long term trends in climate (in this case Antarctic ice melting)
                            so
                            > that we can detect departures from the trend at a time when we are
                            so
                            > massively interfering with nature.
                            >
                            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                            <shotsky1@h...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > Perhaps most important of all - let's determine the average
                            global
                            > > climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand
                            > years.
                            > > Since we know that earth spends 90% of its time in glacial mode,
                            > rather
                            > > than interglacial mode, we would begin to understand that we're
                            on a
                            > > most precarious pinnacale of global warming from which earth
                            > *always*
                            > > defaults to the norm - ice age.
                            > >
                            > > It would be incredulous indeed, if we could thwart this dead
                            > certainty
                            > > with the mild salvation of burning of 'fossil' fuels....
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > John
                            > >
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: Steve <stevell88@y...> [mailto:stevell88@y...]
                            > > Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 15:52
                            > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: 2003 slated to be even warmer
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                            > > atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to
                            maintain
                            > a
                            > > liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to
                            it.
                            > > However if we are going to discuss the function of the
                            atmosphere
                            > in
                            > > this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the
                            greenhouse
                            > > effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a
                            Greenhouse.
                            > > Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                            > > by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is
                            clear
                            > we
                            > > can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared
                            to
                            > > other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.
                            > >
                            > > In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what
                            you
                            > > believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be
                            good
                            > > if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                            > > Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How
                            > would
                            > > you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                            > > measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time
                            you
                            > > were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What
                            would
                            > > it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?
                            > >
                            > > Sincerely,
                            > >
                            > > Steve L.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of
                            the
                            > > Sun
                            > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                            and
                            > > the
                            > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                            and
                            > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                            the
                            > > > greenhouse effect.
                            > > >
                            > > > They are now having to rethink this position."
                            > > >
                            > > > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally
                            close
                            > > to
                            > > > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and
                            the
                            > > > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and
                            > the
                            > > > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                            > > Earth
                            > > > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon
                            > does
                            > > > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the
                            Sun's
                            > > > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                            > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                            > > > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                            > believe
                            > > > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure
                            > temperature."
                            > > > >
                            > > > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                            > > Warmest
                            > > > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know
                            for
                            > > sure
                            > > > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-
                            randomly
                            > > > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do
                            understand
                            > > how
                            > > > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                            > > these
                            > > > > statements Scientifically.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous
                            years I
                            > > > take
                            > > > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence
                            in
                            > > the
                            > > > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not
                            > allow
                            > > > for
                            > > > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                            > > being
                            > > > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you
                            can
                            > > not
                            > > > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                            > > guess
                            > > > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read
                            > out
                            > > > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer
                            without
                            > > > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2
                            degrees???
                            > > > >
                            > > > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no
                            global
                            > > > > warming then?"
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going
                            on
                            > > for
                            > > > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within
                            > that
                            > > > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and
                            cold
                            > > > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer.
                            > Very
                            > > > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period
                            that
                            > > > many
                            > > > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                            > > warming
                            > > > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only
                            a
                            > > > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends
                            > but
                            > > to
                            > > > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the
                            first
                            > > > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880
                            is
                            > > > > rediculous.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                            > > opinion
                            > > > we
                            > > > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                            > > issue
                            > > > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it
                            good
                            > > or
                            > > > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2
                            has
                            > > very
                            > > > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it
                            does
                            > > have
                            > > > > is GOOD.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will
                            be
                            > > > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than
                            > any
                            > > > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100
                            > years.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                            > these
                            > > > > things?"
                            > > > >
                            > > > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of
                            the
                            > > Sun
                            > > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                            > and
                            > > > the
                            > > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than
                            0.1%
                            > > and
                            > > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                            > the
                            > > > > greenhouse effect.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                            > > > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                            > > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                            > > > >
                            > > > > From the above Science Article:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                            > > > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                            > > > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                            > > > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                            > > > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                            > > > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                            > > > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                            > > > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                            > > > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                            > > > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                            > > > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                            > > > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                            > > > > clouds."
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                            > > > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                            > > > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                            > > > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                            > > > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al.,
                            2002.
                            > > > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp.
                            1732-
                            > > 1737,
                            > > > > November 29, 2002.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns
                            potential
                            > > > impact
                            > > > > on Climate see:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of
                            my
                            > > > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Sincerely,
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                            <no_reply@y...>
                            > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                            > > believe
                            > > > > what
                            > > > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure
                            temperature.
                            > > When
                            > > > > you
                            > > > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take
                            it
                            > > you
                            > > > > are
                            > > > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there.
                            But I
                            > > > have
                            > > > > > another question, do you believe there is no global
                            warming
                            > > then?
                            > > > > If
                            > > > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according
                            to
                            > > you,
                            > > > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                            > > these
                            > > > > > things?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                            > <stevell88@y...>"
                            > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                            > > > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                            > > Temperature.
                            > > > > Do
                            > > > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of
                            temperatures
                            > > > > around
                            > > > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                            > > know
                            > > > > that
                            > > > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the
                            > tenth
                            > > of
                            > > > > a
                            > > > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                            > > accuate.
                            > > > > > Well
                            > > > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it
                            to
                            > > the
                            > > > > > first
                            > > > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read
                            in
                            > +-
                            > > 1
                            > > > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat
                            Island
                            > > > > effect?
                            > > > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                            > > tempertures
                            > > > > due
                            > > > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                            > > these
                            > > > > non-
                            > > > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                            > > > guess.
                            > > > > > For
                            > > > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                            > > about
                            > > > 1
                            > > > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when
                            they
                            > > > > publish
                            > > > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                            > > implies
                            > > > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                            > > > Scientific!
                            > > > > > > It's a guess.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the
                            > rate
                            > > of
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                            > > > > temperature
                            > > > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend
                            > anywhere
                            > > > > near
                            > > > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally
                            distributed,
                            > > why
                            > > > > is
                            > > > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is
                            effecting
                            > > > > Europe?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA.
                            We
                            > > > > don't
                            > > > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's.
                            How
                            > > do
                            > > > > they
                            > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the
                            1930's?
                            > > What
                            > > > > data
                            > > > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature
                            > data
                            > > is
                            > > > > > from
                            > > > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think
                            that
                            > > the
                            > > > > > glass
                            > > > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of
                            a
                            > > > > degree?
                            > > > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface
                            temperature
                            > > > > readings
                            > > > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet
                            when
                            > > > they
                            > > > > do
                            > > > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                            > > > degree???
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                            > > > information.
                            > > > > > The
                            > > > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                            > > consider
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                            > > change.
                            > > > > Now
                            > > > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of
                            years
                            > > the
                            > > > > SUN
                            > > > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer
                            > is...they
                            > > do
                            > > > > not
                            > > > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they
                            don't
                            > > > > bother
                            > > > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now
                            that's
                            > > > real
                            > > > > > > Science isn't it???
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Happy New Year,
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Steve L.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                            > > <no_reply@y...>
                            > > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking
                            great
                            > > > > liberties
                            > > > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                            > > > convenient
                            > > > > to
                            > > > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues
                            (and
                            > > more
                            > > > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or
                            > alarmist
                            > > > and
                            > > > > > > since
                            > > > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                            > > > > technical
                            > > > > > > and
                            > > > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the
                            whole
                            > > issue
                            > > > > is
                            > > > > > > > sidestepped.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > If you really want to know how average global
                            > temperatures
                            > > > are
                            > > > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                            > > > > excellent
                            > > > > > > > websites (such as
                            > > > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                            > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-
                            scientists
                            > > on
                            > > > > this
                            > > > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know
                            how
                            > > they
                            > > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                            > > real
                            > > > > > > question
                            > > > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do,
                            don't
                            > > > look
                            > > > > > for
                            > > > > > > it
                            > > > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                            > > > <stevell88@y...>"
                            > > > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                            > > > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                            > > writter
                            > > > > > > taking
                            > > > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I
                            could
                            > > point
                            > > > > to
                            > > > > > > many
                            > > > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above
                            the
                            > > > > others
                            > > > > > as
                            > > > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any
                            particular
                            > > > > spot,
                            > > > > > > but
                            > > > > > > > it
                            > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and
                            it
                            > > puts
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with
                            the
                            > > > > > > trajectory
                            > > > > > > > > still headed upward."
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                            > > this
                            > > > > > > statement:
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                            > > Average
                            > > > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                            > > water,
                            > > > > how
                            > > > > > > can
                            > > > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they
                            compare
                            > > the
                            > > > > > > numbers
                            > > > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                            > > ago?
                            > > > > What
                            > > > > > > > sort
                            > > > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is
                            available
                            > > for
                            > > > > > prior
                            > > > > > > > > periods?
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data
                            that
                            > > > proves
                            > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a
                            millennium.
                            > > Can
                            > > > > > > anyone
                            > > > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                            > > > > accurate
                            > > > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                            > > Proxy
                            > > > > data
                            > > > > > > is
                            > > > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures
                            fine
                            > > > > enough
                            > > > > > > to
                            > > > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since
                            the
                            > > > > 1700's
                            > > > > > or
                            > > > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                            > > that
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > 140+
                            > > > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet
                            is
                            > > > > silly.
                            > > > > > > To
                            > > > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                            > > emmissions
                            > > > > of
                            > > > > > > CO2
                            > > > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of
                            > CO2
                            > > is
                            > > > > > > silly.
                            > > > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's
                            > cause
                            > > > all
                            > > > > > > this
                            > > > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be
                            warmer
                            > > than
                            > > > > > 2002
                            > > > > > > is
                            > > > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT.
                            > 2003
                            > > > HAS
                            > > > > TO
                            > > > > > > BE
                            > > > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                            > > buring
                            > > > > > > fossil
                            > > > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                            > > > > > > warming.......unless......something
                            > > > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example.
                            Maybe
                            > > > that
                            > > > > is
                            > > > > > > > just
                            > > > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > Steve L.
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                            > > > > <no_reply@y...>
                            > > > > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                            > > > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003
                            > could
                            > > > > match
                            > > > > > > or
                            > > > > > > > > beat
                            > > > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures
                            were
                            > > > > raised
                            > > > > > > > > sharply
                            > > > > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific
                            Ocean
                            > > > > currents
                            > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured.
                            A
                            > > new
                            > > > > one
                            > > > > > > is
                            > > > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                            > > > > relatively
                            > > > > > > weak,
                            > > > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent
                            underlying
                            > > > > warming
                            > > > > > > > > trend
                            > > > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record
                            highs.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                            > > > climate
                            > > > > > > > > variation,
                            > > > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to
                            > explain
                            > > > > > without
                            > > > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                            > > levels
                            > > > of
                            > > > > > > carbon
                            > > > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                            > > smokestacks
                            > > > > and
                            > > > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                            > > climate
                            > > > > > > warming
                            > > > > > > > > has
                            > > > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                            > > reconsider
                            > > > > their
                            > > > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                            > > trapping
                            > > > > > > > > emissions.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by
                            the
                            > > Bush
                            > > > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials
                            said
                            > > > > > > President
                            > > > > > > > > Bush
                            > > > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced
                            > last
                            > > > > year —
                            > > > > > > > > calling
                            > > > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                            > > growth
                            > > > > in
                            > > > > > > > > emissions
                            > > > > > > > > > until 2012.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
                            and
                            > > > > Senator
                            > > > > > > > Joseph
                            > > > > > > > > I.
                            > > > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to
                            introduce
                            > > > > > > legislation
                            > > > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish
                            > mandatory
                            > > > > > > greenhouse
                            > > > > > > > > gas
                            > > > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                            > > trade
                            > > > > > > credits
                            > > > > > > > > they
                            > > > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other
                            industrial
                            > > > powers
                            > > > > > > have
                            > > > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once
                            in
                            > > > > effect,
                            > > > > > > will
                            > > > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American
                            > debate
                            > > > > over
                            > > > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of
                            mounting
                            > > > > > evidence
                            > > > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                            > > > > concentrations
                            > > > > > > of
                            > > > > > > > > such
                            > > > > > > > > > substances.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been
                            to
                            > > > > > > synthesize
                            > > > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                            > > around
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > world
                            > > > > > > > > > into a global average.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any
                            > particular
                            > > > > spot,
                            > > > > > > but
                            > > > > > > > > it
                            > > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and
                            it
                            > > > puts
                            > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > > planet
                            > > > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                            > > > trajectory
                            > > > > > > still
                            > > > > > > > > > headed upward.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                            > > average
                            > > > > > > surface
                            > > > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one
                            degree
                            > > per
                            > > > > 100
                            > > > > > > years
                            > > > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth
                            has
                            > > been
                            > > > > > > warming
                            > > > > > > > > at
                            > > > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and
                            Research
                            > > in
                            > > > > > > Britain
                            > > > > > > > > put
                            > > > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                            > > > > temperature
                            > > > > > > > > record
                            > > > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of
                            the
                            > > > > > National
                            > > > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                            > > Institute
                            > > > > for
                            > > > > > > > Space
                            > > > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a
                            big
                            > > new
                            > > > > sun-
                            > > > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions
                            and a
                            > > > peak
                            > > > > in
                            > > > > > > > > solar
                            > > > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                            > > > > warming,
                            > > > > > he
                            > > > > > > > > said,
                            > > > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human
                            forcing."
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0
                            degrees
                            > in
                            > > > > 1998,
                            > > > > > > > while
                            > > > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature
                            in
                            > > 2002
                            > > > > at
                            > > > > > > 57.9
                            > > > > > > > > > degrees.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper
                            warming,
                            > in
                            > > > > > > patterns
                            > > > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                            > > > simulations
                            > > > > of
                            > > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                            Administration
                            > > > > reported
                            > > > > > > this
                            > > > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface
                            conditions
                            > on
                            > > > > > > > Greenland's
                            > > > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than
                            at
                            > > any
                            > > > > time
                            > > > > > > in
                            > > > > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had
                            done
                            > > > before
                            > > > > in
                            > > > > > > > that
                            > > > > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            > >
                            > > ADVERTISEMENT
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1
                            7
                            > 05
                            > >
                            >
                            948926:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;758668
                            7
                            > ;x
                            > > ?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>

                            > >
                            > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                            > M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egrou
                            > > pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=507143542>
                            > >
                            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service
                            > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                            dmgan.....The article indicated that there is no change in the rate of melting outside the 10,000 year tend. If the trend continues it will take another 7000
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                              dmgan.....The article indicated that there is no change in the rate
                              of melting outside the 10,000 year tend. If the trend continues it
                              will take another 7000 years for a certain portion of the Ice to
                              melt in the Anartic. Whithin that period we will most certainly
                              have a cooling period if not a cold period which will reverse the
                              melting. That is based on the natural cycles of the planet.

                              You state that, "Anthropogenic GW is by definition a short term
                              problem." Well allow me to inject that Anthropogenic GW is a Theory
                              based on the Thermodynamic properties of gases. It's term is
                              undefined sence it's existance has not been established. It is not
                              known if it is a "problem" since it has not been measured at any
                              significant level and it's effect on Climate is unknown.

                              It appears to me that we are going from Theory to catastropy in one
                              giant step. That works in Science Fiction movies because we see the
                              deformed creatures ravaging the Earth that were caused by "atomic
                              radiation". Shouldn't we at least see some warming that is in fact
                              attributable to AGW and the bad effect on climate before we start
                              destroying the monsters?

                              Steve L.


                              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > John: You are talking about a long term trend in climate, just
                              like
                              > those scientists were in the article recently quoted by Steve
                              > ("Antarctic Ice May Vanish in 7,000 Years"). Anthropogenic GW is
                              by
                              > definition a short term problem. Sooner or later we will move into
                              a
                              > non-fossil fuel economy whether we like it or not. The problem
                              with
                              > anthropogenic GW is that it operates a lot more quickly than the
                              > natural cycles. I have no problem with Antarctic ice gradually
                              > vanishing in 7,000 years but I have a problem with it vanishing in
                              > the next 100 years. I have no problem with an ice age even in the
                              > next 1,000 years but I have a problem with it in the next 25.
                              >
                              > Steve: I think it is a very good thing that they are establishing
                              > long term trends in climate (in this case Antarctic ice melting)
                              so
                              > that we can detect departures from the trend at a time when we are
                              so
                              > massively interfering with nature.
                              >
                              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                              <shotsky1@h...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > Perhaps most important of all - let's determine the average
                              global
                              > > climate temperature (on average) for the last, say, 500 thousand
                              > years.
                              > > Since we know that earth spends 90% of its time in glacial mode,
                              > rather
                              > > than interglacial mode, we would begin to understand that we're
                              on a
                              > > most precarious pinnacale of global warming from which earth
                              > *always*
                              > > defaults to the norm - ice age.
                              > >
                              > > It would be incredulous indeed, if we could thwart this dead
                              > certainty
                              > > with the mild salvation of burning of 'fossil' fuels....
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > John
                              > >
                              > > -----Original Message-----
                              > > From: Steve <stevell88@y...> [mailto:stevell88@y...]
                              > > Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 15:52
                              > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: 2003 slated to be even warmer
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > You are correct and I agree in part with what you say. The
                              > > atmosphere of the Earth does allow the planets surface to
                              maintain
                              > a
                              > > liveable temperature for life as we have become accustomed to
                              it.
                              > > However if we are going to discuss the function of the
                              atmosphere
                              > in
                              > > this regard we need to determine what you mean by "the
                              greenhouse
                              > > effect". The atompshere does not in any way mimic a
                              Greenhouse.
                              > > Therefore before we go further please define what you mean
                              > > by "Greenhouse Effect". Once your understanding of that is
                              clear
                              > we
                              > > can discuss the cause effect relationship between CO2 compared
                              to
                              > > other significant atmospheric gases such as water vapor.
                              > >
                              > > In addition, it would be interesting to have you explain what
                              you
                              > > believe "Global Average Temperature" means. Maybe it would be
                              good
                              > > if you could discribe how you would calculate the Average Room
                              > > Temperture for your living room over a 30 year period???? How
                              > would
                              > > you measure it, where would you measure it and when would you
                              > > measure it? How would you handle the missing data for the time
                              you
                              > > were on vacation? How would you calculate an average? What
                              would
                              > > it mean? How would it relate to the climate in your room?
                              > >
                              > > Sincerely,
                              > >
                              > > Steve L.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > > "The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of
                              the
                              > > Sun
                              > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                              and
                              > > the
                              > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than 0.1%
                              and
                              > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                              the
                              > > > greenhouse effect.
                              > > >
                              > > > They are now having to rethink this position."
                              > > >
                              > > > Consider the Earth and the Moon. Both are basically equally
                              close
                              > > to
                              > > > the sun and bathed by the same light. Yet one is warm and and
                              the
                              > > > other is cold. There are big differences between the Earth and
                              > the
                              > > > Moon but I would dare say the biggest one is the fact that the
                              > > Earth
                              > > > has an atmosphere, and thus a greenhouse effect, and the Moon
                              > does
                              > > > not. The greenhouse effect is really a magnification of the
                              Sun's
                              > > > effect so you can't say that the Sun doesn't count.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                              > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                              > > > > Let me make some things clearer in regard to what I think.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                              > believe
                              > > > > what the scientists are saying and how they measure
                              > temperature."
                              > > > >
                              > > > > No, I do not believe what some Scientists are saying about
                              > > Warmest
                              > > > > Year or 2nd Warmest Year etc.. In truth they do not know
                              for
                              > > sure
                              > > > > because the past records give them imperfect and non-
                              randomly
                              > > > > sampled data from which to make such a claim. I do
                              understand
                              > > how
                              > > > > they measure temperature. It is not accurate enough to make
                              > > these
                              > > > > statements Scientifically.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "When you questions the measurements given for previous
                              years I
                              > > > take
                              > > > > it you are saying that that is unknowable."
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I am saying that it is knowable but to a level of confidence
                              in
                              > > the
                              > > > > accuracy level. That degree of error in the data does not
                              > allow
                              > > > for
                              > > > > the statments of certainty to be placed on the data that are
                              > > being
                              > > > > used. When the range of error in your data is so large you
                              can
                              > > not
                              > > > > make these statements. How can you compare a Tree Ring proxy
                              > > guess
                              > > > > of the Temperature in the Summer of 1780 with a digital read
                              > out
                              > > > > device in 2002 and say that 2002 was 1.2 degree warmer
                              without
                              > > > > saying that is was 1.2 degrees warmer plus or minus 2
                              degrees???
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "But I have another question, do you believe there is no
                              global
                              > > > > warming then?"
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Yes, I believe there is Global Warming. It has been going
                              on
                              > > for
                              > > > > approximately 10,000 years, give or take a few 100. Within
                              > that
                              > > > > 10,000 years we have had oscillations of warm trends and
                              cold
                              > > > > trends, however the natural overall trend has been warmer.
                              > Very
                              > > > > recent in the 10,000 years we had the Roman Warming Period
                              that
                              > > > many
                              > > > > Scientists beleive to be a warmer period than our current
                              > > warming
                              > > > > period. The Little Ice Age was a cold period which was only
                              a
                              > > > > couple hundred years ago. There are means to measure trends
                              > but
                              > > to
                              > > > > claim that we know the Global Average Temperature to the
                              first
                              > > > > decimal and claim that 2002 is X.Y degrees warmer than 1880
                              is
                              > > > > rediculous.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Global Warming is not the issue in my mind, because in my
                              > > opinion
                              > > > we
                              > > > > can do very little about the natural trends of nature. The
                              > > issue
                              > > > > is, what does CO2 have to do with Global Warming and is it
                              good
                              > > or
                              > > > > bad. My opinion, based on extensive research, is that CO2
                              has
                              > > very
                              > > > > little to do with our current warming and what effect it
                              does
                              > > have
                              > > > > is GOOD.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > In the Global scheme of things it is inevitable that we will
                              be
                              > > > > faced with Global Cooling. That is a far worse senario than
                              > any
                              > > > > Warming that is realistically anticipated for the next 100
                              > years.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                              > these
                              > > > > things?"
                              > > > >
                              > > > > The GCM's models do include a very limited contribution of
                              the
                              > > Sun
                              > > > > variability. IPCC scientists hold that Solar Irradiance (S)
                              > and
                              > > > the
                              > > > > Delta S or variation in Solar Irradiance is smaller than
                              0.1%
                              > > and
                              > > > > has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with
                              > the
                              > > > > greenhouse effect.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > They are now having to rethink this position.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Areas to Watch in 2003
                              > > > > SCIENCE 298, 5602, p. 2298, December 20, 2002
                              > > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2298
                              > > > >
                              > > > > From the above Science Article:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "2. A sun-climate connection. As more and more wiggles
                              > > > > matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in
                              > > > > records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
                              > > > > taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate
                              > > > > change. They have included solar variability in their
                              > > > > simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun
                              > > > > seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering
                              > > > > droughts and cold snaps. To gain complete
                              > > > > respectability, sun-climate researchers are working to
                              > > > > identify the physical link between relatively feeble
                              > > > > solar fluctuations and climate. A leading candidate:
                              > > > > solar-modulated cosmic rays and their effects on
                              > > > > clouds."
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Further references....."the climate system is far more
                              > > > > sensitive to small variations in solar activity than
                              > > > > generally believed" Van Geel et al., 1999.
                              > > > > ...... "A relatively small change in solar output can produce
                              > > > > much larger changes in Earth's climate." Carslaw et al.,
                              2002.
                              > > > > Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate. Science 298, 5599, pp.
                              1732-
                              > > 1737,
                              > > > > November 29, 2002.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > For a more detailed Scientific Analysis of the Suns
                              potential
                              > > > impact
                              > > > > on Climate see:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/solar/solar.htm
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Now, maybe you might take a few minutes and answer a few of
                              my
                              > > > > questions. I do attempt to answer yours.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Sincerely,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                              <no_reply@y...>
                              > > > wrote:
                              > > > > > What I understand from your questions is that you don't
                              > > believe
                              > > > > what
                              > > > > > the scientists are saying and how they measure
                              temperature.
                              > > When
                              > > > > you
                              > > > > > questions the measurements given for previous years I take
                              it
                              > > you
                              > > > > are
                              > > > > > saying that that is unknowable. I can't help you there.
                              But I
                              > > > have
                              > > > > > another question, do you believe there is no global
                              warming
                              > > then?
                              > > > > If
                              > > > > > that is the case, what is your evidence since, according
                              to
                              > > you,
                              > > > > > there is no way to measure global temperature?
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > As for the models not including the sun, where do you get
                              > > these
                              > > > > > things?
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                              > <stevell88@y...>"
                              > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                              > > > > > > I know exactly how they calculate Global Average
                              > > Temperature.
                              > > > > Do
                              > > > > > > you? You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Since we do not have good accurate records of
                              temperatures
                              > > > > around
                              > > > > > > the planet going back more than a few decades, how do we
                              > > know
                              > > > > that
                              > > > > > > 2002 was hotter than any year prior to say....1975?
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > How do you calculate Global Average Temperature to the
                              > tenth
                              > > of
                              > > > > a
                              > > > > > > degree when the actual measurements are far from that
                              > > accuate.
                              > > > > > Well
                              > > > > > > you just add them up and divide by a number and take it
                              to
                              > > the
                              > > > > > first
                              > > > > > > or second decimal. Who cares that the instruments read
                              in
                              > +-
                              > > 1
                              > > > > > > degree not to the first decimal.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > How do they take into consideration the Urban Heat
                              Island
                              > > > > effect?
                              > > > > > > We know that large cities add up to 14F to ambient
                              > > tempertures
                              > > > > due
                              > > > > > > to buildings and energy output. How do they factor out
                              > > these
                              > > > > non-
                              > > > > > > GHG effects? Well they make an attmept but it is just a
                              > > > guess.
                              > > > > > For
                              > > > > > > example..the factor they use for New Delhi India is only
                              > > about
                              > > > 1
                              > > > > > > degreeC over the past century. It's a guess yet when
                              they
                              > > > > publish
                              > > > > > > the Global Average Temperature they use a number that
                              > > implies
                              > > > > > > accuracy that just does not exist. Now that is not
                              > > > Scientific!
                              > > > > > > It's a guess.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Why is the USA climate not warming at anywhere near the
                              > rate
                              > > of
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > Global Average Temperature indicates? Why is the rural
                              > > > > temperature
                              > > > > > > measurements in the USA not showing a warming trend
                              > anywhere
                              > > > > near
                              > > > > > > the Global figures? Since CO2 is universally
                              distributed,
                              > > why
                              > > > > is
                              > > > > > > the CO2 not effecting the USA tempertures and is
                              effecting
                              > > > > Europe?
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > The 1930's were the warmest years on record in the USA.
                              We
                              > > > > don't
                              > > > > > > have any temperature readings from the 1300 or 1400's.
                              How
                              > > do
                              > > > > they
                              > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature for the
                              1930's?
                              > > What
                              > > > > data
                              > > > > > > do they use? How accurate do you think the temperature
                              > data
                              > > is
                              > > > > > from
                              > > > > > > China, Russia, Siberia from the 1930's? Do you think
                              that
                              > > the
                              > > > > > glass
                              > > > > > > bulb thermometers used then could be read to a tenth of
                              a
                              > > > > degree?
                              > > > > > > How accurate do you believe the water surface
                              temperature
                              > > > > readings
                              > > > > > > were for the 1930's and that's 70% of the planet. Yet
                              when
                              > > > they
                              > > > > do
                              > > > > > > the calculations it comes out to the nearest tenth of a
                              > > > degree???
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > I will give you another little piece of scientific
                              > > > information.
                              > > > > > The
                              > > > > > > models used to project massive global warming do not
                              > > consider
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > SUN an important factor in determining future climate
                              > > change.
                              > > > > Now
                              > > > > > > how can that be defended. Over the past millions of
                              years
                              > > the
                              > > > > SUN
                              > > > > > > was a major factor, but now it is not? The answer
                              > is...they
                              > > do
                              > > > > not
                              > > > > > > know how to determine the effects of the SUN so they
                              don't
                              > > > > bother
                              > > > > > > with it. Imagine that. The SUN doesn't count. Now
                              that's
                              > > > real
                              > > > > > > Science isn't it???
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Happy New Year,
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Steve L.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                              > > <no_reply@y...>
                              > > > > > wrote:
                              > > > > > > > This is not an "example of a media writter taking
                              great
                              > > > > liberties
                              > > > > > > > with scientific information" as you say. It is very
                              > > > convenient
                              > > > > to
                              > > > > > > > dismiss all newspaper articles on scientific issues
                              (and
                              > > more
                              > > > > > > > specifically global warming) as inaccurate and/or
                              > alarmist
                              > > > and
                              > > > > > > since
                              > > > > > > > most articles published in scientific journals are too
                              > > > > technical
                              > > > > > > and
                              > > > > > > > complicated for most laypersons to understand the
                              whole
                              > > issue
                              > > > > is
                              > > > > > > > sidestepped.
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > If you really want to know how average global
                              > temperatures
                              > > > are
                              > > > > > > > calculated I suggest you find out about it. There are
                              > > > > excellent
                              > > > > > > > websites (such as
                              > > > > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/education.html)
                              > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > have a wealth of information accesible to non-
                              scientists
                              > > on
                              > > > > this
                              > > > > > > > issue. The answer to your question "Does anyone know
                              how
                              > > they
                              > > > > > > > calculate the Global Average Temperature?" is YES. The
                              > > real
                              > > > > > > question
                              > > > > > > > is "Do you really want to know?" Because if you do,
                              don't
                              > > > look
                              > > > > > for
                              > > > > > > it
                              > > > > > > > here, get yourself a good textbook and find out.
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                              > > > <stevell88@y...>"
                              > > > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                              > > > > > > > > To All: This article is a clear example of a media
                              > > writter
                              > > > > > > taking
                              > > > > > > > > great liberties with scientific information. I
                              could
                              > > point
                              > > > > to
                              > > > > > > many
                              > > > > > > > > statements in the article but one sticks out above
                              the
                              > > > > others
                              > > > > > as
                              > > > > > > > > being unscientific and unsubstantiated by know facts.
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > "This average reading is meaningless for any
                              particular
                              > > > > spot,
                              > > > > > > but
                              > > > > > > > it
                              > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and
                              it
                              > > puts
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > > planet in its warmest period in a millennium, with
                              the
                              > > > > > > trajectory
                              > > > > > > > > still headed upward."
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > I have the following questions or comments regarding
                              > > this
                              > > > > > > statement:
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > 1) Does anyone know how they calculate the Global
                              > > Average
                              > > > > > > > > Temperature? With 70+% of the earths surface being
                              > > water,
                              > > > > how
                              > > > > > > can
                              > > > > > > > > they accurately calculate this and how can they
                              compare
                              > > the
                              > > > > > > numbers
                              > > > > > > > > collected for this year to data from 50 or 100 years
                              > > ago?
                              > > > > What
                              > > > > > > > sort
                              > > > > > > > > of weighted average is used and what data is
                              available
                              > > for
                              > > > > > prior
                              > > > > > > > > periods?
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > 2) I would like someone to point me to the data
                              that
                              > > > proves
                              > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > > the planet is in it's warmest period in a
                              millennium.
                              > > Can
                              > > > > > > anyone
                              > > > > > > > > show me the facts that prove this? Does anyone have
                              > > > > accurate
                              > > > > > > > > surface temperatures for the 1930's let alone 1900?
                              > > Proxy
                              > > > > data
                              > > > > > > is
                              > > > > > > > > just not accurate enough to pin point temperatures
                              fine
                              > > > > enough
                              > > > > > > to
                              > > > > > > > > make this kind of statement.
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > 3) The "trajectory" has been heading upward since
                              the
                              > > > > 1700's
                              > > > > > or
                              > > > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > > Little Ice Age without any help from CO2. To assume
                              > > that
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > 140+
                              > > > > > > > > years of warming will not result in a warmer planet
                              is
                              > > > > silly.
                              > > > > > > To
                              > > > > > > > > assume that the warming has been caused by man's
                              > > emmissions
                              > > > > of
                              > > > > > > CO2
                              > > > > > > > > when most of the warming occurred before the rise of
                              > CO2
                              > > is
                              > > > > > > silly.
                              > > > > > > > > To have such a clear perception that CO2 and GHG's
                              > cause
                              > > > all
                              > > > > > > this
                              > > > > > > > > and yet only give a 50/50 chance for 2003 to be
                              warmer
                              > > than
                              > > > > > 2002
                              > > > > > > is
                              > > > > > > > > silly. If you BELIEVE then why don't you COMMITT.
                              > 2003
                              > > > HAS
                              > > > > TO
                              > > > > > > BE
                              > > > > > > > > wamer than 2002 because man is still here and still
                              > > buring
                              > > > > > > fossil
                              > > > > > > > > fuels and still causing global
                              > > > > > > warming.......unless......something
                              > > > > > > > > else is doing it???? Maybe the SUN for example.
                              Maybe
                              > > > that
                              > > > > is
                              > > > > > > > just
                              > > > > > > > > too obvious for most people to comprehend.
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > Steve L.
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106
                              > > > > <no_reply@y...>
                              > > > > > > > wrote:
                              > > > > > > > > > Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to Warmer
                              > > > > > > > > > By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times, 1/1/03
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/earth/31WARM.html
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > "Climate experts say global temperatures in 2003
                              > could
                              > > > > match
                              > > > > > > or
                              > > > > > > > > beat
                              > > > > > > > > > the modern record set in 1998, when temperatures
                              were
                              > > > > raised
                              > > > > > > > > sharply
                              > > > > > > > > > by El Niño, a periodic disturbance of Pacific
                              Ocean
                              > > > > currents
                              > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > > > warms the atmosphere.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > El Niño that year was the strongest ever measured.
                              A
                              > > new
                              > > > > one
                              > > > > > > is
                              > > > > > > > > > brewing in the Pacific but is expected to remain
                              > > > > relatively
                              > > > > > > weak,
                              > > > > > > > > > experts say. Still, they say, a persistent
                              underlying
                              > > > > warming
                              > > > > > > > > trend
                              > > > > > > > > > could be enough to push temperatures to record
                              highs.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Some of the warming could be the result of natural
                              > > > climate
                              > > > > > > > > variation,
                              > > > > > > > > > but the experts say it is almost impossible to
                              > explain
                              > > > > > without
                              > > > > > > > > > including the heat-trapping properties of rising
                              > > levels
                              > > > of
                              > > > > > > carbon
                              > > > > > > > > > dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by
                              > > smokestacks
                              > > > > and
                              > > > > > > > > > tailpipes.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The mounting evidence of human contributions to
                              > > climate
                              > > > > > > warming
                              > > > > > > > > has
                              > > > > > > > > > raised pressure on American policy makers to
                              > > reconsider
                              > > > > their
                              > > > > > > > > > reliance on voluntary measures for reducing heat-
                              > > trapping
                              > > > > > > > > emissions.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > At a meeting of climate scientists organized by
                              the
                              > > Bush
                              > > > > > > > > > administration this month, White House officials
                              said
                              > > > > > > President
                              > > > > > > > > Bush
                              > > > > > > > > > was no longer locked into the stance he announced
                              > last
                              > > > > year —
                              > > > > > > > > calling
                              > > > > > > > > > for nothing beyond voluntary measures to slow the
                              > > growth
                              > > > > in
                              > > > > > > > > emissions
                              > > > > > > > > > until 2012.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > And Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
                              and
                              > > > > Senator
                              > > > > > > > Joseph
                              > > > > > > > > I.
                              > > > > > > > > > Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, plan to
                              introduce
                              > > > > > > legislation
                              > > > > > > > > > early in 2003 that would gradually establish
                              > mandatory
                              > > > > > > greenhouse
                              > > > > > > > > gas
                              > > > > > > > > > restrictions and a system in which companies could
                              > > trade
                              > > > > > > credits
                              > > > > > > > > they
                              > > > > > > > > > would earn by making emissions cuts.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The European Union, Japan and most other
                              industrial
                              > > > powers
                              > > > > > > have
                              > > > > > > > > > ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that, once
                              in
                              > > > > effect,
                              > > > > > > will
                              > > > > > > > > > require them to make reductions.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The growing shift toward action in the American
                              > debate
                              > > > > over
                              > > > > > > > > > greenhouse emissions comes after a decade of
                              mounting
                              > > > > > evidence
                              > > > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > > > the recent warming is caused mainly by rising
                              > > > > concentrations
                              > > > > > > of
                              > > > > > > > > such
                              > > > > > > > > > substances.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The main means of tracking climate change has been
                              to
                              > > > > > > synthesize
                              > > > > > > > > > hundreds of measurements of surface temperatures
                              > > around
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > world
                              > > > > > > > > > into a global average.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > This average reading is meaningless for any
                              > particular
                              > > > > spot,
                              > > > > > > but
                              > > > > > > > > it
                              > > > > > > > > > is a valuable way to measure long-term trends, and
                              it
                              > > > puts
                              > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > > planet
                              > > > > > > > > > in its warmest period in a millennium, with the
                              > > > trajectory
                              > > > > > > still
                              > > > > > > > > > headed upward.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > According to the Commerce Department, the global
                              > > average
                              > > > > > > surface
                              > > > > > > > > > temperature increased at a rate of about one
                              degree
                              > > per
                              > > > > 100
                              > > > > > > years
                              > > > > > > > > > over the 20th century, but since 1976 the earth
                              has
                              > > been
                              > > > > > > warming
                              > > > > > > > > at
                              > > > > > > > > > the rate of about three degrees per century.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and
                              Research
                              > > in
                              > > > > > > Britain
                              > > > > > > > > put
                              > > > > > > > > > the odds at 50-50 for 2003 to match or exceed the
                              > > > > temperature
                              > > > > > > > > record
                              > > > > > > > > > set in 1998. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of
                              the
                              > > > > > National
                              > > > > > > > > > Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
                              > > Institute
                              > > > > for
                              > > > > > > > Space
                              > > > > > > > > > Studies, put the odds higher than that, barring a
                              big
                              > > new
                              > > > > sun-
                              > > > > > > > > > blocking volcano or the like.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > A decade-long paucity of big volcanic eruptions
                              and a
                              > > > peak
                              > > > > in
                              > > > > > > > > solar
                              > > > > > > > > > intensity can account for only part of the overall
                              > > > > warming,
                              > > > > > he
                              > > > > > > > > said,
                              > > > > > > > > > adding, "Clearly it's primarily due to human
                              forcing."
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The global average temperature reached 58.0
                              degrees
                              > in
                              > > > > 1998,
                              > > > > > > > while
                              > > > > > > > > > the average from 1880 to 2001 was 56.9 degrees.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Preliminary estimates put the global temperature
                              in
                              > > 2002
                              > > > > at
                              > > > > > > 57.9
                              > > > > > > > > > degrees.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Areas like Alaska have experienced sharper
                              warming,
                              > in
                              > > > > > > patterns
                              > > > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > > > largely match projections produced by computer
                              > > > simulations
                              > > > > of
                              > > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > > > climatic effect of rising greenhouse gases.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                              Administration
                              > > > > reported
                              > > > > > > this
                              > > > > > > > > > month that satellite tracking of surface
                              conditions
                              > on
                              > > > > > > > Greenland's
                              > > > > > > > > > vast ice sheet saw more melting last summer than
                              at
                              > > any
                              > > > > time
                              > > > > > > in
                              > > > > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > > > 24-year satellite record.
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Arctic sea ice also retreated more than it had
                              done
                              > > > before
                              > > > > in
                              > > > > > > > that
                              > > > > > > > > > span, the agency said."
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > >
                              > > ADVERTISEMENT
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1
                              7
                              > 05
                              > >
                              >
                              948926:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;758668
                              7
                              > ;x
                              > > ?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>

                              > >
                              > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                              > M=234081.2821106.4184440.1925585/D=egrou
                              > > pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=507143542>
                              > >
                              > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              Service
                              > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • pawnfart
                              This is not the usual El Nino that brings rain to the SW. http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html Plenty of rain in the SW . . . NOT!
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                                This is not the usual "El Nino" that brings rain to the SW.

                                http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

                                Plenty of rain in the SW . . . NOT!

                                http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.html

                                Looks like L.A. has had about 25-50 mm anomaly of rain for the rainy
                                season month of December. That's about 2 inches. And no rain
                                since. Meanwhile--we were hammered by MORE rain when we are supposed
                                to get dry conditions. Arizona and Colorado the rest of the SW
                                continue to get hammered by dry conditions--as I predicted and
                                discuss last year:

                                Conditions:

                                http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisor
                                y/

                                Specific Gaia locale conditions (GOC/SOC):

                                http://www.rioweb.org/Archive/cnn_colorado051901.html

                                Prediction discussions:

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/844

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/1139

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/1182

                                +++++++++++++++++

                                A look at "El Nino" rain patterns:

                                See:
                                http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisor
                                y/

                                Figure 4, Precip anomalis Aug - Nov 2002

                                What you should notice is simple. The anomalies to the US perfectly
                                show the Mississippi delta wet patch, associated with the Gaia
                                conditions of the Mississippi and the dry patch associated with the
                                Colorado delta. The shape of the mid Pacific anomaly pattern is
                                interesting:

                                http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisor
                                y/advfig4.gif

                                Now compare to history:

                                Summer:

                                http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/pmel-graphics/gif/summer.gif

                                and

                                Winter:

                                http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/pmel-graphics/gif/winter.gif

                                The only match is in the mid Pacific--but even then the match is a
                                poor fit--a blob against a comma.

                                My take?

                                Solar flaring/CME like we had from August to November would typically
                                have resulted in El Nino rains to the SW. What happens is upwelling
                                occurs and that produces biological conditions that enhance cirrus
                                from the Hawiaain Islands to Southern California. BUT, this year,
                                the Gaia conditions in the GOC/SOC were SO poor that the EMF
                                conditions, even with the little food chain that did start off the
                                coast, was not enough to overcome the cold anomalies that were
                                persistant off the coast. With SSTs near S. California consistantly
                                cold and not enough biological activity to enhance EMF activity,
                                storms did not and will not track, despite the warm central Pacific
                                anomalies. Drought conditions have not abated. Indeed, the fair
                                weather EMFs eminating from the GOC/SOC have been so strong that big
                                storms have been forced up or down from the pivoting fair weather
                                area there and brought anomaly rains to the NW and the GOM, where the
                                GOM has really been hit given its Gaia health. This has resulted in
                                EMF tracking all the way to the Gulf Stream, with cold air pull downs
                                and that is why there has been a number of Nor'easters--despite the
                                fact that in typical "El Nino" years the NE is bone dry!
                              • pawnfart
                                http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow? artid=31502078 I am the dean of that other school.
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jan 5, 2003
                                  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?
                                  artid=31502078

                                  I am the dean of that other school.
                                • pawnfart
                                  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story2&cid=624&ncid=624&e=2&u=/ap/20030103/ap_on_sc/ice_melt_3 Antarctic Ice May Vanish in 7,000 Years By PAUL RECER, AP
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jan 6, 2003
                                    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
                                    tmpl=story2&cid=624&ncid=624&e=2&u=/ap/20030103/ap_on_sc/ice_melt_3

                                    Antarctic Ice May Vanish in 7,000 Years

                                    By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

                                    WASHINGTON - A natural cycle of thawing may cause an Antarctic ice
                                    sheet as big as Texas and Colorado combined to melt away in 7,000
                                    years, possibly causing a worldwide sea level rise of about 16 feet,
                                    according to new research.

                                    In a study appearing Friday in the journal Science, researchers say
                                    that geochemical measurements of when mountainside rocks first become
                                    free of ice near the south pole show that the West Antarctic Ice
                                    Sheet began melting about 10,000 years ago and is still shrinking.

                                    "There was a gradual and continuous melting," said John O. Stone,
                                    first author of the study and a professor of geology at the
                                    University of Washington, Seattle. Over thousands of years, he said,
                                    the ice has retreated at the rate of about 2 inches a year in a
                                    steady pattern that shows no sign of slowing.

                                    . . .

                                    "We see no evidence that it has stopped," he said. "The pattern we
                                    see is very steady and continuous. ... We've had 10,000 years of
                                    climate much like it is today and the ice sheet has been shrinking
                                    continuously during that time."


                                    Comment:

                                    In my view this is warm oceans of the inter glacial. BUT with a hint
                                    at what exactly IS this interglacial, there may be a few things you
                                    can say about this particular Milankovitch setting from an EMF
                                    standpoint in terms of tilt and the elliptical orbit setting itself
                                    closest to the earth during the Southern Ocean summer. BUT, to me
                                    this is more interesting from a BIOLOGICAL standpoint than anything.

                                    Because few contend that we have had a peak of the interglacial from
                                    12,500 to 7,000 years ago BP as we exited the Wisconsonian. BUT,
                                    geohistorically the interglacials have lasted 10,000 years. So what
                                    gives?

                                    Understanding EMFs and the biosphere's relationship to them leads to
                                    likely answer. Recent Rhode Island University research of coring of
                                    Equadorian lake beds suggests that ENSO has had its regular pattern
                                    of 2 to 7 years for the past 5,000 years. Before then--it was
                                    sporadic. What the researchers did--very ingenius--is xray the cores
                                    they took of the lakes to get very exact data. What it showed is that
                                    before 5,000 years ago El Ninos were rare--every 15-20 years and
                                    then . . . I don't exactly recall--but I think that there were no
                                    warm events at all.

                                    This would make complete EMF sense (no El Ninos) during a
                                    particularly warm period. Why? Again, the Southern Ocean moves
                                    clockwise, from west to east. This is the direction of induction
                                    AGAINST cirrus. Now, again, the warmer a conducter in a saline
                                    solution--our oceans, the better it conducts. In this case, the EMF
                                    conducts BETTER, but AGAINST cirrus formation and the infra red
                                    warming that occurs underneath them. Now, this is where it gets
                                    tricky (Are you reading carefully, Fred Singer?)--because the oceans
                                    are both warmer and yet convective events cannot occur where
                                    induction is so against the cirrus--there is no new snow/ice and old
                                    ice melts from the warm oceans. Cold sea surface waters gyre around,
                                    with melted ice, having no cirrus warming, and the ocean maintains a
                                    steady state La Nina. This, in my view, is what we are already
                                    starting to see by human fiat--a dominance of melting and La Nina.

                                    But here is where it gets very interesting. As Milankovitch
                                    insOlation cools the oceans, the induction patterns are somewhat
                                    modulated. That is because a cooler ocean will not melt the ice and
                                    send it floating to Peru AND there is less conductivity for the main
                                    ocean, the Southern, that inducts AGAINST cirrus. Therefore cirrus
                                    survive longer and IR balances continue to favor convection. Ambiant
                                    storms then have a better chance to make it to Antarctica without
                                    having their electrical basis cut off. SSTs also warm for conductive
                                    paths of storms. Snow/ice falls to add to the ice pack and the oceans
                                    are so cold underneath the sheets that little melts.

                                    This takes us to what ENSO is-in the huge expanse of the tropical
                                    oceans biological upwelling on enourmous scales occurs. It occurs in
                                    such a way as to modulate the event itself and to cause relatively
                                    colder SSTs to become conduc tive by their biological chemistry even
                                    before regional SSTs warm up and become conductive just by their
                                    warmness.

                                    Now, what does this have to do with Antarctica? Simple--the melting
                                    is STEADY AND matches a warming peak and a modulated fall fo the
                                    flaring cycle energies. The modulated part explains both why the
                                    melting is so gradual and the meling part also explains how steady
                                    the system is--made so by the biosphere.

                                    And how crazy we are to mess with it like we are. For instance, CO2
                                    doubled will cause pH in rainwater to go from 5.6 to 5.45--changing
                                    its conductivity and for down the road, erosion abilitities. We are
                                    talking about changing voltages in a highly tuned system--not smart!
                                  • pawnfart
                                    Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn t a big forcing as far as being a GHG but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6 to 5.45 and that has bigtime
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jan 6, 2003
                                      Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being a GHG
                                      but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6 to 5.45
                                      and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change Ci
                                      behavior in Doran waves and so forth.

                                      But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek or Time
                                      or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global warming. You
                                      people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing extremists
                                      there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there isn't
                                      something to the changes in climate that Junior High School students
                                      see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                    • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                      Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain Scare. Has a familiar ring to it doesn t it. Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jan 6, 2003
                                        Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain Scare. Has
                                        a familiar ring to it doesn't it.

                                        Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with you on
                                        your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill effects
                                        you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                        scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive today and
                                        not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at the
                                        stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.

                                        Human history is full of examples of people absolutely convinced of
                                        Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet they
                                        were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured. What
                                        makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone not
                                        agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                        necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the populace just
                                        couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too Capitalist or
                                        too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.

                                        If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                        Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                        genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the country. It
                                        is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is there
                                        unproven Theory.

                                        I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                        also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma that is
                                        worrisome.

                                        Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and the
                                        "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They are
                                        not given information on History and they can't relate to any period
                                        other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW. Every
                                        change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said that the
                                        Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did Humans' must
                                        be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????

                                        When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and farms
                                        beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be the
                                        first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                        someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                        Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil fuels
                                        because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the Ice
                                        was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been something
                                        to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an acceptable
                                        Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it might be
                                        Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                        satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D






                                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                        > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being a
                                        GHG
                                        > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6 to
                                        5.45
                                        > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change Ci
                                        > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                        >
                                        > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek or
                                        Time
                                        > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global warming.
                                        You
                                        > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing extremists
                                        > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there isn't
                                        > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                        students
                                        > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                      • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                        There are so many notable quotes regarding the necessity to maintain a skeptical mind in order to do effective Scientific reseach, that space would prohibit
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jan 6, 2003
                                          There are so many notable quotes regarding the necessity to maintain
                                          a skeptical mind in order to do effective Scientific reseach, that
                                          space would prohibit posting more than a couple. I strongly urge
                                          those of you that have lost your chastity early in this debate to
                                          ponder two such quotes.

                                          "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful
                                          to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is
                                          nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth,
                                          until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it
                                          can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness."
                                          (George Santayana)

                                          "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
                                          to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
                                          is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
                                          Thomas H. Huxley

                                          Sincerely,

                                          Steve L.



                                          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                          > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being a
                                          GHG
                                          > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6 to
                                          5.45
                                          > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change Ci
                                          > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                          >
                                          > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek or
                                          Time
                                          > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global warming.
                                          You
                                          > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing extremists
                                          > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there isn't
                                          > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                          students
                                          > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                        • pawnfart
                                          Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So what does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior? Biological systems? Probably jack.
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jan 6, 2003
                                            Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So what
                                            does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior? Biological
                                            systems? Probably jack.

                                            You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!

                                            Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global circuit is
                                            misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF conductivity,
                                            and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                            temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a global
                                            issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF has
                                            decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35 years the
                                            ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.

                                            But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms carbonic acid
                                            in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask yourself
                                            why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you get to
                                            some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion causes
                                            feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the feedbacks
                                            occur.

                                            More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater greenery--and
                                            then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There, the
                                            biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as what is on
                                            the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate fields near
                                            deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these areas
                                            change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks to Ci
                                            clouds.

                                            You are NO skeptic.

                                            And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents have a
                                            lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the drink
                                            and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism is not
                                            fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--consider who
                                            owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and see
                                            where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.


                                            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                            <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                            > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain Scare.
                                            Has
                                            > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                            >
                                            > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with you
                                            on
                                            > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                            effects
                                            > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                            > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive today
                                            and
                                            > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at the
                                            > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                            >
                                            > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely convinced of
                                            > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet
                                            they
                                            > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured. What
                                            > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone not
                                            > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                            > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the populace
                                            just
                                            > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too Capitalist or
                                            > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                            >
                                            > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                            > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                            > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the country. It
                                            > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is there
                                            > unproven Theory.
                                            >
                                            > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                            > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma that
                                            is
                                            > worrisome.
                                            >
                                            > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and the
                                            > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They are
                                            > not given information on History and they can't relate to any
                                            period
                                            > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW.
                                            Every
                                            > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said that
                                            the
                                            > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did Humans'
                                            must
                                            > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                            >
                                            > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and farms
                                            > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be the
                                            > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                            > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                            > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil fuels
                                            > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the Ice
                                            > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                            something
                                            > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an acceptable
                                            > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it might
                                            be
                                            > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                            > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                            >
                                            > Sincerely,
                                            >
                                            > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                            wrote:
                                            > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being a
                                            > GHG
                                            > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6 to
                                            > 5.45
                                            > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change Ci
                                            > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                            > >
                                            > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek or
                                            > Time
                                            > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global warming.
                                            > You
                                            > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing extremists
                                            > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there isn't
                                            > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                            > students
                                            > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                          • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                            Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It is an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant thing it has done for me is to
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                              Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It is
                                              an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant thing it
                                              has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me to
                                              make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of the
                                              current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to accept
                                              BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of things.

                                              No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I really
                                              envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard people's
                                              opinions or points made. It must come in handy when you do not have
                                              to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA holder or
                                              a RWN.

                                              No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to catch up
                                              on those topics thanks to you.

                                              With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                              compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking up the
                                              wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases in
                                              CO2 but that is just an opinion.

                                              You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am not
                                              sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380 ppmv
                                              CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2 has
                                              been much higher than current levels many times before. As high as
                                              6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have been
                                              close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial period
                                              some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in those
                                              days. What was the ph of rain water then?

                                              Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been trying to
                                              get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I think
                                              you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                              behavior. I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                              have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked to
                                              anyone about that?

                                              I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not a
                                              pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy to do?

                                              I am not really concerned about who owns my road. As long as it is
                                              a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get involved in
                                              ownership. I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                              my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with some
                                              Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota. I sort of like the
                                              current method of assigning consumption allotments. When I
                                              contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have flash
                                              backs to the good old USSR.

                                              If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far more
                                              concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful Gaia
                                              if someone like Saddam were in charge. To keep him from being in
                                              charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a war but
                                              then again maybe not. I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                              there would be no inspectors there now.

                                              Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now than
                                              10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                              planet. It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                              you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you would
                                              do any better than what has been done?

                                              Sincerely,

                                              Steve L.








                                              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                              > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So what
                                              > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                              Biological
                                              > systems? Probably jack.
                                              >
                                              > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                              >
                                              > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global circuit
                                              is
                                              > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF conductivity,
                                              > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                              > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a
                                              global
                                              > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF has
                                              > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35 years
                                              the
                                              > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                              >
                                              > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms carbonic
                                              acid
                                              > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                              yourself
                                              > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you get
                                              to
                                              > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion causes
                                              > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                              feedbacks
                                              > occur.
                                              >
                                              > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater greenery--
                                              and
                                              > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There, the
                                              > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as what is
                                              on
                                              > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate fields
                                              near
                                              > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these areas
                                              > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks to
                                              Ci
                                              > clouds.
                                              >
                                              > You are NO skeptic.
                                              >
                                              > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents have
                                              a
                                              > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the
                                              drink
                                              > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism is
                                              not
                                              > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--consider
                                              who
                                              > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and see
                                              > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                              > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                              > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain Scare.
                                              > Has
                                              > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                              > >
                                              > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with
                                              you
                                              > on
                                              > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                              > effects
                                              > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                              > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                              today
                                              > and
                                              > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at
                                              the
                                              > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                              > >
                                              > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely convinced
                                              of
                                              > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet
                                              > they
                                              > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured.
                                              What
                                              > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone
                                              not
                                              > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                              > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the populace
                                              > just
                                              > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too Capitalist
                                              or
                                              > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                              > >
                                              > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                              > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                              > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the country.
                                              It
                                              > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                              there
                                              > > unproven Theory.
                                              > >
                                              > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                              > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma
                                              that
                                              > is
                                              > > worrisome.
                                              > >
                                              > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and
                                              the
                                              > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They
                                              are
                                              > > not given information on History and they can't relate to any
                                              > period
                                              > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW.
                                              > Every
                                              > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said that
                                              > the
                                              > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did Humans'
                                              > must
                                              > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                              > >
                                              > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and farms
                                              > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be
                                              the
                                              > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                              > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                              > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil
                                              fuels
                                              > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the
                                              Ice
                                              > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                              > something
                                              > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an acceptable
                                              > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it
                                              might
                                              > be
                                              > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                              > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                              > >
                                              > > Sincerely,
                                              > >
                                              > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                              > wrote:
                                              > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being
                                              a
                                              > > GHG
                                              > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6
                                              to
                                              > > 5.45
                                              > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change
                                              Ci
                                              > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek
                                              or
                                              > > Time
                                              > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                              warming.
                                              > > You
                                              > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                              extremists
                                              > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                              isn't
                                              > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                              > > students
                                              > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                            • John Shotsky
                                              He s a lawyer. Nuff said. John ... From: Steve [mailto:stevell88@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 06:09 To:
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                                He's a lawyer. Nuff said.


                                                John

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Steve <stevell88@...> [mailto:stevell88@...]
                                                Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 06:09
                                                To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: [Global Warming] Re: The Cynics/false skeptics


                                                Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It is
                                                an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant thing it
                                                has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me to
                                                make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of the
                                                current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to accept
                                                BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of things.

                                                No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I really
                                                envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard people's
                                                opinions or points made. It must come in handy when you do not have
                                                to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA holder or
                                                a RWN.

                                                No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to catch up
                                                on those topics thanks to you.

                                                With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking up the
                                                wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases in
                                                CO2 but that is just an opinion.

                                                You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am not
                                                sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380 ppmv
                                                CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2 has
                                                been much higher than current levels many times before. As high as
                                                6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have been
                                                close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial period
                                                some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in those
                                                days. What was the ph of rain water then?

                                                Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been trying to
                                                get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I think
                                                you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                behavior. I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked to
                                                anyone about that?

                                                I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not a
                                                pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy to do?

                                                I am not really concerned about who owns my road. As long as it is
                                                a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get involved in
                                                ownership. I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with some
                                                Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota. I sort of like the
                                                current method of assigning consumption allotments. When I
                                                contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have flash
                                                backs to the good old USSR.

                                                If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far more
                                                concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful Gaia
                                                if someone like Saddam were in charge. To keep him from being in
                                                charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a war but
                                                then again maybe not. I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                there would be no inspectors there now.

                                                Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now than
                                                10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                                planet. It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you would
                                                do any better than what has been done?

                                                Sincerely,

                                                Steve L.








                                                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So what
                                                > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                Biological
                                                > systems? Probably jack.
                                                >
                                                > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                >
                                                > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global circuit
                                                is
                                                > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF conductivity,
                                                > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                                > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a
                                                global
                                                > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF has
                                                > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35 years
                                                the
                                                > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                >
                                                > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms carbonic
                                                acid
                                                > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                yourself
                                                > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you get
                                                to
                                                > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion causes
                                                > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                feedbacks
                                                > occur.
                                                >
                                                > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater greenery--
                                                and
                                                > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There, the
                                                > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as what is
                                                on
                                                > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate fields
                                                near
                                                > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these areas
                                                > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks to
                                                Ci
                                                > clouds.
                                                >
                                                > You are NO skeptic.
                                                >
                                                > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents have
                                                a
                                                > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the
                                                drink
                                                > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism is
                                                not
                                                > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--consider
                                                who
                                                > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and see
                                                > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain Scare.
                                                > Has
                                                > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                > >
                                                > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with
                                                you
                                                > on
                                                > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                                > effects
                                                > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                                > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                                today
                                                > and
                                                > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at
                                                the
                                                > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                                > >
                                                > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely convinced
                                                of
                                                > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet
                                                > they
                                                > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured.
                                                What
                                                > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone
                                                not
                                                > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                                > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the populace
                                                > just
                                                > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too Capitalist
                                                or
                                                > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                                > >
                                                > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                                > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                                > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the country.
                                                It
                                                > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                                there
                                                > > unproven Theory.
                                                > >
                                                > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                                > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma
                                                that
                                                > is
                                                > > worrisome.
                                                > >
                                                > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and
                                                the
                                                > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They
                                                are
                                                > > not given information on History and they can't relate to any
                                                > period
                                                > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW.
                                                > Every
                                                > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said that
                                                > the
                                                > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did Humans'
                                                > must
                                                > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                                > >
                                                > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and farms
                                                > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be
                                                the
                                                > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                                > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                                > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil
                                                fuels
                                                > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the
                                                Ice
                                                > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                                > something
                                                > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an acceptable
                                                > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it
                                                might
                                                > be
                                                > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                                > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                > >
                                                > > Sincerely,
                                                > >
                                                > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                > wrote:
                                                > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as being
                                                a
                                                > > GHG
                                                > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6
                                                to
                                                > > 5.45
                                                > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will change
                                                Ci
                                                > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek
                                                or
                                                > > Time
                                                > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                warming.
                                                > > You
                                                > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                extremists
                                                > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                                isn't
                                                > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                                > > students
                                                > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.



                                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                                                ADVERTISEMENT

                                                <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2725424.4169802.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
                                                948926:HM/A=1394046/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_
                                                3936_5802,FF.html> HGTV Dream Home Giveaway

                                                <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2725424.4169802.1925585/D=egrou
                                                pmail/S=:HM/A=1394046/rand=192101184>

                                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                                <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                                Thanks John, That might explain why he never aswers a question. Steve L. ... it ... accept ... have ... the ... ppmv ... been ... those ... but ... than ...
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                                  Thanks John, That might explain why he never aswers a question.

                                                  Steve L.


                                                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  > He's a lawyer. Nuff said.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > John
                                                  >
                                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > From: Steve <stevell88@y...> [mailto:stevell88@y...]
                                                  > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 06:09
                                                  > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: The Cynics/false skeptics
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It is
                                                  > an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant thing
                                                  it
                                                  > has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me to
                                                  > make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of the
                                                  > current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to
                                                  accept
                                                  > BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of things.
                                                  >
                                                  > No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I really
                                                  > envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard people's
                                                  > opinions or points made. It must come in handy when you do not
                                                  have
                                                  > to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA holder or
                                                  > a RWN.
                                                  >
                                                  > No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to catch up
                                                  > on those topics thanks to you.
                                                  >
                                                  > With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                  > compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking up
                                                  the
                                                  > wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases in
                                                  > CO2 but that is just an opinion.
                                                  >
                                                  > You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am not
                                                  > sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380
                                                  ppmv
                                                  > CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2 has
                                                  > been much higher than current levels many times before. As high as
                                                  > 6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have
                                                  been
                                                  > close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial period
                                                  > some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in
                                                  those
                                                  > days. What was the ph of rain water then?
                                                  >
                                                  > Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been trying to
                                                  > get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I think
                                                  > you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                  > behavior. I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                  > have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked to
                                                  > anyone about that?
                                                  >
                                                  > I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not a
                                                  > pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy to do?
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not really concerned about who owns my road. As long as it is
                                                  > a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get involved in
                                                  > ownership. I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                  > my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with some
                                                  > Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota. I sort of like the
                                                  > current method of assigning consumption allotments. When I
                                                  > contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have flash
                                                  > backs to the good old USSR.
                                                  >
                                                  > If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far more
                                                  > concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful Gaia
                                                  > if someone like Saddam were in charge. To keep him from being in
                                                  > charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a war
                                                  but
                                                  > then again maybe not. I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                  > there would be no inspectors there now.
                                                  >
                                                  > Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now
                                                  than
                                                  > 10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                                  > planet. It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                  > you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you
                                                  would
                                                  > do any better than what has been done?
                                                  >
                                                  > Sincerely,
                                                  >
                                                  > Steve L.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  > > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So
                                                  what
                                                  > > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                  > Biological
                                                  > > systems? Probably jack.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global circuit
                                                  > is
                                                  > > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF
                                                  conductivity,
                                                  > > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                                  > > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a
                                                  > global
                                                  > > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF
                                                  has
                                                  > > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35 years
                                                  > the
                                                  > > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms carbonic
                                                  > acid
                                                  > > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                  > yourself
                                                  > > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you
                                                  get
                                                  > to
                                                  > > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion causes
                                                  > > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                  > feedbacks
                                                  > > occur.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater greenery--
                                                  > and
                                                  > > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There, the
                                                  > > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as what
                                                  is
                                                  > on
                                                  > > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate fields
                                                  > near
                                                  > > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these areas
                                                  > > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks to
                                                  > Ci
                                                  > > clouds.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > You are NO skeptic.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents
                                                  have
                                                  > a
                                                  > > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the
                                                  > drink
                                                  > > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism is
                                                  > not
                                                  > > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--consider
                                                  > who
                                                  > > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and see
                                                  > > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                  > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                  > > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain
                                                  Scare.
                                                  > > Has
                                                  > > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with
                                                  > you
                                                  > > on
                                                  > > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                                  > > effects
                                                  > > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                                  > > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                                  > today
                                                  > > and
                                                  > > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at
                                                  > the
                                                  > > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely
                                                  convinced
                                                  > of
                                                  > > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet
                                                  > > they
                                                  > > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured.
                                                  > What
                                                  > > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone
                                                  > not
                                                  > > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                                  > > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the
                                                  populace
                                                  > > just
                                                  > > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too
                                                  Capitalist
                                                  > or
                                                  > > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                                  > > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                                  > > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the
                                                  country.
                                                  > It
                                                  > > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                                  > there
                                                  > > > unproven Theory.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                                  > > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma
                                                  > that
                                                  > > is
                                                  > > > worrisome.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and
                                                  > the
                                                  > > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They
                                                  > are
                                                  > > > not given information on History and they can't relate to any
                                                  > > period
                                                  > > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW.
                                                  > > Every
                                                  > > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said
                                                  that
                                                  > > the
                                                  > > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did
                                                  Humans'
                                                  > > must
                                                  > > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and
                                                  farms
                                                  > > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be
                                                  > the
                                                  > > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                                  > > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                                  > > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil
                                                  > fuels
                                                  > > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the
                                                  > Ice
                                                  > > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                                  > > something
                                                  > > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an
                                                  acceptable
                                                  > > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it
                                                  > might
                                                  > > be
                                                  > > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                                  > > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Sincerely,
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                  > > wrote:
                                                  > > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as
                                                  being
                                                  > a
                                                  > > > GHG
                                                  > > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6
                                                  > to
                                                  > > > 5.45
                                                  > > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will
                                                  change
                                                  > Ci
                                                  > > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek
                                                  > or
                                                  > > > Time
                                                  > > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                  > warming.
                                                  > > > You
                                                  > > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                  > extremists
                                                  > > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                                  > isn't
                                                  > > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                                  > > > students
                                                  > > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                                  >
                                                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2725424.4169802.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                                  05
                                                  >
                                                  948926:HM/A=1394046/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGT
                                                  V_
                                                  > 3936_5802,FF.html> HGTV Dream Home Giveaway
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2725424.4169802.1925585/D=egr
                                                  ou
                                                  > pmail/S=:HM/A=1394046/rand=192101184>
                                                  >
                                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                  > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • pawnfart
                                                  ... it ... accept ... But what you have done, sadly, in your act of correctly bashing CO2 as a green house gas over a more powerful forcing of clouds--is to
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                                    Replies below:


                                                    > Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It is
                                                    > an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant thing
                                                    it
                                                    > has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me to
                                                    > make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of the
                                                    > current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to
                                                    accept
                                                    > BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of things.
                                                    >

                                                    But what you have done, sadly, in your act of correctly bashing CO2
                                                    as a green house gas over a more powerful forcing of clouds--is to
                                                    disassociate CO2 from human activity as a non-player in climate
                                                    by "some" other mechanism. It has taken me to PROVE Ci behavior and
                                                    EMFs before you even looked at it--you were so blind to that
                                                    everything is "BS". Indeed, the difficulty in reconciling the two
                                                    disparate views of human caused climate change and CO2 as not a
                                                    significant forcing SHOULD have lead the true skeptic, following the
                                                    evidence, not to reject CO2 as properly correlative but to simply
                                                    reject the causal mechanism and find another. I have read your posts
                                                    and your education, no matter what it is, has led you to error by
                                                    throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sad but so.


                                                    > No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I really
                                                    > envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard people's
                                                    > opinions or points made.

                                                    I did a search and St.Cloud State and your name came up--with an MBA
                                                    to your credit.

                                                    It must come in handy when you do not have
                                                    > to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA holder or
                                                    > a RWN.

                                                    RWN is a right wing nut. Your view on climate is consistant with the
                                                    business view, not the scientific one, that favors the corporative
                                                    state. Sad but so. To the extent that you are a real scientist,
                                                    holding in honor those giants upon which I stand tall and proud, in
                                                    the best traditions of truth and humanity, but just made a f#$%ed up
                                                    mistake in your reasoning--I respect that. But it is easy for me to
                                                    ASSUME based both on the mistakes of your reasoning, your posts, and
                                                    your "MBA" that you were another right wing nut dissing regulations
                                                    pertaining to fossil fuel emissions.

                                                    >
                                                    > No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to catch up
                                                    > on those topics thanks to you.

                                                    If you don't you are NOT qualified to even enter into the discussion
                                                    and I don't care if you are a professional student with 30 degrees.

                                                    >
                                                    > With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                    > compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking up
                                                    the
                                                    > wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases in
                                                    > CO2 but that is just an opinion.

                                                    I just saw a peer reviewed study on conductivity and CO2 in water and
                                                    I don't have time to re look it up--but I will say this from a commen
                                                    sense standpoint. SOx emissions eventually wash out of the air--
                                                    fairly quickly as that goes. CO2 OTOH takes hundreds of years . . .
                                                    and again, the more regional and time limited impacts are not going
                                                    to reduce the earth's overall EMF like a more constant change from
                                                    CO2 could and does. Further, and I realize this is difficult
                                                    material, but if you are willing to read carefully I am willing to
                                                    explain, hydrology localizes carbon levels in terms of what washes
                                                    into the near shore oceans via hydrology--and then what is fed back
                                                    by large scale low freq EMFs -- to that hydrology. It gets back to
                                                    the Mao Loma Keeling Whorf data--in that it isn't the ppm increase
                                                    linear increase over the years so much as the same data showing a
                                                    greater yearly oscillation between growth and rotting--that is a
                                                    reflection of what washes down into the biosphere of the oceans and
                                                    changes conductivities in the various biological active regions where
                                                    these living earth feedbacks occur. That is how rain is increasing,
                                                    surface temperatures increase, habitats move, and glaciers melt.
                                                    Essentiallty it creates a defect in "natural" living earth feedbacks--
                                                    where a cost benefit analysis must occur in order for humans to have
                                                    a good symbiotic relationship with the biosphere that improves our
                                                    quality of life. How real is this? One only has to look at the Gulf
                                                    of California and the fires in the SW, or if you want to go further
                                                    back, the hydrology changes to the Rio, Colorado and Mississippi and
                                                    the resulting Dust Bowl of the 1930s.


                                                    >
                                                    > You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am not
                                                    > sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380
                                                    ppmv
                                                    > CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2 has
                                                    > been much higher than current levels many times before. As high as
                                                    > 6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have
                                                    been
                                                    > close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial period
                                                    > some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in
                                                    those
                                                    > days. What was the ph of rain water then?

                                                    It was higher. BUT in the context of a warmer solar insOlation and
                                                    greater range of biosphere and included that biology formed in
                                                    melting glaciers. It must be understood that CO2 is modulated by the
                                                    biosphere--it is not the forcing. If there is more sun input, the
                                                    biosphere reacts with local hydrologies to it. Less--same thing.
                                                    Like one could be of good health short or tall--one could also have a
                                                    growth hormone defect and be short. Don't confuse CO2 levels in
                                                    their biological context with the health of a particular system at a
                                                    given time.

                                                    >
                                                    > Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been trying to
                                                    > get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I think
                                                    > you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                    > behavior.

                                                    I ran a High School track meet there in 1980 and it was one of the
                                                    best, most awesome tracks I ran on (330 IMs, long and high jumps).

                                                    I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                    > have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked to
                                                    > anyone about that?

                                                    It was a joke based what came up with your name. If you don't know
                                                    that St. Cloud State is a party school by rep you have never been
                                                    there or that rep changed after I left Minnesota.


                                                    >
                                                    > I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not a
                                                    > pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy to do?
                                                    >

                                                    Democracy requires vigilance. Moreover a market economy requires
                                                    mediation between opposing camps to keep the market fair. This isn't
                                                    socialism or fascism--this is market enforcement. Finally, a market
                                                    economy can't survive efficiently or well to subsidies, especially
                                                    hidden ones.

                                                    > I am not really concerned about who owns my road.

                                                    Then you are a fool. Roads are the largest governmental asset, on
                                                    any level of government. They are subject to the most abuse as far
                                                    as tilting the spectrum toward socialism/fascism away from individual
                                                    liberties and freedoms.

                                                    As long as it is
                                                    > a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get involved in
                                                    > ownership.

                                                    Then you are an anal fool.

                                                    I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                    > my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with some
                                                    > Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota.

                                                    But that is a normative view and not a market view because if you get
                                                    your use free someone else pays. Road fascism has reached a point
                                                    that even before we hit Hubbert's peak, without planning or
                                                    foresight, or the more draconian impacts of climate, or even the
                                                    larger political instabilities in the world (fights larger then 100
                                                    billion dollar suppressions in Iraq) from the scarcity brought on by
                                                    oil, the subsidy is no longer causing economic growth. It's not just
                                                    the lack of growth, but indications like McDonalds showing a loss for
                                                    the first time ever--put that through your drive by window!

                                                    I sort of like the
                                                    > current method of assigning consumption allotments.

                                                    Then you are a fool. A fool who does not understand that democracy
                                                    requires vigilance, particularly how our largest governmental asset
                                                    is used and taxed.

                                                    When I
                                                    > contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have flash
                                                    > backs to the good old USSR.

                                                    Then you do not wish to learn from history so that it does not repeat
                                                    itself in horrifying ways.

                                                    >
                                                    > If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far more
                                                    > concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful Gaia
                                                    > if someone like Saddam were in charge.

                                                    This is a strawman and misleading false doublespeak. We prop up
                                                    dictatorships and allow their sons to bomb our cities--all in the
                                                    name of a scarce resource we subsidize the he(( out of. It is
                                                    economic, environmental, and political madness. We have entrusted
                                                    the corporative state to do its will--which is not considerate of ANY
                                                    of our ideals as individuals or even as a historical institution of
                                                    government.

                                                    To keep him from being in
                                                    > charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a war
                                                    but
                                                    > then again maybe not.

                                                    You condone the fascism even unto war. Madness.

                                                    I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                    > there would be no inspectors there now.

                                                    Rationalized madness.


                                                    >
                                                    > Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now
                                                    than
                                                    > 10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                                    > planet.

                                                    False. Women in this country now surveyed are LESS happy then they
                                                    were 30 years ago. Why? Becuase the family has been crushed by
                                                    roads and a home that no longer is. Men are more comfortable on the
                                                    road--but they too feel its effects. We have gone from a nation of
                                                    small towns and cities -- 60 % to a nation of 60% burbs--that's
                                                    according to census data. In just the last 10 years we have doubled
                                                    our driving. The subsidy of road fascism has RADICALLY changed our
                                                    culture and without question done so in a way that is not econically
                                                    or ecologically efficient. On a smaller level, all one has to do is
                                                    look at your own conduct--taking a 5,000 pound SUV to the video store
                                                    with a 5 OZ rental. This is the kind of madness that actually makes
                                                    individual market sense--in the context of a false market.

                                                    The subsidy is so bad government has become sold out to its own
                                                    market. Indeed, our political system is so corrupted by the
                                                    corporative state we look at it as nothing that our officials move
                                                    seemlessly from industry to government in a form of legal bribory.
                                                    Look at Cheney as a case in point.


                                                    It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                    > you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you
                                                    would
                                                    > do any better than what has been done?

                                                    I am not in control of the world--only in control of my vote and look
                                                    at myself as more a part of the information that is used by people to
                                                    caste their vote. I have a powerful friend--the truth in my words.

                                                    >
                                                    > Sincerely,
                                                    >
                                                    > Steve L.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    > > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So
                                                    what
                                                    > > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                    > Biological
                                                    > > systems? Probably jack.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global circuit
                                                    > is
                                                    > > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF
                                                    conductivity,
                                                    > > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                                    > > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a
                                                    > global
                                                    > > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF
                                                    has
                                                    > > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35 years
                                                    > the
                                                    > > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms carbonic
                                                    > acid
                                                    > > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                    > yourself
                                                    > > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you
                                                    get
                                                    > to
                                                    > > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion causes
                                                    > > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                    > feedbacks
                                                    > > occur.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater greenery--
                                                    > and
                                                    > > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There, the
                                                    > > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as what
                                                    is
                                                    > on
                                                    > > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate fields
                                                    > near
                                                    > > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these areas
                                                    > > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks to
                                                    > Ci
                                                    > > clouds.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > You are NO skeptic.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents
                                                    have
                                                    > a
                                                    > > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the
                                                    > drink
                                                    > > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism is
                                                    > not
                                                    > > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--consider
                                                    > who
                                                    > > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and see
                                                    > > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                    > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                    > > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain
                                                    Scare.
                                                    > > Has
                                                    > > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree with
                                                    > you
                                                    > > on
                                                    > > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                                    > > effects
                                                    > > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and non-
                                                    > > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                                    > today
                                                    > > and
                                                    > > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned at
                                                    > the
                                                    > > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely
                                                    convinced
                                                    > of
                                                    > > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object, yet
                                                    > > they
                                                    > > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has occured.
                                                    > What
                                                    > > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and anyone
                                                    > not
                                                    > > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                                    > > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the
                                                    populace
                                                    > > just
                                                    > > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too
                                                    Capitalist
                                                    > or
                                                    > > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening in
                                                    > > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                                    > > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the
                                                    country.
                                                    > It
                                                    > > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                                    > there
                                                    > > > unproven Theory.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have some
                                                    > > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma
                                                    > that
                                                    > > is
                                                    > > > worrisome.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate and
                                                    > the
                                                    > > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience. They
                                                    > are
                                                    > > > not given information on History and they can't relate to any
                                                    > > period
                                                    > > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is AGW.
                                                    > > Every
                                                    > > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said
                                                    that
                                                    > > the
                                                    > > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did
                                                    Humans'
                                                    > > must
                                                    > > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and
                                                    farms
                                                    > > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be
                                                    > the
                                                    > > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if we
                                                    > > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the declining
                                                    > > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil
                                                    > fuels
                                                    > > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and the
                                                    > Ice
                                                    > > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                                    > > something
                                                    > > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an
                                                    acceptable
                                                    > > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it
                                                    > might
                                                    > > be
                                                    > > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a perfectly
                                                    > > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Sincerely,
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                    > > wrote:
                                                    > > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as
                                                    being
                                                    > a
                                                    > > > GHG
                                                    > > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about 5.6
                                                    > to
                                                    > > > 5.45
                                                    > > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will
                                                    change
                                                    > Ci
                                                    > > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order Newsweek
                                                    > or
                                                    > > > Time
                                                    > > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                    > warming.
                                                    > > > You
                                                    > > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                    > extremists
                                                    > > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                                    > isn't
                                                    > > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High School
                                                    > > > students
                                                    > > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                                  • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                                    Pawn.....For someone that claims independence and intelligence you seem to have bought in Lock, Stock and Barrel to the Catastrophic Global Warming Scenario.
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                                      Pawn.....For someone that claims independence and intelligence you
                                                      seem to have bought in Lock, Stock and Barrel to the Catastrophic
                                                      Global Warming Scenario. In order for me to need to find another
                                                      source for the "event" (AGW) I must agree that the event (AGW)is
                                                      occurring. I have sincere doubts that the globe is warming at
                                                      anything other than a Natural Rate. If you wish to convince me
                                                      otherwise you need to provide facts not BS.

                                                      I question the Paradigm of CO2 and fossil fules because it just does
                                                      not compute. I think you agree with that?? I can see it, you can
                                                      see it and many many Scientists can see it but it is now out of the
                                                      hands of Science. It is firmly in the hands of the Politicans and
                                                      the Environmentalists.

                                                      If your worried about Fasists, look to the University System and the
                                                      National Research Organizations. They are funded and directed by
                                                      the Government. They are joined politically at the hip. Just try
                                                      to get a research grant if your research is counter to the
                                                      prevailing AGW paradigm. If Bush were in control of this Fasism why
                                                      is the $3+ Billion being spent to SUPPORT AGW research.

                                                      It is unacceptable that you resort to name calling. I am not the
                                                      smartest guy in the world but I am no fool let alone an anal fool.
                                                      You are a true believer in something and just can't understand why
                                                      someone would not believe. If they do not believe they are fools or
                                                      enemies. That places you in the same group of like thinking people
                                                      that would kill people to save them. I am not interested in that
                                                      type of belief.

                                                      Your stat that X% of a group of women are not as happy as 30 years
                                                      ago is a non-statistic. Would they be happier with fewer choices
                                                      and allocated consumption. Were they happier because their world
                                                      was dirtier and more toxic? Were they happier because their life
                                                      expectancy was lower? They may have been happier because they
                                                      stayed at home and raised their children and made the home a home.

                                                      LEAVE MY ROAD ALONE! I like it and it works. Which is more than I
                                                      can say about the future world according to Sustainability
                                                      Proponents.

                                                      Steve L.



                                                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                      > Replies below:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > > Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really. It
                                                      is
                                                      > > an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant
                                                      thing
                                                      > it
                                                      > > has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me to
                                                      > > make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of the
                                                      > > current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to
                                                      > accept
                                                      > > BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of
                                                      things.
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > But what you have done, sadly, in your act of correctly bashing
                                                      CO2
                                                      > as a green house gas over a more powerful forcing of clouds--is to
                                                      > disassociate CO2 from human activity as a non-player in climate
                                                      > by "some" other mechanism. It has taken me to PROVE Ci behavior
                                                      and
                                                      > EMFs before you even looked at it--you were so blind to that
                                                      > everything is "BS". Indeed, the difficulty in reconciling the two
                                                      > disparate views of human caused climate change and CO2 as not a
                                                      > significant forcing SHOULD have lead the true skeptic, following
                                                      the
                                                      > evidence, not to reject CO2 as properly correlative but to simply
                                                      > reject the causal mechanism and find another. I have read your
                                                      posts
                                                      > and your education, no matter what it is, has led you to error by
                                                      > throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sad but so.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > > No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I
                                                      really
                                                      > > envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard
                                                      people's
                                                      > > opinions or points made.
                                                      >
                                                      > I did a search and St.Cloud State and your name came up--with an
                                                      MBA
                                                      > to your credit.
                                                      >
                                                      > It must come in handy when you do not have
                                                      > > to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA holder
                                                      or
                                                      > > a RWN.
                                                      >
                                                      > RWN is a right wing nut. Your view on climate is consistant with
                                                      the
                                                      > business view, not the scientific one, that favors the corporative
                                                      > state. Sad but so. To the extent that you are a real scientist,
                                                      > holding in honor those giants upon which I stand tall and proud,
                                                      in
                                                      > the best traditions of truth and humanity, but just made a f#$%ed
                                                      up
                                                      > mistake in your reasoning--I respect that. But it is easy for me
                                                      to
                                                      > ASSUME based both on the mistakes of your reasoning, your posts,
                                                      and
                                                      > your "MBA" that you were another right wing nut dissing
                                                      regulations
                                                      > pertaining to fossil fuel emissions.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to catch
                                                      up
                                                      > > on those topics thanks to you.
                                                      >
                                                      > If you don't you are NOT qualified to even enter into the
                                                      discussion
                                                      > and I don't care if you are a professional student with 30 degrees.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                      > > compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking up
                                                      > the
                                                      > > wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases
                                                      in
                                                      > > CO2 but that is just an opinion.
                                                      >
                                                      > I just saw a peer reviewed study on conductivity and CO2 in water
                                                      and
                                                      > I don't have time to re look it up--but I will say this from a
                                                      commen
                                                      > sense standpoint. SOx emissions eventually wash out of the air--
                                                      > fairly quickly as that goes. CO2 OTOH takes hundreds of
                                                      years . . .
                                                      > and again, the more regional and time limited impacts are not
                                                      going
                                                      > to reduce the earth's overall EMF like a more constant change from
                                                      > CO2 could and does. Further, and I realize this is difficult
                                                      > material, but if you are willing to read carefully I am willing to
                                                      > explain, hydrology localizes carbon levels in terms of what
                                                      washes
                                                      > into the near shore oceans via hydrology--and then what is fed
                                                      back
                                                      > by large scale low freq EMFs -- to that hydrology. It gets back
                                                      to
                                                      > the Mao Loma Keeling Whorf data--in that it isn't the ppm increase
                                                      > linear increase over the years so much as the same data showing a
                                                      > greater yearly oscillation between growth and rotting--that is a
                                                      > reflection of what washes down into the biosphere of the oceans
                                                      and
                                                      > changes conductivities in the various biological active regions
                                                      where
                                                      > these living earth feedbacks occur. That is how rain is
                                                      increasing,
                                                      > surface temperatures increase, habitats move, and glaciers melt.
                                                      > Essentiallty it creates a defect in "natural" living earth
                                                      feedbacks--
                                                      > where a cost benefit analysis must occur in order for humans to
                                                      have
                                                      > a good symbiotic relationship with the biosphere that improves our
                                                      > quality of life. How real is this? One only has to look at the
                                                      Gulf
                                                      > of California and the fires in the SW, or if you want to go
                                                      further
                                                      > back, the hydrology changes to the Rio, Colorado and Mississippi
                                                      and
                                                      > the resulting Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am not
                                                      > > sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380
                                                      > ppmv
                                                      > > CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2
                                                      has
                                                      > > been much higher than current levels many times before. As high
                                                      as
                                                      > > 6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have
                                                      > been
                                                      > > close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial period
                                                      > > some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in
                                                      > those
                                                      > > days. What was the ph of rain water then?
                                                      >
                                                      > It was higher. BUT in the context of a warmer solar insOlation
                                                      and
                                                      > greater range of biosphere and included that biology formed in
                                                      > melting glaciers. It must be understood that CO2 is modulated by
                                                      the
                                                      > biosphere--it is not the forcing. If there is more sun input, the
                                                      > biosphere reacts with local hydrologies to it. Less--same thing.
                                                      > Like one could be of good health short or tall--one could also
                                                      have a
                                                      > growth hormone defect and be short. Don't confuse CO2 levels in
                                                      > their biological context with the health of a particular system at
                                                      a
                                                      > given time.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been trying
                                                      to
                                                      > > get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I
                                                      think
                                                      > > you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                      > > behavior.
                                                      >
                                                      > I ran a High School track meet there in 1980 and it was one of the
                                                      > best, most awesome tracks I ran on (330 IMs, long and high jumps).
                                                      >
                                                      > I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                      > > have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked
                                                      to
                                                      > > anyone about that?
                                                      >
                                                      > It was a joke based what came up with your name. If you don't
                                                      know
                                                      > that St. Cloud State is a party school by rep you have never been
                                                      > there or that rep changed after I left Minnesota.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not a
                                                      > > pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy to
                                                      do?
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > Democracy requires vigilance. Moreover a market economy requires
                                                      > mediation between opposing camps to keep the market fair. This
                                                      isn't
                                                      > socialism or fascism--this is market enforcement. Finally, a
                                                      market
                                                      > economy can't survive efficiently or well to subsidies, especially
                                                      > hidden ones.
                                                      >
                                                      > > I am not really concerned about who owns my road.
                                                      >
                                                      > Then you are a fool. Roads are the largest governmental asset, on
                                                      > any level of government. They are subject to the most abuse as
                                                      far
                                                      > as tilting the spectrum toward socialism/fascism away from
                                                      individual
                                                      > liberties and freedoms.
                                                      >
                                                      > As long as it is
                                                      > > a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get involved
                                                      in
                                                      > > ownership.
                                                      >
                                                      > Then you are an anal fool.
                                                      >
                                                      > I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                      > > my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with
                                                      some
                                                      > > Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota.
                                                      >
                                                      > But that is a normative view and not a market view because if you
                                                      get
                                                      > your use free someone else pays. Road fascism has reached a point
                                                      > that even before we hit Hubbert's peak, without planning or
                                                      > foresight, or the more draconian impacts of climate, or even the
                                                      > larger political instabilities in the world (fights larger then
                                                      100
                                                      > billion dollar suppressions in Iraq) from the scarcity brought on
                                                      by
                                                      > oil, the subsidy is no longer causing economic growth. It's not
                                                      just
                                                      > the lack of growth, but indications like McDonalds showing a loss
                                                      for
                                                      > the first time ever--put that through your drive by window!
                                                      >
                                                      > I sort of like the
                                                      > > current method of assigning consumption allotments.
                                                      >
                                                      > Then you are a fool. A fool who does not understand that
                                                      democracy
                                                      > requires vigilance, particularly how our largest governmental
                                                      asset
                                                      > is used and taxed.
                                                      >
                                                      > When I
                                                      > > contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have
                                                      flash
                                                      > > backs to the good old USSR.
                                                      >
                                                      > Then you do not wish to learn from history so that it does not
                                                      repeat
                                                      > itself in horrifying ways.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far
                                                      more
                                                      > > concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful
                                                      Gaia
                                                      > > if someone like Saddam were in charge.
                                                      >
                                                      > This is a strawman and misleading false doublespeak. We prop up
                                                      > dictatorships and allow their sons to bomb our cities--all in the
                                                      > name of a scarce resource we subsidize the he(( out of. It is
                                                      > economic, environmental, and political madness. We have
                                                      entrusted
                                                      > the corporative state to do its will--which is not considerate of
                                                      ANY
                                                      > of our ideals as individuals or even as a historical institution
                                                      of
                                                      > government.
                                                      >
                                                      > To keep him from being in
                                                      > > charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a war
                                                      > but
                                                      > > then again maybe not.
                                                      >
                                                      > You condone the fascism even unto war. Madness.
                                                      >
                                                      > I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                      > > there would be no inspectors there now.
                                                      >
                                                      > Rationalized madness.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now
                                                      > than
                                                      > > 10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                                      > > planet.
                                                      >
                                                      > False. Women in this country now surveyed are LESS happy then
                                                      they
                                                      > were 30 years ago. Why? Becuase the family has been crushed by
                                                      > roads and a home that no longer is. Men are more comfortable on
                                                      the
                                                      > road--but they too feel its effects. We have gone from a nation
                                                      of
                                                      > small towns and cities -- 60 % to a nation of 60% burbs--that's
                                                      > according to census data. In just the last 10 years we have
                                                      doubled
                                                      > our driving. The subsidy of road fascism has RADICALLY changed
                                                      our
                                                      > culture and without question done so in a way that is not
                                                      econically
                                                      > or ecologically efficient. On a smaller level, all one has to do
                                                      is
                                                      > look at your own conduct--taking a 5,000 pound SUV to the video
                                                      store
                                                      > with a 5 OZ rental. This is the kind of madness that actually
                                                      makes
                                                      > individual market sense--in the context of a false market.
                                                      >
                                                      > The subsidy is so bad government has become sold out to its own
                                                      > market. Indeed, our political system is so corrupted by the
                                                      > corporative state we look at it as nothing that our officials move
                                                      > seemlessly from industry to government in a form of legal
                                                      bribory.
                                                      > Look at Cheney as a case in point.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                      > > you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you
                                                      > would
                                                      > > do any better than what has been done?
                                                      >
                                                      > I am not in control of the world--only in control of my vote and
                                                      look
                                                      > at myself as more a part of the information that is used by people
                                                      to
                                                      > caste their vote. I have a powerful friend--the truth in my words.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Sincerely,
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Steve L.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                      > wrote:
                                                      > > > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So
                                                      > what
                                                      > > > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                      > > Biological
                                                      > > > systems? Probably jack.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global
                                                      circuit
                                                      > > is
                                                      > > > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF
                                                      > conductivity,
                                                      > > > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                                      > > > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is a
                                                      > > global
                                                      > > > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's EMF
                                                      > has
                                                      > > > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35
                                                      years
                                                      > > the
                                                      > > > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms
                                                      carbonic
                                                      > > acid
                                                      > > > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                      > > yourself
                                                      > > > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and you
                                                      > get
                                                      > > to
                                                      > > > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion
                                                      causes
                                                      > > > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                      > > feedbacks
                                                      > > > occur.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater
                                                      greenery--
                                                      > > and
                                                      > > > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There,
                                                      the
                                                      > > > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as
                                                      what
                                                      > is
                                                      > > on
                                                      > > > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate
                                                      fields
                                                      > > near
                                                      > > > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these
                                                      areas
                                                      > > > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF feedbacks
                                                      to
                                                      > > Ci
                                                      > > > clouds.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > You are NO skeptic.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents
                                                      > have
                                                      > > a
                                                      > > > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off the
                                                      > > drink
                                                      > > > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism
                                                      is
                                                      > > not
                                                      > > > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--
                                                      consider
                                                      > > who
                                                      > > > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and
                                                      see
                                                      > > > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it out.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                      > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                      > > > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain
                                                      > Scare.
                                                      > > > Has
                                                      > > > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree
                                                      with
                                                      > > you
                                                      > > > on
                                                      > > > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the ill
                                                      > > > effects
                                                      > > > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and
                                                      non-
                                                      > > > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                                      > > today
                                                      > > > and
                                                      > > > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been burned
                                                      at
                                                      > > the
                                                      > > > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing view.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely
                                                      > convinced
                                                      > > of
                                                      > > > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object,
                                                      yet
                                                      > > > they
                                                      > > > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has
                                                      occured.
                                                      > > What
                                                      > > > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and
                                                      anyone
                                                      > > not
                                                      > > > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of the
                                                      > > > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the
                                                      > populace
                                                      > > > just
                                                      > > > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too
                                                      > Capitalist
                                                      > > or
                                                      > > > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is happening
                                                      in
                                                      > > > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory that
                                                      > > > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the
                                                      > country.
                                                      > > It
                                                      > > > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                                      > > there
                                                      > > > > unproven Theory.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have
                                                      some
                                                      > > > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into Dogma
                                                      > > that
                                                      > > > is
                                                      > > > > worrisome.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate
                                                      and
                                                      > > the
                                                      > > > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience.
                                                      They
                                                      > > are
                                                      > > > > not given information on History and they can't relate to
                                                      any
                                                      > > > period
                                                      > > > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is
                                                      AGW.
                                                      > > > Every
                                                      > > > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said
                                                      > that
                                                      > > > the
                                                      > > > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did
                                                      > Humans'
                                                      > > > must
                                                      > > > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and
                                                      > farms
                                                      > > > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to be
                                                      > > the
                                                      > > > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised if
                                                      we
                                                      > > > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the
                                                      declining
                                                      > > > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using fossil
                                                      > > fuels
                                                      > > > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and
                                                      the
                                                      > > Ice
                                                      > > > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                                      > > > something
                                                      > > > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an
                                                      > acceptable
                                                      > > > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless it
                                                      > > might
                                                      > > > be
                                                      > > > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a
                                                      perfectly
                                                      > > > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > Sincerely,
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart
                                                      <no_reply@y...>
                                                      > > > wrote:
                                                      > > > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as
                                                      > being
                                                      > > a
                                                      > > > > GHG
                                                      > > > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about
                                                      5.6
                                                      > > to
                                                      > > > > 5.45
                                                      > > > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will
                                                      > change
                                                      > > Ci
                                                      > > > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      > > > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order
                                                      Newsweek
                                                      > > or
                                                      > > > > Time
                                                      > > > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                      > > warming.
                                                      > > > > You
                                                      > > > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                      > > extremists
                                                      > > > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                                      > > isn't
                                                      > > > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High
                                                      School
                                                      > > > > students
                                                      > > > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                                    • pawnfart
                                                      ... This paragraph proves to me that you are both unqualified to discuss climate without a relevant biological and EMF background and at the same time don t
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Jan 7, 2003
                                                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                        <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                        > Pawn.....For someone that claims independence and intelligence you
                                                        > seem to have bought in Lock, Stock and Barrel to the Catastrophic
                                                        > Global Warming Scenario. In order for me to need to find another
                                                        > source for the "event" (AGW) I must agree that the event (AGW)is
                                                        > occurring. I have sincere doubts that the globe is warming at
                                                        > anything other than a Natural Rate. If you wish to convince me
                                                        > otherwise you need to provide facts not BS.

                                                        This paragraph proves to me that you are both unqualified to discuss
                                                        climate without a relevant biological and EMF background and at the
                                                        same time don't know what you are talking about. And the one way to
                                                        communicate your ignorance, perhaps, is by this analogy, although I
                                                        suspect again it will just fall on deaf ears. But others may be
                                                        reading the same conversation and not have the same intellectual
                                                        weaknesses.

                                                        Say your name is Kory Stringer and you are an offensive right tackle
                                                        for the Minnesota Vikings. You way 340 pounds on a diet. And right
                                                        now you are doing two a days during "hell week." You have already
                                                        lost 40 pounds, mostly with water, and you are practicing with full
                                                        pads in 95 degree weather with a high relative humidity. The sun
                                                        beads down on the playing surface and heats it to 110 degrees F. A
                                                        rookie, desparate to make the team, across you -- playing defensive
                                                        tackle, slams into you. Again and again. Your head swims. You
                                                        think it is just the cob webs.

                                                        You ask for a breather--far long after the rookies have quit. You
                                                        sit on a bench and put you head between your knees and vomit. The
                                                        coaches don't notice that you have began to stop sweating. Five
                                                        minutes later you are not conscious.

                                                        Okay. The punch line. A technician goes and takes your
                                                        temperature. It reads 106 and slowly rising.

                                                        Now, the following are the false skeptic or cynic comments we have
                                                        heard--by analogy, to the Kory Stringer hypo.

                                                        1. The technician takes the temperature of Kory's hair, dripping
                                                        with sweat. It reads 95 degrees F. This shows, as in John Daly
                                                        temperature of the week--that the readings of 106 F. are without
                                                        basis as scientific readings . . .

                                                        2. The technician takes the temperature under Kory's tongue--and it
                                                        shows 106 F. and rising very slowly. You then conclude that
                                                        catastrophic body warming scenario should be severely doubted because
                                                        the warming, from such a hot day, is "natural" and the warming is
                                                        slow.

                                                        3. The technician takes a pulse and BP and finds these readings are
                                                        abnomal. However, since the temperature is slowly warming he ignores
                                                        these vital signs.

                                                        4. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature behind his ear.
                                                        It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However, the
                                                        technician doubts there is a problem that can be framed
                                                        scientificallty because the politics of football takes the science
                                                        out of the hands of the scientists and puts it into the hands of the
                                                        politicians and environmentalists. He fears this is just
                                                        about "hell" weak.

                                                        5. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature up his anal
                                                        cavity. It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However, the
                                                        University System and the National Research Organizations that have
                                                        research in "hell" week say it is healthy to play football and
                                                        practice hard in the heat of the summer. They are funded and
                                                        directed by the Government. They are joined politically at the
                                                        hip. Just try to get a research grant if your research is counter to
                                                        the prevailing paradigm that hell week is good for you. If Bush were
                                                        the leading figure of the corporative state why is the $3+ Billion
                                                        being spent to SUPPORT hell week research. [Funny thing about good
                                                        research--it tends to answer questions and solve problems and
                                                        then . . . surprise surprise--gets published. Perhaps the problem
                                                        isn't the money on research but the narrow vision of the researchers
                                                        and their narrow backgrounds].

                                                        6. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature up his anal
                                                        cavity. It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However, one
                                                        by one Kory's vital signs run down. Soon the temperature is 108
                                                        degrees F. But then something strange happens. Kory all of a sudden
                                                        looks peaceful. His body temperature slowly falls--to the room
                                                        temperature--which happens to be 98.6 degrees F. The technician
                                                        concludes that Kory is okay because his body temperature is normal.
                                                        However, a strange thing is happening--his body is stiff and he isn't
                                                        breathing!

                                                        7. A doctor comes in and asks about the stiff, lifeless body of Kory
                                                        Stringer. The doctor says that the body cannot function biologically
                                                        above this temperature. He says that is why we sweat and have
                                                        FEEDBACKS that modulate our temperature. The technician says that the
                                                        doctor is a true believer and disregards his comments.

                                                        8.

                                                        > You are a true believer in something and just can't understand why
                                                        > someone would not believe. If they do not believe they are fools
                                                        or
                                                        > enemies. That places you in the same group of like thinking people
                                                        > that would kill people to save them. I am not interested in that
                                                        > type of belief.

                                                        What do you think the blood for oil deal in Iraq is? I am an
                                                        athiest. You wouldn't know a true, skeptical person if he bit you in
                                                        the ass.


                                                        >
                                                        > Your stat that X% of a group of women are not as happy as 30 years
                                                        > ago is a non-statistic. Would they be happier with fewer choices
                                                        > and allocated consumption. Were they happier because their world
                                                        > was dirtier and more toxic? Were they happier because their life
                                                        > expectancy was lower? They may have been happier because they
                                                        > stayed at home and raised their children and made the home a home.

                                                        This is a strawman argument and assumes, falsely, that I advocate a
                                                        system without technology.

                                                        Let me add 8.

                                                        8. The doctor further questions the technician. Why didn't you ask
                                                        Mr. Stringer to jump in a cold bath? Well, because, says the
                                                        technician, people who think that a warm body is a problem want to
                                                        take technology back to the day of the horse and buggy.


                                                        >
                                                        > LEAVE MY ROAD ALONE! I like it and it works. Which is more than I
                                                        > can say about the future world according to Sustainability
                                                        > Proponents.

                                                        Now you sound like my two your old daughter fighting her sister for a
                                                        toy. Imature and stupid.

                                                        Let me add 9.

                                                        9. Why didn't you let Mr. Stinger take a cold bath, the doctor again
                                                        asks? Because I am not one of those people who worries
                                                        about "Sustainability" and keeping the body cool. If Kory's body is
                                                        108 degrees F, why should I care sustain a temperature below 108
                                                        degrees F.? I want to keep that cold bathwater for myself--I am the
                                                        one hot here--Kory has a normal body temperature. Kory's dead--you
                                                        idiot!



                                                        >
                                                        > Steve L.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                        wrote:
                                                        > > Replies below:
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > > Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really.
                                                        It
                                                        > is
                                                        > > > an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant
                                                        > thing
                                                        > > it
                                                        > > > has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me
                                                        to
                                                        > > > make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of
                                                        the
                                                        > > > current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to
                                                        > > accept
                                                        > > > BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of
                                                        > things.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > But what you have done, sadly, in your act of correctly bashing
                                                        > CO2
                                                        > > as a green house gas over a more powerful forcing of clouds--is
                                                        to
                                                        > > disassociate CO2 from human activity as a non-player in climate
                                                        > > by "some" other mechanism. It has taken me to PROVE Ci behavior
                                                        > and
                                                        > > EMFs before you even looked at it--you were so blind to that
                                                        > > everything is "BS". Indeed, the difficulty in reconciling the
                                                        two
                                                        > > disparate views of human caused climate change and CO2 as not a
                                                        > > significant forcing SHOULD have lead the true skeptic, following
                                                        > the
                                                        > > evidence, not to reject CO2 as properly correlative but to simply
                                                        > > reject the causal mechanism and find another. I have read your
                                                        > posts
                                                        > > and your education, no matter what it is, has led you to error by
                                                        > > throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sad but so.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > > No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I
                                                        > really
                                                        > > > envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard
                                                        > people's
                                                        > > > opinions or points made.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I did a search and St.Cloud State and your name came up--with an
                                                        > MBA
                                                        > > to your credit.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > It must come in handy when you do not have
                                                        > > > to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA
                                                        holder
                                                        > or
                                                        > > > a RWN.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > RWN is a right wing nut. Your view on climate is consistant with
                                                        > the
                                                        > > business view, not the scientific one, that favors the
                                                        corporative
                                                        > > state. Sad but so. To the extent that you are a real scientist,
                                                        > > holding in honor those giants upon which I stand tall and proud,
                                                        > in
                                                        > > the best traditions of truth and humanity, but just made a f#$%ed
                                                        > up
                                                        > > mistake in your reasoning--I respect that. But it is easy for me
                                                        > to
                                                        > > ASSUME based both on the mistakes of your reasoning, your posts,
                                                        > and
                                                        > > your "MBA" that you were another right wing nut dissing
                                                        > regulations
                                                        > > pertaining to fossil fuel emissions.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to
                                                        catch
                                                        > up
                                                        > > > on those topics thanks to you.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > If you don't you are NOT qualified to even enter into the
                                                        > discussion
                                                        > > and I don't care if you are a professional student with 30
                                                        degrees.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                        > > > compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking
                                                        up
                                                        > > the
                                                        > > > wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to increases
                                                        > in
                                                        > > > CO2 but that is just an opinion.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I just saw a peer reviewed study on conductivity and CO2 in water
                                                        > and
                                                        > > I don't have time to re look it up--but I will say this from a
                                                        > commen
                                                        > > sense standpoint. SOx emissions eventually wash out of the air--
                                                        > > fairly quickly as that goes. CO2 OTOH takes hundreds of
                                                        > years . . .
                                                        > > and again, the more regional and time limited impacts are not
                                                        > going
                                                        > > to reduce the earth's overall EMF like a more constant change
                                                        from
                                                        > > CO2 could and does. Further, and I realize this is difficult
                                                        > > material, but if you are willing to read carefully I am willing
                                                        to
                                                        > > explain, hydrology localizes carbon levels in terms of what
                                                        > washes
                                                        > > into the near shore oceans via hydrology--and then what is fed
                                                        > back
                                                        > > by large scale low freq EMFs -- to that hydrology. It gets back
                                                        > to
                                                        > > the Mao Loma Keeling Whorf data--in that it isn't the ppm
                                                        increase
                                                        > > linear increase over the years so much as the same data showing a
                                                        > > greater yearly oscillation between growth and rotting--that is a
                                                        > > reflection of what washes down into the biosphere of the oceans
                                                        > and
                                                        > > changes conductivities in the various biological active regions
                                                        > where
                                                        > > these living earth feedbacks occur. That is how rain is
                                                        > increasing,
                                                        > > surface temperatures increase, habitats move, and glaciers melt.
                                                        > > Essentiallty it creates a defect in "natural" living earth
                                                        > feedbacks--
                                                        > > where a cost benefit analysis must occur in order for humans to
                                                        > have
                                                        > > a good symbiotic relationship with the biosphere that improves
                                                        our
                                                        > > quality of life. How real is this? One only has to look at the
                                                        > Gulf
                                                        > > of California and the fires in the SW, or if you want to go
                                                        > further
                                                        > > back, the hydrology changes to the Rio, Colorado and Mississippi
                                                        > and
                                                        > > the resulting Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am
                                                        not
                                                        > > > sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at 380
                                                        > > ppmv
                                                        > > > CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2
                                                        > has
                                                        > > > been much higher than current levels many times before. As
                                                        high
                                                        > as
                                                        > > > 6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to have
                                                        > > been
                                                        > > > close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial
                                                        period
                                                        > > > some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned in
                                                        > > those
                                                        > > > days. What was the ph of rain water then?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > It was higher. BUT in the context of a warmer solar insOlation
                                                        > and
                                                        > > greater range of biosphere and included that biology formed in
                                                        > > melting glaciers. It must be understood that CO2 is modulated by
                                                        > the
                                                        > > biosphere--it is not the forcing. If there is more sun input,
                                                        the
                                                        > > biosphere reacts with local hydrologies to it. Less--same
                                                        thing.
                                                        > > Like one could be of good health short or tall--one could also
                                                        > have a
                                                        > > growth hormone defect and be short. Don't confuse CO2 levels in
                                                        > > their biological context with the health of a particular system
                                                        at
                                                        > a
                                                        > > given time.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been
                                                        trying
                                                        > to
                                                        > > > get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I
                                                        > think
                                                        > > > you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                        > > > behavior.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I ran a High School track meet there in 1980 and it was one of
                                                        the
                                                        > > best, most awesome tracks I ran on (330 IMs, long and high jumps).
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                        > > > have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you talked
                                                        > to
                                                        > > > anyone about that?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > It was a joke based what came up with your name. If you don't
                                                        > know
                                                        > > that St. Cloud State is a party school by rep you have never been
                                                        > > there or that rep changed after I left Minnesota.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is not
                                                        a
                                                        > > > pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy
                                                        to
                                                        > do?
                                                        > > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Democracy requires vigilance. Moreover a market economy requires
                                                        > > mediation between opposing camps to keep the market fair. This
                                                        > isn't
                                                        > > socialism or fascism--this is market enforcement. Finally, a
                                                        > market
                                                        > > economy can't survive efficiently or well to subsidies,
                                                        especially
                                                        > > hidden ones.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > > I am not really concerned about who owns my road.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Then you are a fool. Roads are the largest governmental asset,
                                                        on
                                                        > > any level of government. They are subject to the most abuse as
                                                        > far
                                                        > > as tilting the spectrum toward socialism/fascism away from
                                                        > individual
                                                        > > liberties and freedoms.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > As long as it is
                                                        > > > a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get
                                                        involved
                                                        > in
                                                        > > > ownership.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Then you are an anal fool.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                        > > > my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with
                                                        > some
                                                        > > > Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > But that is a normative view and not a market view because if you
                                                        > get
                                                        > > your use free someone else pays. Road fascism has reached a
                                                        point
                                                        > > that even before we hit Hubbert's peak, without planning or
                                                        > > foresight, or the more draconian impacts of climate, or even the
                                                        > > larger political instabilities in the world (fights larger then
                                                        > 100
                                                        > > billion dollar suppressions in Iraq) from the scarcity brought on
                                                        > by
                                                        > > oil, the subsidy is no longer causing economic growth. It's not
                                                        > just
                                                        > > the lack of growth, but indications like McDonalds showing a loss
                                                        > for
                                                        > > the first time ever--put that through your drive by window!
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I sort of like the
                                                        > > > current method of assigning consumption allotments.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Then you are a fool. A fool who does not understand that
                                                        > democracy
                                                        > > requires vigilance, particularly how our largest governmental
                                                        > asset
                                                        > > is used and taxed.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > When I
                                                        > > > contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have
                                                        > flash
                                                        > > > backs to the good old USSR.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Then you do not wish to learn from history so that it does not
                                                        > repeat
                                                        > > itself in horrifying ways.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be far
                                                        > more
                                                        > > > concerned about the state of the Environment and the beautiful
                                                        > Gaia
                                                        > > > if someone like Saddam were in charge.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > This is a strawman and misleading false doublespeak. We prop up
                                                        > > dictatorships and allow their sons to bomb our cities--all in the
                                                        > > name of a scarce resource we subsidize the he(( out of. It is
                                                        > > economic, environmental, and political madness. We have
                                                        > entrusted
                                                        > > the corporative state to do its will--which is not considerate of
                                                        > ANY
                                                        > > of our ideals as individuals or even as a historical institution
                                                        > of
                                                        > > government.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > To keep him from being in
                                                        > > > charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a
                                                        war
                                                        > > but
                                                        > > > then again maybe not.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > You condone the fascism even unto war. Madness.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                        > > > there would be no inspectors there now.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Rationalized madness.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better now
                                                        > > than
                                                        > > > 10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on this
                                                        > > > planet.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > False. Women in this country now surveyed are LESS happy then
                                                        > they
                                                        > > were 30 years ago. Why? Becuase the family has been crushed by
                                                        > > roads and a home that no longer is. Men are more comfortable on
                                                        > the
                                                        > > road--but they too feel its effects. We have gone from a nation
                                                        > of
                                                        > > small towns and cities -- 60 % to a nation of 60% burbs--that's
                                                        > > according to census data. In just the last 10 years we have
                                                        > doubled
                                                        > > our driving. The subsidy of road fascism has RADICALLY changed
                                                        > our
                                                        > > culture and without question done so in a way that is not
                                                        > econically
                                                        > > or ecologically efficient. On a smaller level, all one has to do
                                                        > is
                                                        > > look at your own conduct--taking a 5,000 pound SUV to the video
                                                        > store
                                                        > > with a 5 OZ rental. This is the kind of madness that actually
                                                        > makes
                                                        > > individual market sense--in the context of a false market.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The subsidy is so bad government has become sold out to its own
                                                        > > market. Indeed, our political system is so corrupted by the
                                                        > > corporative state we look at it as nothing that our officials
                                                        move
                                                        > > seemlessly from industry to government in a form of legal
                                                        > bribory.
                                                        > > Look at Cheney as a case in point.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                        > > > you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think you
                                                        > > would
                                                        > > > do any better than what has been done?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I am not in control of the world--only in control of my vote and
                                                        > look
                                                        > > at myself as more a part of the information that is used by
                                                        people
                                                        > to
                                                        > > caste their vote. I have a powerful friend--the truth in my
                                                        words.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Sincerely,
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Steve L.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                        > > wrote:
                                                        > > > > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right? So
                                                        > > what
                                                        > > > > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                        > > > Biological
                                                        > > > > systems? Probably jack.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global
                                                        > circuit
                                                        > > > is
                                                        > > > > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF
                                                        > > conductivity,
                                                        > > > > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase change
                                                        > > > > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2 is
                                                        a
                                                        > > > global
                                                        > > > > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's
                                                        EMF
                                                        > > has
                                                        > > > > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35
                                                        > years
                                                        > > > the
                                                        > > > > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms
                                                        > carbonic
                                                        > > > acid
                                                        > > > > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                        > > > yourself
                                                        > > > > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and
                                                        you
                                                        > > get
                                                        > > > to
                                                        > > > > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion
                                                        > causes
                                                        > > > > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                        > > > feedbacks
                                                        > > > > occur.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater
                                                        > greenery--
                                                        > > > and
                                                        > > > > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There,
                                                        > the
                                                        > > > > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as
                                                        > what
                                                        > > is
                                                        > > > on
                                                        > > > > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate
                                                        > fields
                                                        > > > near
                                                        > > > > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these
                                                        > areas
                                                        > > > > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF
                                                        feedbacks
                                                        > to
                                                        > > > Ci
                                                        > > > > clouds.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > You are NO skeptic.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my parents
                                                        > > have
                                                        > > > a
                                                        > > > > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off
                                                        the
                                                        > > > drink
                                                        > > > > and start to think--and be willing to understand that fascism
                                                        > is
                                                        > > > not
                                                        > > > > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--
                                                        > consider
                                                        > > > who
                                                        > > > > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN and
                                                        > see
                                                        > > > > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it
                                                        out.
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                                                        <stevell88@y...>"
                                                        > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                        > > > > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain
                                                        > > Scare.
                                                        > > > > Has
                                                        > > > > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree
                                                        > with
                                                        > > > you
                                                        > > > > on
                                                        > > > > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the
                                                        ill
                                                        > > > > effects
                                                        > > > > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and
                                                        > non-
                                                        > > > > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am alive
                                                        > > > today
                                                        > > > > and
                                                        > > > > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been
                                                        burned
                                                        > at
                                                        > > > the
                                                        > > > > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing
                                                        view.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely
                                                        > > convinced
                                                        > > > of
                                                        > > > > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to object,
                                                        > yet
                                                        > > > > they
                                                        > > > > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has
                                                        > occured.
                                                        > > > What
                                                        > > > > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and
                                                        > anyone
                                                        > > > not
                                                        > > > > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of
                                                        the
                                                        > > > > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the
                                                        > > populace
                                                        > > > > just
                                                        > > > > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too
                                                        > > Capitalist
                                                        > > > or
                                                        > > > > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the Theory.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is
                                                        happening
                                                        > in
                                                        > > > > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory
                                                        that
                                                        > > > > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the
                                                        > > country.
                                                        > > > It
                                                        > > > > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that is
                                                        > > > there
                                                        > > > > > unproven Theory.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I have
                                                        > some
                                                        > > > > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into
                                                        Dogma
                                                        > > > that
                                                        > > > > is
                                                        > > > > > worrisome.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > Junior High School students know of the changes in climate
                                                        > and
                                                        > > > the
                                                        > > > > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from experience.
                                                        > They
                                                        > > > are
                                                        > > > > > not given information on History and they can't relate to
                                                        > any
                                                        > > > > period
                                                        > > > > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is
                                                        > AGW.
                                                        > > > > Every
                                                        > > > > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that said
                                                        > > that
                                                        > > > > the
                                                        > > > > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did
                                                        > > Humans'
                                                        > > > > must
                                                        > > > > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History knowledge?????
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings and
                                                        > > farms
                                                        > > > > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to
                                                        be
                                                        > > > the
                                                        > > > > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised
                                                        if
                                                        > we
                                                        > > > > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the
                                                        > declining
                                                        > > > > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using
                                                        fossil
                                                        > > > fuels
                                                        > > > > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold and
                                                        > the
                                                        > > > Ice
                                                        > > > > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have been
                                                        > > > > something
                                                        > > > > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an
                                                        > > acceptable
                                                        > > > > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless
                                                        it
                                                        > > > might
                                                        > > > > be
                                                        > > > > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a
                                                        > perfectly
                                                        > > > > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > Sincerely,
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart
                                                        > <no_reply@y...>
                                                        > > > > wrote:
                                                        > > > > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far as
                                                        > > being
                                                        > > > a
                                                        > > > > > GHG
                                                        > > > > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from about
                                                        > 5.6
                                                        > > > to
                                                        > > > > > 5.45
                                                        > > > > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will
                                                        > > change
                                                        > > > Ci
                                                        > > > > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                        > > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order
                                                        > Newsweek
                                                        > > > or
                                                        > > > > > Time
                                                        > > > > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                        > > > warming.
                                                        > > > > > You
                                                        > > > > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                        > > > extremists
                                                        > > > > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that there
                                                        > > > isn't
                                                        > > > > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High
                                                        > School
                                                        > > > > > students
                                                        > > > > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                                      • Steve <stevell88@yahoo.com>
                                                        Pawn, You left one scenario out: Kory s temperature was taken by the IPCC and it was determined that the 106F temperature could not have occured without human
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Jan 8, 2003
                                                          Pawn, You left one scenario out:

                                                          Kory's temperature was taken by the IPCC and it was determined that
                                                          the 106F temperature could not have occured without human induced
                                                          warming. A quick review was conducted and it was determined that
                                                          Kory consumed malted beverages the night before and these containded
                                                          CO2 gases which must have evaporated and surrounded his brian. These
                                                          gases "trapped" radiation and through a process know as IPCC
                                                          Radiative Concoction raised the temperature immediately surrounding
                                                          Kory's head to a higher level than would be normal. Therefore a New
                                                          Temperature History of the heads of football players during practice
                                                          was conducted and the results proved the existance of BEER Induced
                                                          Football Player Head Warming. Unfortunately they didn't have any
                                                          good prior records so they used the proxy of the color of the players
                                                          socks after practice. Close enough.

                                                          Calling me names certainly allows everyone with any intelligence to
                                                          see how biased and unscientific you really are. Keep it up.

                                                          I again ask you to show me the facts that you claim prove AGW and
                                                          it's significence. Since it is so obvious and I am so ill informed,
                                                          it should be easy to do. So do it.

                                                          Steve L.




                                                          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve <stevell88@y...>"
                                                          > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                          > > Pawn.....For someone that claims independence and intelligence
                                                          you
                                                          > > seem to have bought in Lock, Stock and Barrel to the Catastrophic
                                                          > > Global Warming Scenario. In order for me to need to find another
                                                          > > source for the "event" (AGW) I must agree that the event (AGW)is
                                                          > > occurring. I have sincere doubts that the globe is warming at
                                                          > > anything other than a Natural Rate. If you wish to convince me
                                                          > > otherwise you need to provide facts not BS.
                                                          >
                                                          > This paragraph proves to me that you are both unqualified to
                                                          discuss
                                                          > climate without a relevant biological and EMF background and at the
                                                          > same time don't know what you are talking about. And the one way
                                                          to
                                                          > communicate your ignorance, perhaps, is by this analogy, although I
                                                          > suspect again it will just fall on deaf ears. But others may be
                                                          > reading the same conversation and not have the same intellectual
                                                          > weaknesses.
                                                          >
                                                          > Say your name is Kory Stringer and you are an offensive right
                                                          tackle
                                                          > for the Minnesota Vikings. You way 340 pounds on a diet. And right
                                                          > now you are doing two a days during "hell week." You have already
                                                          > lost 40 pounds, mostly with water, and you are practicing with full
                                                          > pads in 95 degree weather with a high relative humidity. The sun
                                                          > beads down on the playing surface and heats it to 110 degrees F. A
                                                          > rookie, desparate to make the team, across you -- playing defensive
                                                          > tackle, slams into you. Again and again. Your head swims. You
                                                          > think it is just the cob webs.
                                                          >
                                                          > You ask for a breather--far long after the rookies have quit. You
                                                          > sit on a bench and put you head between your knees and vomit. The
                                                          > coaches don't notice that you have began to stop sweating. Five
                                                          > minutes later you are not conscious.
                                                          >
                                                          > Okay. The punch line. A technician goes and takes your
                                                          > temperature. It reads 106 and slowly rising.
                                                          >
                                                          > Now, the following are the false skeptic or cynic comments we have
                                                          > heard--by analogy, to the Kory Stringer hypo.
                                                          >
                                                          > 1. The technician takes the temperature of Kory's hair, dripping
                                                          > with sweat. It reads 95 degrees F. This shows, as in John Daly
                                                          > temperature of the week--that the readings of 106 F. are without
                                                          > basis as scientific readings . . .
                                                          >
                                                          > 2. The technician takes the temperature under Kory's tongue--and it
                                                          > shows 106 F. and rising very slowly. You then conclude that
                                                          > catastrophic body warming scenario should be severely doubted
                                                          because
                                                          > the warming, from such a hot day, is "natural" and the warming is
                                                          > slow.
                                                          >
                                                          > 3. The technician takes a pulse and BP and finds these readings
                                                          are
                                                          > abnomal. However, since the temperature is slowly warming he
                                                          ignores
                                                          > these vital signs.
                                                          >
                                                          > 4. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature behind his
                                                          ear.
                                                          > It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However, the
                                                          > technician doubts there is a problem that can be framed
                                                          > scientificallty because the politics of football takes the science
                                                          > out of the hands of the scientists and puts it into the hands of
                                                          the
                                                          > politicians and environmentalists. He fears this is just
                                                          > about "hell" weak.
                                                          >
                                                          > 5. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature up his anal
                                                          > cavity. It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However,
                                                          the
                                                          > University System and the National Research Organizations that have
                                                          > research in "hell" week say it is healthy to play football and
                                                          > practice hard in the heat of the summer. They are funded and
                                                          > directed by the Government. They are joined politically at the
                                                          > hip. Just try to get a research grant if your research is counter
                                                          to
                                                          > the prevailing paradigm that hell week is good for you. If Bush
                                                          were
                                                          > the leading figure of the corporative state why is the $3+ Billion
                                                          > being spent to SUPPORT hell week research. [Funny thing about good
                                                          > research--it tends to answer questions and solve problems and
                                                          > then . . . surprise surprise--gets published. Perhaps the problem
                                                          > isn't the money on research but the narrow vision of the
                                                          researchers
                                                          > and their narrow backgrounds].
                                                          >
                                                          > 6. The technician takes Kory Stringer's temperature up his anal
                                                          > cavity. It reads 106 degrees F. and is slowly rising. However,
                                                          one
                                                          > by one Kory's vital signs run down. Soon the temperature is 108
                                                          > degrees F. But then something strange happens. Kory all of a
                                                          sudden
                                                          > looks peaceful. His body temperature slowly falls--to the room
                                                          > temperature--which happens to be 98.6 degrees F. The technician
                                                          > concludes that Kory is okay because his body temperature is
                                                          normal.
                                                          > However, a strange thing is happening--his body is stiff and he
                                                          isn't
                                                          > breathing!
                                                          >
                                                          > 7. A doctor comes in and asks about the stiff, lifeless body of
                                                          Kory
                                                          > Stringer. The doctor says that the body cannot function
                                                          biologically
                                                          > above this temperature. He says that is why we sweat and have
                                                          > FEEDBACKS that modulate our temperature. The technician says that
                                                          the
                                                          > doctor is a true believer and disregards his comments.
                                                          >
                                                          > 8.
                                                          >
                                                          > > You are a true believer in something and just can't understand
                                                          why
                                                          > > someone would not believe. If they do not believe they are fools
                                                          > or
                                                          > > enemies. That places you in the same group of like thinking
                                                          people
                                                          > > that would kill people to save them. I am not interested in that
                                                          > > type of belief.
                                                          >
                                                          > What do you think the blood for oil deal in Iraq is? I am an
                                                          > athiest. You wouldn't know a true, skeptical person if he bit you
                                                          in
                                                          > the ass.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Your stat that X% of a group of women are not as happy as 30
                                                          years
                                                          > > ago is a non-statistic. Would they be happier with fewer choices
                                                          > > and allocated consumption. Were they happier because their world
                                                          > > was dirtier and more toxic? Were they happier because their
                                                          life
                                                          > > expectancy was lower? They may have been happier because they
                                                          > > stayed at home and raised their children and made the home a
                                                          home.
                                                          >
                                                          > This is a strawman argument and assumes, falsely, that I advocate a
                                                          > system without technology.
                                                          >
                                                          > Let me add 8.
                                                          >
                                                          > 8. The doctor further questions the technician. Why didn't you
                                                          ask
                                                          > Mr. Stringer to jump in a cold bath? Well, because, says the
                                                          > technician, people who think that a warm body is a problem want to
                                                          > take technology back to the day of the horse and buggy.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > LEAVE MY ROAD ALONE! I like it and it works. Which is more than
                                                          I
                                                          > > can say about the future world according to Sustainability
                                                          > > Proponents.
                                                          >
                                                          > Now you sound like my two your old daughter fighting her sister for
                                                          a
                                                          > toy. Imature and stupid.
                                                          >
                                                          > Let me add 9.
                                                          >
                                                          > 9. Why didn't you let Mr. Stinger take a cold bath, the doctor
                                                          again
                                                          > asks? Because I am not one of those people who worries
                                                          > about "Sustainability" and keeping the body cool. If Kory's body
                                                          is
                                                          > 108 degrees F, why should I care sustain a temperature below 108
                                                          > degrees F.? I want to keep that cold bathwater for myself--I am
                                                          the
                                                          > one hot here--Kory has a normal body temperature. Kory's dead--you
                                                          > idiot!
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Steve L.
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart <no_reply@y...>
                                                          > wrote:
                                                          > > > Replies below:
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > > Pawn, I am not certain what my Ph.D has done for me really.
                                                          > It
                                                          > > is
                                                          > > > > an excellant question though. Perhaps the most significant
                                                          > > thing
                                                          > > > it
                                                          > > > > has done for me is to provide me with the tools that allow me
                                                          > to
                                                          > > > > make critical judgement and to form opinions, independant of
                                                          > the
                                                          > > > > current paradigm of Science. In other words, I don't have to
                                                          > > > accept
                                                          > > > > BS just because it is the currently favored explaination of
                                                          > > things.
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > But what you have done, sadly, in your act of correctly bashing
                                                          > > CO2
                                                          > > > as a green house gas over a more powerful forcing of clouds--is
                                                          > to
                                                          > > > disassociate CO2 from human activity as a non-player in climate
                                                          > > > by "some" other mechanism. It has taken me to PROVE Ci
                                                          behavior
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > EMFs before you even looked at it--you were so blind to that
                                                          > > > everything is "BS". Indeed, the difficulty in reconciling the
                                                          > two
                                                          > > > disparate views of human caused climate change and CO2 as not a
                                                          > > > significant forcing SHOULD have lead the true skeptic,
                                                          following
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > evidence, not to reject CO2 as properly correlative but to
                                                          simply
                                                          > > > reject the causal mechanism and find another. I have read your
                                                          > > posts
                                                          > > > and your education, no matter what it is, has led you to error
                                                          by
                                                          > > > throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sad but so.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > > No, I did not do an MBA and I have no idea what a RWN is. I
                                                          > > really
                                                          > > > > envy your ability to so easliy clasify and thus disregard
                                                          > > people's
                                                          > > > > opinions or points made.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I did a search and St.Cloud State and your name came up--with
                                                          an
                                                          > > MBA
                                                          > > > to your credit.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > It must come in handy when you do not have
                                                          > > > > to defend your point of view against anyone that is a MBA
                                                          > holder
                                                          > > or
                                                          > > > > a RWN.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > RWN is a right wing nut. Your view on climate is consistant
                                                          with
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > business view, not the scientific one, that favors the
                                                          > corporative
                                                          > > > state. Sad but so. To the extent that you are a real
                                                          scientist,
                                                          > > > holding in honor those giants upon which I stand tall and
                                                          proud,
                                                          > > in
                                                          > > > the best traditions of truth and humanity, but just made a f#$%
                                                          ed
                                                          > > up
                                                          > > > mistake in your reasoning--I respect that. But it is easy for
                                                          me
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > ASSUME based both on the mistakes of your reasoning, your
                                                          posts,
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > your "MBA" that you were another right wing nut dissing
                                                          > > regulations
                                                          > > > pertaining to fossil fuel emissions.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > No, I do not know much about EMF's or Ci but I am going to
                                                          > catch
                                                          > > up
                                                          > > > > on those topics thanks to you.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > If you don't you are NOT qualified to even enter into the
                                                          > > discussion
                                                          > > > and I don't care if you are a professional student with 30
                                                          > degrees.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > With CO2 having the dissociation Constant of 4.3x10-7 (at 25C)
                                                          > > > > compared to SO2 at a full 1.0, I believe that you are barking
                                                          > up
                                                          > > > the
                                                          > > > > wrong tree to get at a lower Ph for rain water due to
                                                          increases
                                                          > > in
                                                          > > > > CO2 but that is just an opinion.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I just saw a peer reviewed study on conductivity and CO2 in
                                                          water
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > I don't have time to re look it up--but I will say this from a
                                                          > > commen
                                                          > > > sense standpoint. SOx emissions eventually wash out of the
                                                          air--
                                                          > > > fairly quickly as that goes. CO2 OTOH takes hundreds of
                                                          > > years . . .
                                                          > > > and again, the more regional and time limited impacts are not
                                                          > > going
                                                          > > > to reduce the earth's overall EMF like a more constant change
                                                          > from
                                                          > > > CO2 could and does. Further, and I realize this is difficult
                                                          > > > material, but if you are willing to read carefully I am willing
                                                          > to
                                                          > > > explain, hydrology localizes carbon levels in terms of what
                                                          > > washes
                                                          > > > into the near shore oceans via hydrology--and then what is fed
                                                          > > back
                                                          > > > by large scale low freq EMFs -- to that hydrology. It gets
                                                          back
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > the Mao Loma Keeling Whorf data--in that it isn't the ppm
                                                          > increase
                                                          > > > linear increase over the years so much as the same data showing
                                                          a
                                                          > > > greater yearly oscillation between growth and rotting--that is
                                                          a
                                                          > > > reflection of what washes down into the biosphere of the oceans
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > changes conductivities in the various biological active regions
                                                          > > where
                                                          > > > these living earth feedbacks occur. That is how rain is
                                                          > > increasing,
                                                          > > > surface temperatures increase, habitats move, and glaciers
                                                          melt.
                                                          > > > Essentiallty it creates a defect in "natural" living earth
                                                          > > feedbacks--
                                                          > > > where a cost benefit analysis must occur in order for humans to
                                                          > > have
                                                          > > > a good symbiotic relationship with the biosphere that improves
                                                          > our
                                                          > > > quality of life. How real is this? One only has to look at
                                                          the
                                                          > > Gulf
                                                          > > > of California and the fires in the SW, or if you want to go
                                                          > > further
                                                          > > > back, the hydrology changes to the Rio, Colorado and
                                                          Mississippi
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > the resulting Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > You state that CO2 has never been more than 1% of air. I am
                                                          > not
                                                          > > > > sure I understand the significance of that knowledge but at
                                                          380
                                                          > > > ppmv
                                                          > > > > CO2 is a lot less than 1% of air at present. In addition, CO2
                                                          > > has
                                                          > > > > been much higher than current levels many times before. As
                                                          > high
                                                          > > as
                                                          > > > > 6000 ppmv by some accounts. In fact, it has been shown to
                                                          have
                                                          > > > been
                                                          > > > > close to current levels after the end of the last Glacial
                                                          > period
                                                          > > > > some 10,000+ years ago. Not many fossil fuels being burned
                                                          in
                                                          > > > those
                                                          > > > > days. What was the ph of rain water then?
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > It was higher. BUT in the context of a warmer solar insOlation
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > greater range of biosphere and included that biology formed in
                                                          > > > melting glaciers. It must be understood that CO2 is modulated
                                                          by
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > biosphere--it is not the forcing. If there is more sun input,
                                                          > the
                                                          > > > biosphere reacts with local hydrologies to it. Less--same
                                                          > thing.
                                                          > > > Like one could be of good health short or tall--one could also
                                                          > > have a
                                                          > > > growth hormone defect and be short. Don't confuse CO2 levels
                                                          in
                                                          > > > their biological context with the health of a particular system
                                                          > at
                                                          > > a
                                                          > > > given time.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Yes St Cloud is a beautiful place. Yes, my wife has been
                                                          > trying
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > > get me to cut back on my beer consumption for many years. I
                                                          > > think
                                                          > > > > you will probably have the same impact she has had on that
                                                          > > > > behavior.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I ran a High School track meet there in 1980 and it was one of
                                                          > the
                                                          > > > best, most awesome tracks I ran on (330 IMs, long and high
                                                          jumps).
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I do appreciate your concern however. You do seem to
                                                          > > > > have a need to alter other peoples behaviors. Have you
                                                          talked
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > > anyone about that?
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > It was a joke based what came up with your name. If you don't
                                                          > > know
                                                          > > > that St. Cloud State is a party school by rep you have never
                                                          been
                                                          > > > there or that rep changed after I left Minnesota.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > I agree Fascism is what you say it is. However anarchy is
                                                          not
                                                          > a
                                                          > > > > pretty place either and socialism doesn't work. What's a guy
                                                          > to
                                                          > > do?
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Democracy requires vigilance. Moreover a market economy
                                                          requires
                                                          > > > mediation between opposing camps to keep the market fair. This
                                                          > > isn't
                                                          > > > socialism or fascism--this is market enforcement. Finally, a
                                                          > > market
                                                          > > > economy can't survive efficiently or well to subsidies,
                                                          > especially
                                                          > > > hidden ones.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > > I am not really concerned about who owns my road.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Then you are a fool. Roads are the largest governmental asset,
                                                          > on
                                                          > > > any level of government. They are subject to the most abuse as
                                                          > > far
                                                          > > > as tilting the spectrum toward socialism/fascism away from
                                                          > > individual
                                                          > > > liberties and freedoms.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > As long as it is
                                                          > > > > a good road and maintained well, I would rather not get
                                                          > involved
                                                          > > in
                                                          > > > > ownership.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Then you are an anal fool.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I do have some problems with people that try to change
                                                          > > > > my road in order to effect my life style so it conforms with
                                                          > > some
                                                          > > > > Paradym about an acceptable consumption quota.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > But that is a normative view and not a market view because if
                                                          you
                                                          > > get
                                                          > > > your use free someone else pays. Road fascism has reached a
                                                          > point
                                                          > > > that even before we hit Hubbert's peak, without planning or
                                                          > > > foresight, or the more draconian impacts of climate, or even
                                                          the
                                                          > > > larger political instabilities in the world (fights larger then
                                                          > > 100
                                                          > > > billion dollar suppressions in Iraq) from the scarcity brought
                                                          on
                                                          > > by
                                                          > > > oil, the subsidy is no longer causing economic growth. It's
                                                          not
                                                          > > just
                                                          > > > the lack of growth, but indications like McDonalds showing a
                                                          loss
                                                          > > for
                                                          > > > the first time ever--put that through your drive by window!
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I sort of like the
                                                          > > > > current method of assigning consumption allotments.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Then you are a fool. A fool who does not understand that
                                                          > > democracy
                                                          > > > requires vigilance, particularly how our largest governmental
                                                          > > asset
                                                          > > > is used and taxed.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > When I
                                                          > > > > contemplate a government assignment of consumption I do have
                                                          > > flash
                                                          > > > > backs to the good old USSR.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Then you do not wish to learn from history so that it does not
                                                          > > repeat
                                                          > > > itself in horrifying ways.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > If I were asked, and I wasn't, I would say that I would be
                                                          far
                                                          > > more
                                                          > > > > concerned about the state of the Environment and the
                                                          beautiful
                                                          > > Gaia
                                                          > > > > if someone like Saddam were in charge.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > This is a strawman and misleading false doublespeak. We prop
                                                          up
                                                          > > > dictatorships and allow their sons to bomb our cities--all in
                                                          the
                                                          > > > name of a scarce resource we subsidize the he(( out of. It is
                                                          > > > economic, environmental, and political madness. We have
                                                          > > entrusted
                                                          > > > the corporative state to do its will--which is not considerate
                                                          of
                                                          > > ANY
                                                          > > > of our ideals as individuals or even as a historical
                                                          institution
                                                          > > of
                                                          > > > government.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > To keep him from being in
                                                          > > > > charge of the Middle East (and all the oil there) may take a
                                                          > war
                                                          > > > but
                                                          > > > > then again maybe not.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > You condone the fascism even unto war. Madness.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I do know that unless we threatened war,
                                                          > > > > there would be no inspectors there now.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Rationalized madness.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner and life is better
                                                          now
                                                          > > > than
                                                          > > > > 10, 20, 30 years ago for the great majority of peoples on
                                                          this
                                                          > > > > planet.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > False. Women in this country now surveyed are LESS happy then
                                                          > > they
                                                          > > > were 30 years ago. Why? Becuase the family has been crushed
                                                          by
                                                          > > > roads and a home that no longer is. Men are more comfortable
                                                          on
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > road--but they too feel its effects. We have gone from a
                                                          nation
                                                          > > of
                                                          > > > small towns and cities -- 60 % to a nation of 60% burbs--that's
                                                          > > > according to census data. In just the last 10 years we have
                                                          > > doubled
                                                          > > > our driving. The subsidy of road fascism has RADICALLY changed
                                                          > > our
                                                          > > > culture and without question done so in a way that is not
                                                          > > econically
                                                          > > > or ecologically efficient. On a smaller level, all one has to
                                                          do
                                                          > > is
                                                          > > > look at your own conduct--taking a 5,000 pound SUV to the video
                                                          > > store
                                                          > > > with a 5 OZ rental. This is the kind of madness that actually
                                                          > > makes
                                                          > > > individual market sense--in the context of a false market.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > The subsidy is so bad government has become sold out to its own
                                                          > > > market. Indeed, our political system is so corrupted by the
                                                          > > > corporative state we look at it as nothing that our officials
                                                          > move
                                                          > > > seemlessly from industry to government in a form of legal
                                                          > > bribory.
                                                          > > > Look at Cheney as a case in point.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > It is not as good as it "can" be but it will never be. If
                                                          > > > > you could control the worlds behavior what makes you think
                                                          you
                                                          > > > would
                                                          > > > > do any better than what has been done?
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I am not in control of the world--only in control of my vote
                                                          and
                                                          > > look
                                                          > > > at myself as more a part of the information that is used by
                                                          > people
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > caste their vote. I have a powerful friend--the truth in my
                                                          > words.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Sincerely,
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Steve L.
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart
                                                          <no_reply@y...>
                                                          > > > wrote:
                                                          > > > > > Thank you for flashing your PhD. You have an MBA, right?
                                                          So
                                                          > > > what
                                                          > > > > > does the PhD do for you regarding EMFs and Ci behavior?
                                                          > > > > Biological
                                                          > > > > > systems? Probably jack.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > You ARE a false skeptic and a RWN. I am not unable to READ!
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > Moreover, your understanding of acid rain and the global
                                                          > > circuit
                                                          > > > > is
                                                          > > > > > misguided. SOx emissions only will impact local EMF
                                                          > > > conductivity,
                                                          > > > > > and do so in the context that the SOx drops the phase
                                                          change
                                                          > > > > > temperature of the Ci clouds--obviating the problem. CO2
                                                          is
                                                          > a
                                                          > > > > global
                                                          > > > > > issue and impacts the global circuit. Indeed, the earth's
                                                          > EMF
                                                          > > > has
                                                          > > > > > decreased 8 % over the past 100 years and over the past 35
                                                          > > years
                                                          > > > > the
                                                          > > > > > ionosphere has SHRUNK five miles.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > But local hydrologies are impacted as well. CO2 forms
                                                          > > carbonic
                                                          > > > > acid
                                                          > > > > > in rain and increases erosion abilities of that rain. Ask
                                                          > > > > yourself
                                                          > > > > > why has CO2 never been more than 1 percent of the air--and
                                                          > you
                                                          > > > get
                                                          > > > > to
                                                          > > > > > some of the basic Gaia issues and feedbacks. More erosion
                                                          > > causes
                                                          > > > > > feedbacks of sed and detritus flow to the oceans where the
                                                          > > > > feedbacks
                                                          > > > > > occur.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > More CO2, as the nutrients in soil allow, cause greater
                                                          > > greenery--
                                                          > > > > and
                                                          > > > > > then seasonal rotting, which flows into the oceans. There,
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > > > biosphere must adjust. The ocean biosphere is the same as
                                                          > > what
                                                          > > > is
                                                          > > > > on
                                                          > > > > > the land--and much of it is below the surface in hydrate
                                                          > > fields
                                                          > > > > near
                                                          > > > > > deltas. Changing biological materials flowing into these
                                                          > > areas
                                                          > > > > > change the behavior of the biosphere in terms of EMF
                                                          > feedbacks
                                                          > > to
                                                          > > > > Ci
                                                          > > > > > clouds.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > You are NO skeptic.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > And BTW St. Cloud State is a beautiful area--where my
                                                          parents
                                                          > > > have
                                                          > > > > a
                                                          > > > > > lake home. But it is a party school. You need to lay off
                                                          > the
                                                          > > > > drink
                                                          > > > > > and start to think--and be willing to understand that
                                                          fascism
                                                          > > is
                                                          > > > > not
                                                          > > > > > fair, smart or free. Next time you drive down the road--
                                                          > > consider
                                                          > > > > who
                                                          > > > > > owns it and how much you pay for it. Meanwhile, what CNN
                                                          and
                                                          > > see
                                                          > > > > > where your billions are spent in a war for oil. Figure it
                                                          > out.
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                                                          > <stevell88@y...>"
                                                          > > > > > <stevell88@y...> wrote:
                                                          > > > > > > Thanks for the information. I do remember the Acid Rain
                                                          > > > Scare.
                                                          > > > > > Has
                                                          > > > > > > a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > Now, to your comments regarding Skeptics. I do not agree
                                                          > > with
                                                          > > > > you
                                                          > > > > > on
                                                          > > > > > > your thesis that CO2 and it's projected doubling has the
                                                          > ill
                                                          > > > > > effects
                                                          > > > > > > you anticipate. That makes me a right wing-extremist and
                                                          > > non-
                                                          > > > > > > scientific and stupid. I am very fortunate that I am
                                                          alive
                                                          > > > > today
                                                          > > > > > and
                                                          > > > > > > not in the days of the inquisiton. I would have been
                                                          > burned
                                                          > > at
                                                          > > > > the
                                                          > > > > > > stake in those days because I dare to have an opposing
                                                          > view.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > Human history is full of examples of people absolutely
                                                          > > > convinced
                                                          > > > > of
                                                          > > > > > > Facts based on Theories, dening anyone the right to
                                                          object,
                                                          > > yet
                                                          > > > > > they
                                                          > > > > > > were completely wrong. Time and time again this has
                                                          > > occured.
                                                          > > > > What
                                                          > > > > > > makes you so absolutely convinced that you are RIGHT and
                                                          > > anyone
                                                          > > > > not
                                                          > > > > > > agreeing with you WRONG? Human history also tells us of
                                                          > the
                                                          > > > > > > necessary enforcement of the WRONG Theories because the
                                                          > > > populace
                                                          > > > > > just
                                                          > > > > > > couldn't think for themselves, or were Stupid, or too
                                                          > > > Capitalist
                                                          > > > > or
                                                          > > > > > > too Jewish or too something that disagreed with the
                                                          Theory.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > If you think that I exaggerate please note what is
                                                          > happening
                                                          > > in
                                                          > > > > > > Africa. Millions will die because of one groups Theory
                                                          > that
                                                          > > > > > > genetically modified corn should not be allowed in the
                                                          > > > country.
                                                          > > > > It
                                                          > > > > > > is better to kill millions that to unleash the evil that
                                                          is
                                                          > > > > there
                                                          > > > > > > unproven Theory.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > I have no problem with your belief in your Theory. I
                                                          have
                                                          > > some
                                                          > > > > > > also. It is your turning of your unproven Theory into
                                                          > Dogma
                                                          > > > > that
                                                          > > > > > is
                                                          > > > > > > worrisome.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > Junior High School students know of the changes in
                                                          climate
                                                          > > and
                                                          > > > > the
                                                          > > > > > > "reasons" for it from there teachers not from
                                                          experience.
                                                          > > They
                                                          > > > > are
                                                          > > > > > > not given information on History and they can't relate to
                                                          > > any
                                                          > > > > > period
                                                          > > > > > > other than NOW. Every rain storm or the lack of rain is
                                                          > > AGW.
                                                          > > > > > Every
                                                          > > > > > > change is AGW. We even had someone on this group that
                                                          said
                                                          > > > that
                                                          > > > > > the
                                                          > > > > > > Climate should never change on this Planet and if it did
                                                          > > > Humans'
                                                          > > > > > must
                                                          > > > > > > be causing it. Talk about a lack of History
                                                          knowledge?????
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > When the Greenland Glacier melts and we find buildings
                                                          and
                                                          > > > farms
                                                          > > > > > > beneath them, we must ask how could that be? this has to
                                                          > be
                                                          > > > > the
                                                          > > > > > > first time for all this, Right? I would not be surprised
                                                          > if
                                                          > > we
                                                          > > > > > > someday find a note in the ruins discovered from the
                                                          > > declining
                                                          > > > > > > Glaciers, stating that they should have stopped using
                                                          > fossil
                                                          > > > > fuels
                                                          > > > > > > because their coal fires had caused it to get too cold
                                                          and
                                                          > > the
                                                          > > > > Ice
                                                          > > > > > > was crashing down on them. More likely, it would have
                                                          been
                                                          > > > > > something
                                                          > > > > > > to do with angering the Gods but that is no longer an
                                                          > > > acceptable
                                                          > > > > > > Scientific or Political point of view these days. Unless
                                                          > it
                                                          > > > > might
                                                          > > > > > be
                                                          > > > > > > Gaia that is upset with something. That would be a
                                                          > > perfectly
                                                          > > > > > > satisfactory Scientific and Politcal point of view.
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > Sincerely,
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > Steven L Ludwig, Ph.D
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, pawnfart
                                                          > > <no_reply@y...>
                                                          > > > > > wrote:
                                                          > > > > > > > Okay I certainly agree CO2 isn't a big forcing as far
                                                          as
                                                          > > > being
                                                          > > > > a
                                                          > > > > > > GHG
                                                          > > > > > > > but just pH alone a doubling causes rain to go from
                                                          about
                                                          > > 5.6
                                                          > > > > to
                                                          > > > > > > 5.45
                                                          > > > > > > > and that has bigtime conductivity implications AND will
                                                          > > > change
                                                          > > > > Ci
                                                          > > > > > > > behavior in Doran waves and so forth.
                                                          > > > > > > >
                                                          > > > > > > > But don't let me ramble on by saying you won't order
                                                          > > Newsweek
                                                          > > > > or
                                                          > > > > > > Time
                                                          > > > > > > > or watch MSNBC because they ran another story on global
                                                          > > > > warming.
                                                          > > > > > > You
                                                          > > > > > > > people are the MOST non-scientific group of right wing
                                                          > > > > extremists
                                                          > > > > > > > there are--and then are stupid enough to think that
                                                          there
                                                          > > > > isn't
                                                          > > > > > > > something to the changes in climate that Junior High
                                                          > > School
                                                          > > > > > > students
                                                          > > > > > > > see, plain as the nose on your face.
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.