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

Re: [Global Warming] FYI: Environmental Defense

Expand Messages
  • Mark K
    ... From: lasallia To: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [Global Warming] FYI:
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "lasallia" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <globalwarming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:58 PM
      Subject: Re: [Global Warming] FYI: Environmental Defense


      > Mark wrote:
      >
      > >>>>> Temperature records are well under 2 centuries, and ACCURATE
      > temperature records are measured in decades, not centuries.
      >
      > I'm sorry but your meaning is not clear here. Temperature is
      > measured by degrees. What exactly are you saying?

      <<< Just exactly what I said. Temperature RECORDS are well under 2
      centuries. and ACCURATE records have only been kept a few decades.
      Before that, we have nothing but extrapolations with huge margins of error,
      especially since the current "warming" over t he last century is less than 1
      degree C, and the margins of error for extrapolation of historical
      temperatures are HUGE.

      >
      > >>>>> That records are set...??? Is no more an indication of
      > catastrophic change than the LAST time temperature records were set.
      >
      > I didn't say catastrophic change. Please do not ascribe words to me
      > which I did not use.

      You didn't say catastrophic changes. You merely alluded to catastrophic
      RESULTS. There's a distinction, but no difference.

      >
      > >>>>>Again, if we're going to talk about global warming, then talk a
      > bout global warming, not emotional rants about record cold or warm
      > temperatures.
      >
      > Again, do not ascribe to me that which I did not say. My post was
      > not emotional. Before you start accusing others of being emotional,
      > you should take a cold look at your own hysteria.

      You have posted stories about some recent weather records being set. While
      great trivia, it is irrelevant unless - AS YOU HAVE DONE - you imply that
      these are some kind of evidence of man-caused global warming. They are
      not. Thus, the only possible purpose of posting them is to provoke an
      emotional reaction to influence things your way.

      >
      > >>>> So, HOW MUCH has the planet "warmed" in the last half century?
      > The last century? How much outside of "normal" is it? What
      > is "normal"? How do we know what "normal" is?
      >
      > This was my whole point. If you look at the global temperature it
      > just gives a brief snapshot but does not give any implication of the
      > weather events that are engendered by more energy in the atmosphere.
      > Weather is a mechanism for releasing that energy. More energy means
      > more energetic weather. The Gulf Stream runs faster, the jet stream
      > gets loopier. While we expect unusual weather to occur sporadically,
      > we do not usually see unusual weather in so many places at one time.

      How on earth would you know? We only have weather records for a TINY
      fraction of the earth's surface for a TINY fraction of known history. We
      have no way of knowing if the weather we're seeing is unusual or normal-
      since we have no historical data to measure it by.

      >
      > > Why would you consider "normal" just be whatever the temperature
      > was when we started keeping records?
      >
      > Why would you think I considered that?

      You've based your comments upon recent events being "abnormal", and yet
      provide no historical context for this analysis. Thus, I am left with the
      only other possible conclusions... You're basing your view of what's
      "normal" and what's "not normal" only upon recent weather record
      compilations - which are useless, because they are too small of a sample in
      both area and time to be of any statistical significance.



      North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
      personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net
      sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net
      Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -

      > Sal
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • lasallia
      So ... the GHG doesn t exist and it s all the other stuff that keeps us from freezing up? And ever has done. And the highways are causing the recent rapid
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        So ... the GHG doesn't exist and it's all the other stuff that keeps us
        from freezing up? And ever has done.

        And the highways are causing the recent rapid warming trend? With a
        few Walmart parking lots. And because these surfaces are creating
        extra heat (radiation to you) this is bouncing up, bouncing off,
        bouncing back and warming the oceans. Have I got it in a nutshell?

        Is this your theory, that you want me to research and then accept
        because you say it's theoretically obvious?
      • lasallia
        I see. I was confusing temperature records and record temperatures. The Central England Temperatures record goes back to 1659, I think. It has been updated
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I see. I was confusing temperature records and record temperatures.
          The Central England Temperatures record goes back to 1659, I think.
          It has been updated and allowances made for heat island effect and
          all that good stuff, but it's a continuous record for almost 350
          years. Then we have proxy records from numerous sources. All
          together they give us a pretty good idea.

          Incidentally, when I say normal I'm thinking of the climate our
          society has developed with, is most comfortable with, is economically
          tuned to.

          "You didn't say catastrophic changes. You merely alluded to
          catastrophic RESULTS. There's a distinction, but no difference."

          No, I don't think I even 'merely alluded' to catastrophe. But while
          we are on the topic, I can't imagine a global catastrophe, which is
          why I neither stated nor alluded to it, just minor local disasters.
          Epidemics, maybe, if water supplies are compromised in time of
          flooding. Loss of life, definitely, but we as a species aren't
          threatened. I would be sad to lose polar bears, but I think the
          Antarctic will stay frozen for the penguins. Right now, I'm in
          agreement with the guy who said, "Sit back and watch the show." I'm
          going to live on or near the equator, as the most stable place to be,
          providing you avoid the coast. And I'm going to sit back and watch.

          Personally I think that human fertility is going to plummet in the
          next 25 years, that whole 50% drop in sperm count thing, and that
          will sort the whole mess out.

          Sal





          > >
          > > >>>>> Temperature records are well under 2 centuries, and ACCURATE
          > > temperature records are measured in decades, not centuries.
          > >
          > > I'm sorry but your meaning is not clear here. Temperature is
          > > measured by degrees. What exactly are you saying?
          >
        • Hartlod
          You seem NOT to understand lasallia that the allowances seem to use the flawed interpretations inherit in climate science . You also overlook the recorded
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            You seem NOT to understand lasallia that the 'allowances' seem to use the
            flawed interpretations inherit in 'climate science'.

            You also overlook the recorded cultural records of the person living at the
            time to correlate climate and the play of temperatures.

            YOU OVERLOOK the proper use of statistical methodology TO REALISE that those
            OLDER measurements are made WITH LESS accuracy, which means that the
            calculations you WISH TO BELIEVE have not only GREATER instrument error than
            YOU SEEM TO realise (or even understand), this error is COMPOUNDED by the
            ESTIMATES you mention as 'allowances' based on 'flawed' interpretations as
            found within 'climate science'.

            When you 'say normal' lasallia you make reference to an IMAGINARY situation
            FABRICATED by the flawed interpretations you prefer to believe are 'true'.
            Cultures develop in many different situations, in many different climates.
            With the amount of 'science fiction' contained in you inferences can you
            wonder why scientists look at the style of presentations you make, and ask
            why you think these inferences should be believed?

            On top of all those problems you still wish to avoid noticing that the
            actual materials do not display the actual behaviours you would like
            everyone to 'believe' they possess.

            Next, you need to understand that alteration to turbulence is NOT only due
            to INCREASES in KINETIC ENERGY input but ALSO to DECREASES, infact ANY
            ALTERATION to kinetic energy input. THIS would of course mean lasallia you
            DO NEED to understand the DIFFERENCE tween KINETIC ENERGY and PHOTONIC
            'energy', the TRANSITIONS between these energy forms and the DIFFERENT
            BEHAVIOURS exhibited by these energy forms.
            Otherwise little you say HAS any backing IN science.

            Perhaps you should look at the definitions you use to see how realistic they
            are, and how realistic they allow your beliefs to be.

            Your's, Peter K. Anderson (a.k.a. HartlodĀ®)
            From the PC of Peter K Anderson
            E-Mail: Hartlod@...


            In Response to:-

            From: lasallia
            Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 7:15 am
            Subject: Catastrophic records

            I see. I was confusing temperature records and record temperatures.
            The Central England Temperatures record goes back to 1659, I think.
            It has been updated and allowances made for heat island effect and
            all that good stuff, but it's a continuous record for almost 350
            years. Then we have proxy records from numerous sources. All
            together they give us a pretty good idea.

            Incidentally, when I say normal I'm thinking of the climate our
            society has developed with, is most comfortable with, is economically
            tuned to.

            No, I don't think I even 'merely alluded' to catastrophe. But while
            we are on the topic, I can't imagine a global catastrophe, which is
            why I neither stated nor alluded to it, just minor local disasters.
            Epidemics, maybe, if water supplies are compromised in time of
            flooding. Loss of life, definitely, but we as a species aren't
            threatened. I would be sad to lose polar bears, but I think the
            Antarctic will stay frozen for the penguins. Right now, I'm in
            agreement with the guy who said, "Sit back and watch the show." I'm
            going to live on or near the equator, as the most stable place to be,
            providing you avoid the coast. And I'm going to sit back and watch.

            Personally I think that human fertility is going to plummet in the
            next 25 years, that whole 50% drop in sperm count thing, and that
            will sort the whole mess out.

            Sal
          • Hartlod
            The hypothesised GHG Effect does not exist , as the materials labelled as the so-called GHG s do no behave in reality in the manner the hypothesised
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              The hypothesised "GHG Effect' does not exist <xxx>, as the materials
              labelled as the so-called "GHG's" do no behave in reality in the manner the
              hypothesised effect requires.

              This was the first problem with the hypothesis that PREVENTED the
              hypothesised GHG Effect being given VALIDATION.

              Next, it is the presence of the star Sol that provides the energy that
              drives the warming processes, these processes do not include a process as
              described by the hypothesised "GHG Effect" as this effect is NOT possible
              with the materials it includes in the manner it outlines.

              Remember that HEAT is a measure of the averaged intrinsic kinetic energy of
              the atoms/molecules in the sample, and TEMPERATURE is a scaled measure of
              HEAT.

              The surface is the main interactor converting the non kinetic energy of
              incident radiation into kinetic energy. The energy is in the UV-A sub
              spectrum, and that part of the UV-B sub spectrum that escapes OZONE (O3)
              interactions. UV-C is used totally in the production of OZONE from O2.

              Alterations to the surface materialing will alter the amount of intrinsic
              kinetic gain BY the surface materialing AND alter the remittence of energy
              as PHOTONS both in the 'DAY' and in the 'NIGHT'.

              It is known already that the surface reemitted in the Microwave/near
              Microwave spectrum. The rematerialing, with the properties of the materials
              used in the construction of Human habitat well known, places more energy
              that is the 'sweet spot' for H2O to convert into intrinsic kinetic energy,
              into the region of the atmosphere where H2O is at its highest partial
              pressure, near the surface under the water ice point. The kinetic energy
              gained by H2O molecules is easily conducted to other molecules in this
              region as this region is ALSO that portion of the atmosphere with the
              highest DENSITY, so intermolecular collisions ARE COMMON.

              Remember that CONDUCTION is the propagation of kinetic energy by transfer in
              physical collision.

              Now the example of the 'highway' was given by an individual with the same
              apparent lack of science that you posses <xxx>. They also overlooked that
              the constant 'temperature rise of 10 degrees' was associated with the
              highway during the day, not with the volume of traffic. IF there is no wind,
              you might also observe 'night time' variations dependant on the partial
              pressure of H2O, gauged by a partial quantity measure like HUMIDITY, if no
              other measure is available.


              You do however show <xxx> the same misunderstanding involving energy
              propagation that so many involved with the hypothesised GHG effect display.

              Heat is a measure of intrinsic kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a
              sample.

              Radiation is the propagation of energy in a photonic wave. This energy has
              no kinetic potential.

              In the atmosphere, and in nature generally (trying to be polite, radiation
              and 'heat' do NOT bounce.

              A photon will either INTERACT, or NOT interact. IF there is in interaction,
              the COLLECTED Quantum Theories give defining behaviours, the energy of the
              photon will be absorbed and reemitted or retained in accord with the
              COLLECTED Quantum Theories as behaviours documented for the materials
              involved.

              Interactions including the conversion of photonic energy to intrinsic
              kinetic energy are included in the Quantum Wave portions of the Collected
              Quantum Theories, so energy retained by molecules that is converted to
              'heat' is NOT able to 'bounce' as it is NOW literally the PROPERTY of that
              molecule AND GOES WHERE THAT MOLECULE GOES.

              Energy REEMITTED is as a 'photonic wave', which has NO kinetic component.
              The photons move from interaction to interaction. The 'direction' of
              remittence in interaction if RANDOM. This is NOT bouncing as the ingoing and
              outgoing photons are NOT the same 'energy packet' and do NOT even have the
              same overall property specification, the latest interaction producing a
              photon with properties accord by the MATERIAL incident.

              Also, it is NOT 'a few Wal-Mart parking lots', have you ever wondered <xxx>
              at the energy that drives the constant turbulence high over cityscapes, and
              <xxx>, why do you ignore that often repeated mention that actual TEMPERATURE
              seems NOT to have risen in any validatable manner ABOVE 1 degree.

              Though of course this would depend on the manner of calculation of what
              should be 'normal' and <xxx>, there are very few who see the calculation
              being offered by 'climate change science' as being even correct in method
              and theory, let alone capable of expressing determinations of 'trends'.

              Perhaps you should do some reading <xxx>, and less proclaiming of some
              'pious position of correctness'.

              These are not my theories <xxx>, my words outline the outlook of SCIENCE,
              that area that the pundits of the 'hypothesised GHG Effect' RAN from after
              NOT being validated near 50 years ago. Seems <xxx> the ONLY thing 'climate
              science' CAN claim expertise on IS RUNNING.


              Your's, Peter K. Anderson (a.k.a. HartlodĀ®)
              From the PC of Peter K Anderson
              E-Mail: Hartlod@...

              In Response to:-



              -----Original Message-----
              From: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:globalwarming@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of lasallia
              Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:47 AM
              To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Global Warming] The albedo effect


              So ... the GHG doesn't exist and it's all the other stuff that keeps us
              from freezing up? And ever has done.

              And the highways are causing the recent rapid warming trend? With a
              few Walmart parking lots. And because these surfaces are creating
              extra heat (radiation to you) this is bouncing up, bouncing off,
              bouncing back and warming the oceans. Have I got it in a nutshell?

              Is this your theory, that you want me to research and then accept
              because you say it's theoretically obvious?
            • tarh7777
              Or did I just not understand your position. What I thought that this forum was about was the increase of global temperature caused by me driving my car or
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Or did I just not understand your position. What I thought that this
                forum was about was the increase of global temperature caused by me
                driving my car or staying up past dark. And can the enviroment
                assimilate the incremental increase caused by same.

                I don't have easy access to the internet so I haven't been monitoring
                this for some time. I suspect a plot to silence me.
              • lasallia
                Who would plot to silence you, Ross? I can t think of anyone that would do such a thing. And I don t mind you driving a car, although I would like to you to
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Who would plot to silence you, Ross? I can't think of anyone that
                  would do such a thing. And I don't mind you driving a car, although I
                  would like to you to save money by driving a fuel efficient car. I'd
                  also like you to turn the lights off when you're not using them. Just
                  to lower your fuel bill. Just to show how much I care.

                  Sal

                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, tarh7777 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  > Or did I just not understand your position. What I thought that this
                  > forum was about was the increase of global temperature caused by me
                  > driving my car or staying up past dark. And can the enviroment
                  > assimilate the incremental increase caused by same.
                  >
                  > I don't have easy access to the internet so I haven't been monitoring
                  > this for some time. I suspect a plot to silence me.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.