"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 7

02-02-2007, 03:58 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote:
> In article <1yQwh.6113$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote:
>>> In article <63Qwh.3199$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.net>,
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> it is Santa Ana winds.
>>> Oh, I LOVE Santana! "Riders On The Storm", "Help!" and more! What a
>>> great band!
>> Trivia alert. Carlos Santana's father used to be my barber. Small world
>> sometimes. It was interesting to listen to him brag on his son while
>> clipping my hair. Then Santana made it big and did the right thing by
>> his father so he could close the shop.
>> That was way back in about 1967. I never met Carlos though.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Those who say they remember the sixties weren't there :-)
>
> Maybe you DID meet Carlos, after all.

As of 1967 my only vice was beer. That soon changed and I forget the
rest of the 60's. They were a haze of partying.
Bill Baka

02-02-2007, 04:03 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote:

>But it isn't about the environment, it's about power, control, and
>wealth.

Couldn't agree more. And that applies at the individual level as well
- look at the funding spent on pro-global warming, and then contrast
the money spent on contrarian studies. No contest - you simply can't
get rich telling people that there's no lurking invisible monster
about to eat the earth, it seems.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-02-2007, 04:13 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn

>> They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

> They, China, are still Communists so the nuclear plants just might be
> a way for them to build up a reserve of Plutonium for you know what.

Nope, they've had nukes for that for decades now.

They're also looking at producing hydrogen with nukes for car fuel etc too.

>>>>> and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming
>>>>> phenomena might make the weather wildly unpredictable

>>>> Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

>>> There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
>>> volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
>>> the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.

>> Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.

>> Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

> It may more gradual

No may about it.

> but I don't like the overall trend.

It hasnt even been established that the overall trend is due to human activity.

> In the long run the trashing of the plant life to advance things for a few people will have an
> effect on the CO2.

Thats a much smaller effect than even just burning coal for power generation.

> Remember that plants recycle the CO2 back into O2 and use the Carbon for growth. Less plants and
> more CO2.

That is actually a relatively small sink for CO2.

> So here we are not making the CO2 but we are killing the forests that give us Oxygen.

It aint that black and white.

> It will be a gradual effect to us, but in terms of what happens to the planet in it's 4.6 billion
> years it's is a sudden change.

We've seen much more sudden change in the past, most obviously with the ice ages etc.

>>>>> to the point of taking out most of humanity.

>>>> Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

> Not a chance, but possible.

Nope, not even possible. Humas are FAR too adaptable for that.

It didnt even happen when humans had bugger all in
the way of technology and were just hunter gatherers

> Only the politicians have bunkers with years of food stashed.

Wrong. Thats what the grain silos are.

> I always wondered why it was so important to save the often fat and useless politicians. Would
> they repopulate the world with junior politicians?

Not if they arent into real ****ing like Slick wasnt.

>>> No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
>>> and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.

>> That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.

> Watch some educational television once in a while,

I watch a hell of a lot more of that than you do thanks child.

And understand it too, unlike you.

> and they might change your mind, if that is possible. Why did wooly mammoths and sabre tooth
> tigers go extinct about 10,000 years ago?

Natural climate change. Plenty of what went extinct did so before
humans even showed up, so it cant have been the humans that did that.

>>> Humans sure do make a difference, now and then.

>> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to that silly
>> claim about 'to the point of taking out most of humanity'

> Most of humanity does not have the resources to survive even one really bad year,

Wrong. Happens all the time now. We no longer see people starving to death
in places like India and China. They were doing that only half a century ago.

The only time that happens anymore is when the pathetic excuse
for a country has imploded in civil chaos and civil war now.

> much less 20 too hundreds of years.

Wrong again. Human society has worked out how
to adjust to much more dramatic climate change than
anything we have seen in say the last decade or so.

> As I mentioned the politicians will save themselves first, and that is a sorry state of affairs.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
dont have a clue about what happens with climate change.

>> The striking thing is how adaptable humanity is to climate variation.

>> In spades now compared with during the ice ages etc.

>> We've worked out how to grow stuff where it grows best and
>> move it to where its going to be consumed for centurys now.

> You have quite a set of rose colored glasses I have to admit.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>> And how to move immense numbers of people around the world permanently too.

> From one over populated area to another?

That wasnt what happened, most obviously with the migration to the americas.

And even china has managed to work out how to do something
about over population and to eliminate famine in that country too.

You dont see famine in India anymore either.

There might just be a reason why you dont.

>>>>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were once considered impossible ten
>>>>> or twenty years ago.

>>>> And those didnt even get close to taking out most of humanity.

>>> Those are just a pre-cursor to what CAN happen.

>> Nothing will be taking out most of humanity, you watch.

> OK,
> I'll live to 200 and take notes on the way.

Wont happen either, you'll have wanked yourself blind long before that.

> Most of humanity, in terms of sheer numbers, lives in pathetically poor areas.

And we dont see periodic inevitable famine there anymore. Funny that.

> 3 or 4 billion would not survive a global event, even if it took 50 to 100 years to actually
> happen.

Fantasy.

> Many countries seem to be on welfare courtesy of the United States.

Pig ignorant fantasy. Bugger all are.

> If we have to cut off our free lunch to save our own country

Wont happen either. The most that might happen is that
the areas of north america used to grow food changes,
just like its changed radically over time for other reasons.

> then others will truly be hurting.

Another silly pig ignorant fantasy. The modern reality is a VAST over
supply of food, essentially due to the industrialisation of agriculture.

Climate change wont have any effect on that.

> We started "Foreign aid" to keep people away from Communism.

That happened even before communism was invented.

> We won by bankrupting the USSR but are still giving poor countries a free ride to some extent.

Nope, its just aid to those growing it.

>>>>> The planet might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.

>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

>>> Wow. I wasn't trolling for either an ******* or a moron, but I seem to have found one.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> I'm not bull****ting,

You clearly were doing just that there.

> I just watch the history channel and the other educational channels rather than waste my time
> watching 'Survivor' or 'Big Brother' or some other total waste of time.

You might not be alone on that.

> BBC has done some very informative work that I would advise you to watch

Take your advice and shove it up your arse.

I might just have been doing that since before you were even born thanks, child.

And managed to comprehend what has happened historically too, unlike you.

> if you can with your head so for up your ass.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> London had an all-time record high over 100 degrees F within the
>>> last 2 years and we have had record cold temperature here in California.

>> Neither of which are anything special where hordes of people live.

> Yeah right, 30 million plus people in California is trivial.

Didnt say that. I JUST said that plenty more than that live where the
temperatures routinely get to much lower than that every winter and do fine.

Have a look at china and russia some time, child.

> And of course the entire UK is nothing special, just some islands.

Plenty more see temps that high every single summer, child.

>>> What we might get at first is wildly fluctuating weather, them WHAM, an ice age or a hot age.

>> Taint gunna happen on that silly WHAM claim.

> That was WHAM in terms of geological time.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> I'll let someone else take up the fight.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.

>> Thats the drug you're crazed by, stupid.

> Well then I'm flying high as a kite,

That's always been obvious.

> because I just ate two chocolate donut things.

Who cares ?

02-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Fischer wrote:
>>> Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
>>> ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
>>> shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
>>> but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
>>> lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
>>> that condition.
>> They are possible but never any recorded damage in California until
>> recently.
>
> Are you sure? One thing that is not talked
> about is that record low temperatures are more
> common than record high temperatures, and there
> is probably a good reason for that.
> And just the right conditions of very cold air
> aloft and heavy precipitation may not coincide often,
> the tornados in Florida last night were pretty fierce.
>
>> And it is Santa Ana winds.
>
> Maybe not, if you know any native California
> Spanish speaking people, ask them.
>
> Maybe every weather man in the US is wrong
> about that. :-)
>
> Joe Fischer
>
Our weather man says Santa Ana, and I don't know any native Spanish
speaking people so.....
Bill Baka

02-02-2007, 04:31 PM

"Mark Hickey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>But it isn't about the environment, it's about power, control, and
>>wealth.
>
> Couldn't agree more. And that applies at the individual level as well
> - look at the funding spent on pro-global warming, and then contrast
> the money spent on contrarian studies. No contest - you simply can't
> get rich telling people that there's no lurking invisible monster
> about to eat the earth, it seems.
>

That's perceptive. Look at all the weather forecasters making a good living
by trumpeting how bad a weather front is moving in. How two inches of snow
(here in New England, no less!) will cause the Earth to stand still. Gloom
and doom sells.

02-02-2007, 04:34 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>>> Joe Fischer wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were
>>>>> once considered impossible ten or twenty years ago. The planet
>>>>> might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.

>>>> Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
>>>> ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
>>>> shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
>>>> but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
>>>> lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
>>>> that condition.
>>
>>> If you don't get it now I doubt you ever will.
>>> It's a little known thing called "Cause and effect".

>> Look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

>After something, then because of something?
"after this, therefore because of this"
>Latin logic?

Classical, logical fallacy.

A temporal sequence of two things; one following another.
The fallacy is that the earlier caused the later.

e.g. Cat walks across front lawn and picture falls from the wall.

Sequence is not proof of causality.

>Circular logic.
>Maybe that would apply to the current situation.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

02-02-2007, 05:08 PM

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:18:45 GMT, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Our weather man says Santa Ana,

So does mine. :-)

>and I don't know any native Spanish
>speaking people so.....

I am only going by what I was told when I
followed latin bands around Los Angeles County
and knew a lot of descendants of native Californians. :-)

It made sense to me because what the name
Satana (SheDevil) Winds means, seemingly more
likely than being named after a man or a town.

In fact, the warm winds usually come from the
northeast, and Santa Ana is southeast of where the
winds usually aggravate the forest fire problems.

Joe Fischer

02-02-2007, 05:22 PM

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:34:02 +0900, Bernd Felsche
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>Sequence is not proof of causality.

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

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

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

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

Joe Fischer

02-02-2007, 08:57 PM

In article <khOwh.51832$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:

>Considering that countries like China don't give a damn and the
>situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might
>make the weather wildly unpredictable to the point of taking out most of
>humanity. I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were
>once considered impossible ten or twenty years ago. The planet might
>just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.

California had tornadoes over 20 years ago. The LA Basin is, at least
on a Western-USA scale, a bit of a "tornado alley" and has been known to
meteoroligists as being one before the 1980's. Tornadoes are most likely
there during the winter storm season, with the risk having a high positive
correlation with El Nino. It seems to me that in most wither storm
seasons with an above-average El Nino at least one tornado touches down in
the LA Basin. And that happened back in the 1982-1983 winter storm
season, and back then it was not a "first".

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-02-2007, 09:18 PM

Joe Fischer <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:34:02 +0900, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>>Sequence is not proof of causality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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