Britain's Drowned World - a Time Team special on climate change

"Vince Morgan" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Vince Morgan" wrote in message
u...

" wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 10:27 am, Robert Higgins
wrote:

(snip to the crash)

(snip)

ITYM "whistle-blowing".

AGW isn't science, it's pure polemics.


Mark L. Fergerson

And, in todays news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XM...layer_embedded

A tip: you don't need the "&feature=player_embedded",
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc
is enough.


Thank you Andro, much appreciated,
Vince

You are welcome. I mention it only because Google has
a nasty habit of truncating long strings. Apparently their
dumb programmers like to pretend to be clever but can't
handle googol-sized data -- which is a joke, considering
that Google reckons it can store a photograph of every
house in the world but cannot manage text.

"Vince Morgan" wrote in message
...

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
7 wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/t...ls/4od#2922370


It is a deep insult to politicians to be fed BS by holowarming
pseudo scientists with made up data to take public money and spend
it on fabricating dangerous policies that have no basis in fact.

The landscapes that holowarming pseudo scientists are shaping based
on creating and managing public perceptions are dangerous to public
safety.

Where objective science for dams, flood defenses, and river
management is replaced by pseudo science policies like carbon
trading it does nothing for the public and the constituents of
politicians that are going to get killed to satisfy the lust for
power and attention by holowarmers and their pseudo science.

So are you claiming that archaeologists are wrong to say that the
area now under the North Sea and English Channel was dry land 10,000
years ago? Because that's what the program is about, and the
evidence is very clear on the change of sea levels between 8,000 BC
and today, and the nature of that land and its occupants.

The fact that you seem to have gone off on a tangent indicates that
you didn't even check to see what the program was about before
spouting off.


Are you claiming holowarmers are using real data?
Now there is an inconvenient truth for you!

Your views are not stated clearly except, apparently, that you think
there
is an EvilConspiracy(tm) out there and you are a Caped Crusader fighting
against it. Presumably, you think that the world is due for an Ice Age
and
so we better keep pumping out the CO2 and CH4 to prevent it. You had a
knee-jerk reaction to a thread *title*, without even checking that the
link
is to a TV archaeology program about sea levels and land use c. 10,000
years
ago in the Neolithic. It had nothing whatsoever to do with current
events
and "Global Warming".

Oh, and yes, they are using real data. Do you have better data that you
gathered yourself, and can you convince the scientific community that
your
data are correct by publishing them in peer-reviewed literature?
Stealing
e-mails is not the same thing.

--
"the scientific community"? You represent the scientific community?
Stealing emails is stealing. That's a crime. Falsifying data is fraud,
at
the very least, and that too is a crime. Commiting one crime to expose
another is not exactly an ideal method of achieving a just outcome, but it
certainly did open some eyes and minds that would have continued to sleep
otherwise.

Emails cannot be stolen, they are data. Governments can spy on
you legally, and they do. You do not have a constitutional right
to privacy in any country, search warrants can be issued on a whim,
phone lines can be tapped, radio phones (mobile or cell) listened to.
On the other hand, falsifying data is definitely fraud.
You are discussing ethics versus crime, not crime versus crime.

The problem as I see it isn't the fact that sea levels are rising,
it is the idea that mankind causes it.

Some simple facts about climate.

Negative feedback:
1) Sun heats ocean.
2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.
3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.
4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.


Positive feedback:
5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.
6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.
7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.

Changing the balance:
8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.
9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.
10) Earth is tilted.
11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.
12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer). Result, positive feedback
predominates, Ice Age.
13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
global warming.

14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in temperature as a function of
precession.

15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.

16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "carbon cycle".

It's been that way for at least 3 billion years; homo neanderthalensis
is alive and well and arrogant enough to say he causes it. He is,
of course, an idiot who thinks he can "combat" the quite natural
temperature cycle of a couple of degrees. Nature doesn't care if man
builds cities along the coast or birds build nests in trees, the rule is
ADAPT OR DIE.

So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. They
are rat-infested slums anyway.
You can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.

On Dec 2, 8:05*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vince Morgan" wrote in message

...



"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
7 wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:

*http://www.channel4.com/programmes/t...ls/4od#2922370

It is a deep insult to politicians to be fed BS by holowarming
pseudo scientists with made up data to take public money and spend
it on fabricating dangerous policies that have no basis in fact.

The landscapes that holowarming pseudo scientists are shaping based
on creating and managing public perceptions are dangerous to public
safety.

Where objective science for dams, flood defenses, and river
management is replaced by pseudo science policies like carbon
trading it does nothing for the public and the constituents of
politicians that are going to get killed to satisfy the lust for
power and attention by holowarmers and their pseudo science.

So are you claiming that archaeologists are wrong to say that the
area now under the North Sea and English Channel was dry land 10,000
years ago? Because that's what the program is about, and the
evidence is very clear on the change of sea levels between 8,000 BC
and today, and the nature of that land and its occupants.

The fact that you seem to have gone off on a tangent indicates that
you didn't even check to see what the program was about before
spouting off.

Are you claiming holowarmers are using real data?
Now there is an inconvenient truth for you!

*Your views are not stated clearly except, apparently, that you think
there
is an EvilConspiracy(tm) out there and you are a Caped Crusader fighting
against it. * Presumably, you think that the world is due for an Ice Age
and
so we better keep pumping out the CO2 and CH4 to prevent it. *You had a
knee-jerk reaction to a thread *title*, without even checking that the
link
is to a TV archaeology program about sea levels and land use c. 10,000
years
ago in the Neolithic. *It had nothing whatsoever to do with current
events
and "Global Warming".

Oh, and yes, they are using real data. *Do you have better data that you
gathered yourself, and can you convince the scientific community that
your
data are correct by publishing them in peer-reviewed literature?
Stealing
e-mails is not the same thing.

--
"the scientific community"? *You represent the scientific community?
Stealing emails is stealing. *That's a crime. *Falsifying data is fraud,
at
the very least, and that too is a crime. *Commiting one crime to expose
another is not exactly an ideal method of achieving a just outcome, but it
certainly did open some eyes and minds that would have continued to sleep
otherwise.

Emails cannot be stolen, they are data. Governments can spy on
you legally, and they do. You do not have a constitutional right
to privacy in any country, search warrants can be issued on a whim,
phone lines can be tapped, radio phones (mobile or cell) listened to.
On the other hand, falsifying data is definitely fraud.
You are discussing ethics versus crime, not crime versus crime.

The problem as I see it isn't the fact that sea levels are rising,
it is the idea that mankind causes it.

Some simple facts about climate.

Negative feedback:
1) Sun heats ocean.
2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.
3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.
4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.

Positive feedback:
5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.
6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.
7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.

Changing the balance:
8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.
9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.
10) Earth is tilted.
11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.
12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer). Result, positive feedback
predominates, Ice Age.
13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. *Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
global warming.

14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in temperature as a function of
precession.

15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. *Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.

16) *Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "carbon cycle".

It's been that way for at least 3 billion years; homo neanderthalensis
is alive and well and arrogant enough to say he causes it. He is,
of course, an idiot who thinks he can "combat" the quite natural
temperature cycle of a couple of degrees. Nature doesn't care if man
builds cities along the coast or birds build nests in trees, the rule is
ADAPT OR DIE.

So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. They
are rat-infested slums anyway.
You can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.

As overly complicated as you've made this, it's not quite that simple.

~ BG

On Dec 2, 7:37*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vince Morgan" wrote in message

...



"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Vince Morgan" wrote in message
.au...

" wrote in message
....
On Nov 29, 10:27 am, Robert Higgins
wrote:

(snip to the crash)

(snip)

*ITYM "whistle-blowing".

*AGW isn't science, it's pure polemics.

Mark L. Fergerson

And, in todays news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XM...layer_embedded

A tip: you don't need the "&feature=player_embedded",
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc
is enough.

Thank you Andro, much appreciated,
Vince

You are welcome. I mention it only because Google has
a nasty habit of truncating long strings. Apparently their
dumb programmers like to pretend to be clever but can't
handle googol-sized data -- which is a joke, considering
that Google reckons it can store a photograph of every
house in the world but cannot manage text.

Those pictures might include smut. Can your google+ sized text files
do the same?

Why so many words anyway?

Isn't purely objective science any good any more?

~ BG

On Nov 28, 2:21*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
*http://www.channel4.com/programmes/t...ls/4od#2922370

According to the accepted physics and objectively replicated science
of others, we're creating 3 to 4 kg of CO2 for every kg of fossil or
biofuel consumed, not to mention many other birth-to-grave toxic
elements and nasty byproducts along the way, or the mistakes, spillage
and accidents that'll put that contributed CO2 upwards of 5:1, and by
some estimates as great as 6:1.

Care to guess at how much tonnage Earth has been losing (mostly of
hydrogen and helium) per second?

Care to suggest how much artificial water consumption and subsequent
elevated levels of evaporation are taking place per second?

~ BG