Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:06:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like
the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is
pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down,
Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of
decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp

No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html

'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say
something you like and ignore others who say things you don't.

It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out
that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on
Europe's climate as was previously believed.

Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as saying
that its a fact.

No, but the full paper makes a pretty strong case for it.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:06:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much
like
the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there
is
pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts
down,
Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of
decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp

No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html

'tis amazing that you latch onto a study by climate scientists who say
something you like and ignore others who say things you don't.

It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out
that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on
Europe's climate as was previously believed.

Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as
saying
that its a fact.

No, but the full paper makes a pretty strong case for it.

Agreed, however, it's just the one paper from 2003 and I've not seen further
studies to back it up.

Dave O'Neill wrote:


It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out
that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on
Europe's climate as was previously believed.


Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as saying
that its a fact.

You, of all people, should know that.

Dave

IIRC It was Paul Dietz that informed Rand of this study. Paul seemed to
find it credible and he isn't known for an anti AGW bias.

Hop

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:09:24 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Dave O'Neill wrote:


It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out
that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on
Europe's climate as was previously believed.


Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as saying
that its a fact.

You, of all people, should know that.

Dave

IIRC It was Paul Dietz that informed Rand of this study.

Yes, it was.

"Hop David" wrote in message
...
Dave O'Neill wrote:


It has nothing to do with what "I like." I was simply pointing out
that the thermohaline circulation doesn't have as much effect on
Europe's climate as was previously believed.


Yes, that's what the study says. That's not quite the same thing as
saying that its a fact.

You, of all people, should know that.

Dave

IIRC It was Paul Dietz that informed Rand of this study. Paul seemed to
find it credible and he isn't known for an anti AGW bias.

I've also seen it before when it came out and I think it makes sense. I
don't think it's the be all and end all of the mechanics of climate in
Western Europe though and I suspect the actual facts will be murkier and
less clear cut when and if they emerge.

I certainly _hope_ its true.

The problem with the AGW term is that we should stop using it. There's a
Climate Change going on, or so the evidence leads me to believe, I'm
personally agnostic on it being "ACC" but using the phrase "Global Warming"
is simplistic and gives the wrong impression. I suspect that it probably is
in part down to humans but there's no easy fix and any fixes will have to be
technological in nature because we're not going to slow down development for
the climate and nor are people going to give up cars etc...



Dave

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:54:21 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

IIRC It was Paul Dietz that informed Rand of this study. Paul seemed to
find it credible and he isn't known for an anti AGW bias.

I've also seen it before when it came out and I think it makes sense. I
don't think it's the be all and end all of the mechanics of climate in
Western Europe though and I suspect the actual facts will be murkier and
less clear cut when and if they emerge.

I certainly _hope_ its true.

The problem with the AGW term is that we should stop using it. There's a
Climate Change going on

That has been going on for eons.

, or so the evidence leads me to believe, I'm
personally agnostic on it being "ACC" but using the phrase "Global Warming"
is simplistic and gives the wrong impression. I suspect that it probably is
in part down to humans but there's no easy fix and any fixes will have to be
technological in nature because we're not going to slow down development for
the climate and nor are people going to give up cars etc...

Yes, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. If it's
a problem, then we need to figure out how to fix it. It remains
unclear whether or not it is. Certainly many of the nostrums put
forth so far (like Kyoto) are a cure worse than the disease, and were
more motivated by politics than a sincere desire to solve the problem.

Rich wrote:
Einar wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Hop David wrote:
:
: wrote:
: :
: : Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".
: :
: :
: :
: :How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
: :
:
: How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much
: smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane.
:
:
:Which still makes it a greenhouse gas.
:

So's oxygen. Shall we do away with that?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


We are not pumping tons in the billions of oxygen into the
athmosphere.


Maybe not, but 'dem filthy rotten plants *are* !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...ansmission.png

CO2 can opaque some of the water vapor windows.

Hop

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate changes
-- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of
climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate into
something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its
temperate climate shut down.

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like
the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is
pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down,
Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of
decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp

No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html

An interesting story. It appears these people have created an
alternate model to the one most people have been working on so far.
Last I heard most scientists still believe that the Gulf Stream is a
very significant cause. So either they have not been impressed by
these findings, or this finding is yet to gain acceptance.

Einar

wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:27 am, Einar wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:20 pm, Einar wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:46 pm, Einar wrote:
wrote:

AGW theory is nothing but vague, untestable rhetoric. It exist only
in the fervent imagination of numerous whackos like yourself. (You
are demostrating as much right here.)

No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the
integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the
media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and
when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back
and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science
for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE
start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there
is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none!

Oddly enough, I agree with all this. It just seems to be the exact
opposite of what you were doing a few paragraphs ago.

That's because your own thinking is so ephemeral you don't know what
you think from one moment to the next.

Expert on evolutionary theory. Extrapolate a bit on that.

Google Groups.

Even though
it´s not on topic, does that mean you agree with scientists that
evolution is real

Of course.

and that you accept the currently given scientific
age for the planet?

Specifically?

That the age of the planet exceeds 3.5 billion years. You accept that?

Yes. Now that I've answered you question you answer mine.

You stated the following:
Einar:
. . . it's clear that there has never
been any serious controversy about whether the current
warming is anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2
and other gasses are to blame (and yes, there are others,
but that's the main one). There has been only the
ordinary haggling over the details.

I, Claudius Denk, responded as follows:
Denk:
No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions.
If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us? Go ahead. What
are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation? Show us. Put us in
our place. Go ahead.

Well how about it Einar are you a scientist or a nose picker? Tell us
this wonderful theory you've been concealing from us all this time,
you clever little monkey.

Joe has already posted it abow. As you clearly have not bothered to
read the material he supplied,

I read it. I couldn't figure out what it had to do with the issue
under discussion. Why don't you clarify it for us, jackass.

there would be litle point for me to
post the same material or dig up something ellse for you to ignore to
the same degree.

I guess you can't post a link to something that exists only in your
imagination.

Read through his posts, read the material he supplied, and if there
are additional questions, then I may feel it worth it to dig up some
additional material.

Why not provide an honest response to an honest question?

I´ll consider it when I see you asking for it politelly.

Einar