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

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

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

Who said anything about the Gulf Stream? We're talking about the
Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) here, commonly called the
Atlantic conveyor belt. Please see the link I cited above. In
particular:

Is the Atlantic Conveyor Belt the same as the Gulf Stream?

No, but they both bring warm water north. The Gulf Stream
is a warm surface current driven northwards by the wind.
The thermohaline circulation is a much larger deeper
current driven by heat and salinity.

I agree that the Gulf Stream's contribution to European climate is
minor. I'm not sure what to make of Seager's research, if it doesn't
even mention the MOC -- except perhaps that it's a bit old (2003,
compared to the NERC work from 2005), so maybe the importance of the MOC
wasn't understood at that time.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Jul 30, 3:00 pm, Benj wrote:
Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too
huge to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and
using clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.


There is scientific evidence for AGW. However, the long term
effects are still open to question. This is clear from the differences
between the IPCC reports in 2001 and 2007. Suddenly, the projected sea
level rise goes from 21 feet to 21 inches (i.r, off by one order of
magnitude).

The "dangers" of climate change are clearly not all that terrible.
How can you tell?
Well..

1) Count how many of you worry about AGW, but own SUV's. You are
****ing hypocrites. Sell your SUV, or shut the **** up.

2) All the people that own ANY auto, but live in an area with public
transportation, and complain about AGW. Sell your car and take the
bus, or shut the **** up.

3) All of you old senior citizen assholes who crank the thermostat up
to 85 degrees in the winter, because you feel "freezing", and worry
about AGW. Either turn down the heat to 68 (still plenty warm), or
shut the **** up.

4) All of you lazy ass mother****ers who drive an automatic
transmision, because you are too ****ing stupid and uncoordinated to
drive a stick. At least buy a car with a manual transmission, or shut
the **** up.

5) All of you lead foot *******s who, like Sammy Hagar, "can't drive
55". During WWII, the speed limit was THIRTY-FIVE (35). That was
before the "fate of the planet" has hanging in the balance because of
AGW. Either slow down, or shut the **** up.

6) All of you "cool" dudes with Hummers, and other cars that get 10
miles per gallon. "Environmental" whiners always want "Conservation"
and higher CAFE standards (At least 35 mpg). How many of you AGW
hypocrites have cars that don't even get 30 mpg. Either get a fuel-
efficient car, or shut the **** up.

7) All you *******s who insist on "renewable" energy, yet bitch when
someone puts a windfarm somewhere near your multi-million dollar
compound (To whom am I referring, Ted?). Either let them build, or
shut the **** up. (or take a drive off a bridge.....)

8) To all the saints of AGW, who pump more CO2 into the air than the
average African country, but are quick to sign up for celebrity
concerts. Or those who pay a "Fine" for CO2 emissions to a company
that they own themselves. Just shut the **** up.

You'll know that AGW is a REAL threat to mankind when the unions are
willing to kill off THEIR jobs, or the left-wing politicians sell
THEIR houses, and all the "Soccer moms" sell their "safe" SUV's and
buy 40 mpg imports with manual transmissions.

Until then, maybe all those who worry the most about AGW could reduce
their OWN CO2 emission, perhaps by not breathing :-)

Let the flames begin..... ("Through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault.")

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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

'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.

The data suggests they might be right, which is a good thing.

Dave

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -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:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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

'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.

On Jul 30, 9:14 pm, 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.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may
become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile?
What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too
wet, or too dry?

Again, why experiment with our only planet?

On Jul 30, 11:35 pm, "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
"Joe Strout" wrote in message

...



In article . com,
Einar wrote:

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather
patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile
areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in
places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most
countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy
from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you
happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing
food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater.

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.

Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there won't
be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's
already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT
worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for.
Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near
the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries
with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving
up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you
may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best
avoided if possible.

I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't
happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and
grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a
philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a
long time myself.

Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic
minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted
reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit
without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more.
It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it.

But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and
we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite
promising.

I do not deny that the climate is warming, our instruments seem to indicate
that it is (have we accounted for all of the sources of error?), but the
idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without bound
to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation.


False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis
has ruled out other possible causes.

There are plenty of
stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the Sun)
that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly inadequate
computer models.

Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some
reading!


What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur if
governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them to
fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is
historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher
likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change.


Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are
scientifically illiterate.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

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.

Not to be argumentative, but no, you didn't. You pointed to a study
(and correctly summarized yourself) showing that the *Gulf Stream*
doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously
believed. But the Gulf Stream is not the thermohaline circulation, and
was not under discussion.

I pointed this out in my previous reply, but it's probable that this
didn't reach you before you typed the above.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -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:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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

'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.

You, of all people, should know that.

Dave

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:48 -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:

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.

Not to be argumentative, but no, you didn't. You pointed to a study
(and correctly summarized yourself) showing that the *Gulf Stream*
doesn't have as much effect on Europe's climate as was previously
believed. But the Gulf Stream is not the thermohaline circulation, and
was not under discussion.

"Published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, this new data suggests that atmospheric circulation is more
important to understanding climate variability than is the ocean

^^^^^
circulation."

While they say Gulf Stream, their analysis extends to the total
thermohaline circulation.

In sci.physics Lloyd wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:14 pm, 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.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may
become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile?
What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too
wet, or too dry?

The amount of rainfall in a particular location is primarily determined
by things like mountains.

The western side of Washington and Oregon is always going to be wetter
than the eastern side unless the mountains go away.

Again, why experiment with our only planet?

What experiment?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.