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

Joe Strout wrote:
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/

Isn´t it all tied together the so called conveior belt and the
Gulfstream. The cold water sinks due to being colder and streams south
underneath the surface currents, and warm surface water is pulled in
helping to draw the warm water from the Gulf stream still further
north than ellse it would have gone? Bit of a matter of interpretation
when one ends and the other begins.

Cheers, Einar

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

Sounds like an alternate theory, not the new accepted model as your
words appear to indicate.

Cheers, Einar

On Jul 31, 12:09 pm, The_Man wrote:
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.")


All those cross-posting drivel to 5 newsgroups: STFU.

wrote:
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.

We are experimenting with climate change.

Einar

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes it has. We're just a little more exposed than we used to be.

It'll be interesting to see how we adapt to this one.

, 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.

I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more technological
fixes and so forth, but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

Dave

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:13:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


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.

We are experimenting with climate change.

There has never been a period in the history of the planet in which
the climate was not changing.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:53:30 -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:


, 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.

I'd have more "green" sympathy if they included sensible policies like
nuclear power, more distribution of generating capacity, more technological
fixes and so forth, but they are a little hemp shirts and sandals for my
personal tastes.

Mark down this day in history, on which Dave O'Neill and I agree.

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 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?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

It's your arguement, not mine.

I refuse to particpate.


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.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

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.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

Any such change will come at a rate that you can walk away from.

snip doom and gloom

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Interesting, so you think moving billions of people to be a minor
problem. In case of Chinese rice farmers - it?s not simply a question
of moving or re-educating a very large group of people with sparse
education to begin with, it?s rebuilding the centuries old system of
rice plots that are really one of the ancient engineering marvels -
and are a really large job to successfully replicate. These people are
the ones who produce the bulk of the food for China.

Why would billions move other than perhaps to go farm what is now
cold waste land?

I've been in Asia and have see rice paddies built; there is nothing
marvelous about a rice paddy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You are right that individually the paddies don?t look like much. The
actual marvel is twofold, A) they give 5 harvests each year in China
and B) they as a whole produce more than 50% of Chinese food. I don?t
remember how many the farmers are, but at least we are talking about
around 200 million farmers and workers, though that is probably an
underestimate. That is only China.

Rice farming requires not just warm weather, but also a wet one. Maybe
the farming belt can move, and the rain will move with it. But that is
only a maybe, and the change is not certain to move gradually. Even
though taken as a whole for the Globe, things are moving gradually as
local changes average out, the point is that local changes in some
areas are going to be greater than is the average for the globe, and
we really don?t know for which areas that is going to prove the case.

So if we are very lucky there will be no serious disturbance in
Asiatic rice farming. But, if there is the fallout would be the
greatest hunger the world has ever seen.

Most of northern China is currently too cold to grow 5 harvests of
rice per year, or much of any rice for that matter.

Growing rice doesn't depend much on rain. It depends mostly on diverting
water from a local ground source.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
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.

We are experimenting with climate change.

Nonsense.

We may or may not be effecting the climate by our existence, but we
certainly are not experimenting with climate change.

Well, to be totally true, we have tried to influence rain and
hurricane formation with results somewhere between marginal and
what a waste of time and money.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 31, 2:56 pm, Einar wrote:

Why not provide an honest response to an honest question?

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

Bite me.