Time to dispense with Greenland?

On Mar 28, 2:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Anonymous Duhboy sputtered:



On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 wrote:

On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.

Andre Jute
Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims

I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
in Earth science can be tricky

Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.

but which part of global
warming theory that you find may not be correct?

I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

Holy crap man! WOW! Holy ****!

You just created a whole new logical paradigm: if one causal sequence
of events is true, then ANY OTHER CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE
COMPONENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE TRUE! This can be applied to a
whole buncha stuff to prove it doesn't work! And that stuff won't
work, through the force of your immense intellect.

And the function of causal relationships (or lack thereof) will be
dependent on the one the causal relationship you declare first! The
Principle of Primacy!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When there's a lot of it in the atmosphere,
it retains heat/energy moreso than with lower levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. And BTW, Global Warming also means more, wilder weather
swings. Hot or cold. Seen any of those lately, genius?

Dumbass. And you even got dumbass Bill Sornson in on the moronicism.
Go back to sucking Lush Rimjob's dick and give up the trolling, eh?

D'ohBoy

Nah, anonymous Duhboy, I'm just a simple overpaid jock who happens
also to know something about statistics. To me it seems that if CO2
emissions historically *follow* rising temperature, then CO2 emissions
are not responsible for global warming. Cause precedes effect, see?
Result follows cause, see? It's real simple for those of us with our
minds in gear.

Who is Lush Rimjob, and why should I want to suck his dick? FIY, in my
country we do leprechauns; we leave trolls to really ugly people like
you, dear anyonymous Duhboy.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre Jute's leprechaun athttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/


Andre the Intellectual Giant:

You totally miss the point. One causal relationship does not exclude
others. Yes, there was a bit of a bait and switch there in Gore's
discussion of CO2 levels. I agree, going from rising temps being
correlated with and linked in a causal fashion to rising CO2 levels
doesn't prove the inverse of the causal relationship.

However, the suggestion that a rise in CO2, which has been proven to
be a 'greenhouse gas', couldn't cause a rise in overall global
temperatures BECAUSE there is another causal relationship that says
that rising temps cause a rise in C02, is patently wrongheaded and an
utterly false syllogism.

Let me diagram for you your utterly childish and faulty syllogism
(pleased note that this is EXACTLY what you argued):

a has been shown to cause b;
b is happening

ERGO:

b could not have caused a.

Clear? If not clear yet, the first assertion is NOT 'IF AND ONLY IF'
but rather 'NON-EXCLUSIVE CORRELATION/CAUSATION HAS BEEN SHOWN'.

D'ohBoy

P.S.: You people who claim you are using your real name because you
have put two names down at the bottom of your post crack me up.

Woland99 wrote:
Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
take such risk.

Or maybe not so much:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/w...y-stick-breaks
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mar 28, 1:40*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, "





wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:29*pm, RonSonic wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:
In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

In the meanwhile, here is some reading:http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/...0-11-0589a.pdf

Scroll down, left column.

Enjoy,

Ron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
the 1850s were already having a warming effect. *Especially since ice
shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.

The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
be on Greenland?".

Jesus. You mean Greenland isn't going to fall into the sea -- that
instead it will grow bigger. Hell! That means the winds blowing from
Greenland to Ireland will be even nastier. I'm moving to Florida, or
may Queensland, except they're even more uncouth in Queensland than in
Florida.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html- Hide quoted text -



The land under the Greenland Icecap should be good farmland, once the
icecap melts. The shore line might be covered up some.

Perhaps someone has a topographical map showing the land levels under
the greenland icecap, to make sure it won't be under the new sea
level?

Per Woland99:
Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

"Think globally
Act Loco"
--
PeteCresswell

In article
,
" wrote:

Well, this document is showing the fossil fuel burned into CO2 since
the 1850s were already having a warming effect. Especially since ice
shelfs are extremely sensitive to slight changes in water temperature.

They were smarter than we are. If it were not for burning
coal and petroleum we would still be in the little ice age.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
" wrote:

The question really should be "When do the Florida and Bangladesh
refugees get sent to the winter wheat farms where the glaciers used to
be on Greenland?".

You do know that Scandinavians established a colony in
Greenland that sustained itself for a couple hundred
years? They were driven out by [wait for it] global cooling.

--
Michael Press

So, Woe, you're confessing that you, a guy who claims to have a degree
in geophysics, called me names in a discussion of global warning --
and that you never even saw the IPCC data series on CO2 emissions and
temperature rise! This is crazy man. You should find out what you're
supposed to be talking about -- check the facts! -- before you start
calling people names. It is clowns like you who give all
environmentalists a bad name.

Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam

On Mar 28, 7:41*pm, Woland99 wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:36 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hey, Woe, I don't want to waste a lot of time on your kindergarden
debating tricks, but don't you think it a bit odd for someoone who
brags about "having degree in geophysics", as you do, to ask me for a
reference to the IPCC data correlating temperature rise and CO2
emissions? What sort of an school gave you that degree if you still
have to ask such a fresher question?

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

On Mar 28, 7:24 am, Woland99 wrote:

Well since you are so polite and articulate in making your point...
I finished geophysics 26 years ago then was doing PhD in finite
element analysis of semiconductor devices for a brief time and
then started programming.
SO I would appreciate if you just post that link to data on CO2
level following rise of global temperature and prove it is not
related to release of CO2 from the oceans. And leave "kindergarten"
remarks aside.


On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
in Earth science can be tricky

Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I meant is that
in geophysics controlled experiment on a large scale is impossible -
we cannot control some parameters and measure others and try to
create mathematical model based on such measurements (control voltage
measure resistance and infer resistance). We can only measure selected
set (hopefully complete set of parameters) during processes that
occur
naturally. That requires somewhat complete modeling and assumptions
how
different part of the models (terms in set of equations) can dominate
behaviour in different. Which meachanism can be uncoupled and which
neglected. Not sure why you mention chaos theory - we do not know -
and
cannot know precise boundary condition and while short term behavior
is
most certainly chaotic we try to find presence of global trends.

I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

Please provide a reference. What would be the source of CO2 that is
emited when temperature rises? Could it be that ocean was heating up
and CO2 became less soluble in water and hence released into
atmosphere?

The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.

That is some hearsay - you want to tell me that there is some sort of
dark cabal of climatologists forcing everybody to change their data
or
else be ostracized? Hmmmmm - not sure if anybody can convince you o/w.
It may be possible in one institution. But science is global. And
nobody
can control ALL the research. That is a fairytale.

Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake?

Not just grants. You falsify data and it just takes one reviewer to
take closer look and you are DEAD - you career is over - nobody would
take such risk.

I can remember when I couldn't
get promoted because I was not a Keynesian

OK so now comes "chip on the shoulder story" - thank for admitting
that.

Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace)

One word. Dirty bomb.

and nuclear
power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
deliverable in enough megawatts).

and Chernobyl.

Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
precautionary principle".

Lots of words and no proof. And some nonchalant hand-waving a'la
"nobody believes". Well let's see who in the know believes?

Try this instead: That you will die is
certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
reduce the uncertainty to zero.

Analogies (esp faulty) do not prove anything.

Environmental threats are without exception created and
"managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
financial interest in keeping the threat alive.

Polar ice melting at unheard before rate is not managed by a
committee. It is not some abstract creation. It is measurable FACT.

The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance..

That is only halfway correct. Computer models can predict the outcome
of your actions - like eg. cutting CO2 emissions. Those models can be
to
some degree verified and refined by fitting them to correctly model
past
behavior given (more or less correct initial data - 60 or 100 years
ago
and our best estimates of CO2 released into atmosphere during that
period).
And that is NOT witchcraft - you can fine-tune and verify your
modeling.
Then you ask to extrapolate trends forward and try to run them with
different
level of CO2 emissions. Now what exactly is so hard about that?

What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
riddance.

That is philosophy and personal opinion - possibly inspired by your
bad
experience in grad school or on post-doc position. But OK - you do
not
"like" environmentalists - what does that have to do with the
question
of how accurate climate modeling currently is?

Anonymoius Duhboy wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:04 pm, Andre Jute wrote:



Anonymous Duhboy sputtered:

On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 28, 3:35 am, Woland99 wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 wrote:

On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year.. I
certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest... I
feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.

Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.

For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.

Andre Jute
Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims

I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
in Earth science can be tricky

Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
spirits say. It's bull****. Chaos theory cuts both ways.

but which part of global
warming theory that you find may not be correct?

I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

Holy crap man! *WOW! *Holy ****!

You just created a whole new logical paradigm: *if one causal sequence
of events is true, then ANY OTHER CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING THE
COMPONENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE TRUE! *This can be applied to a
whole buncha stuff to prove it doesn't work! *And that stuff won't
work, through the force of your immense intellect.

And the function of causal relationships (or lack thereof) will be
dependent on the one the causal relationship you declare first! *The
Principle of Primacy!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. *When there's a lot of it in the atmosphere,
it retains heat/energy moreso than with lower levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. *And BTW, Global Warming also means more, wilder weather
swings. * Hot or cold. * Seen any of those lately, genius?

Dumbass. *And you even got dumbass Bill Sornson in on the moronicism..
Go back to sucking Lush Rimjob's dick and give up the trolling, eh?

D'ohBoy

Nah, anonymous Duhboy, I'm just a simple overpaid jock who happens
also to know something about statistics. To me it seems that if CO2
emissions historically *follow* rising temperature, then CO2 emissions
are not responsible for global warming. Cause precedes effect, see?
Result follows cause, see? It's real simple for those of us with our
minds in gear.

Who is Lush Rimjob, and why should I want to suck his dick? FIY, in my
country we do leprechauns; we leave trolls to really ugly people like
you, dear anyonymous Duhboy.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre Jute's leprechaun athttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

Andre the Intellectual Giant:

You totally miss the point.

You're welcome to make a point -- if you have one. But do it quickly:
I'm losing interest in you.

*One causal relationship does not exclude
others. *

Of course not. But a historically true sequence does.

Yes, there was a bit of a bait and switch there in Gore's
discussion of CO2 levels. *

In plain English, Duhboy admits Gore is either stupid or he lied when
he claimed that CO2 increases caused global warming that -- by the
evidence of Gore's own graph -- happened *before* the CO2 emissions.

I agree, going from rising temps being
correlated with and linked in a causal fashion to rising CO2 levels
doesn't prove the inverse of the causal relationship.

In plain English, Duhboy admits that if the temperature rose first,
then it couldn't be the CO2 that caused the temperature rise. The
convoluted language Duhboy uses is intended to blow smoke over a plain
fact: CO2 doesn't cause temperature rise.

However, the suggestion that a rise in CO2, which has been proven to
be a 'greenhouse gas', couldn't cause a rise in overall global
temperatures BECAUSE there is another causal relationship that says
that rising temps cause a rise in C02, is patently wrongheaded and an
utterly false syllogism.

Prove it, Duhboy.

Let me diagram for you your utterly childish and faulty syllogism
(pleased note that this is EXACTLY what you argued):

Let's see:

a has been shown to cause b;
b is happening

ERGO:

b could not have caused a.

Nope, that's not what I said. I said that it is a lie for Gore,
newspapers, scientists or anyone else to claim that the historical
information proves that CO2 causes global warming. As corollary, if
you want to prove that CO2 causes global warming, you should go ahead
and try. It has been asserted; it hasn't been proven. That is merely
the basis for a religious statement; nothing to do with science.

Clear? *If not clear yet, the first assertion is NOT 'IF AND ONLY IF'
but rather 'NON-EXCLUSIVE CORRELATION/CAUSATION HAS BEEN SHOWN'.

So, Mr Boy, my old chum Duh, what you're claiming is that if we can
see from the data that b follows a, then because a follows b might
also be possible, we should ignore the evidence and assume a follows b
is the case? That would be dumb in a kindergarten class studying sets.
But that is the argument behind Kyoto and every other global warming
"initiative".

D'ohBoy

P.S.: *You people who claim you are using your real name because you
have put two names down at the bottom of your post crack me up.

You're putting words in my mouth; I didn't say I was using my real
name; I said you're clearly anonymous, unless your really is Duh Boy.

Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam

On Mar 28, 6:25 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
So, Woe, you're confessing that you, a guy who claims to have a degree
in geophysics, called me names in a discussion of global warning --
and that you never even saw the IPCC data series on CO2 emissions and
temperature rise! This is crazy man. You should find out what you're
supposed to be talking about -- check the facts! -- before you start
calling people names. It is clowns like you who give all
environmentalists a bad name.

Andre Jute

First of all I DID NOT call you names - on contrary I treated you
with nothing but respect. Which you do not seem to reciprocate:
It is clowns like you who give all
environmentalists a bad name.

I explained to you that I obtained degree in geophysics 26 years
ago and I never worked as geophysicist - but you kindly ignored
that explanation and you keep ridiculing me. That tells a lot about
the strength of your argument - don't you agree?

I asked you a simple question about CO2 data that you mentioned -
I tried to search IPCC website but did not find the graph that you
claim is there. If you want to share your knowledge on the subject
and at least give us some keywords to search on if not direct link
that would be appreciated. If however you keep your current tone
then I am afraid that I shall not be missing any further discussion
with you.

Have a good day,

JT

On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
The land under the Greenland Icecap should be good farmland, once the
icecap melts. The shore line might be covered up some.

Perhaps someone has a topographical map showing the land levels under
the greenland icecap, to make sure it won't be under the new sea
level?

The last time, the Vikings had no trouble farming Greenland. Of course
some time after it warms, it will cool again (as they found to their
fatal chagrin last time).
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Yeah - except you did not have densely populated US coastal
line and 150 MLN people in Bangladesh back then.