"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

On Sat, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote in part:
And in the 1950s, in the midwest, 100 + F
was common, and I haven't seen 3 days of 100 F
in the last 16 years.

Where were you in mid-July 1995? Also, is past 16 years chosen to
exclude 1991, which had some nasty heat?

Fort Knox.

If you want past midwest heat, look at early July 1936, which was a high
point of the "dust bowl" heatwaves.

Were they heat waves or local droughts? I remember
the 1930s very well, some of my fingers and fingernails are curved
and they are the ones that got frostbite in the cold winters.

I think about 20 US states, mostly
Plains-Midwest but also Pennsylvania have statewide alltime record highs
from that single heatwave.

I only lived in the Pennsylvania during the 1970s,
and the last half was cold with lots of snow, they had
to fly Air Force snow blowers from Alaska to dig us
out, normal snow plows were useless.

And farming techniques were since changed over hundreds of thousands of
square miles of USA farmland to stop and reverse what appears to me
desertifying of much of the Plains and Midwest due to the farming
techniques of the 1930's and earlier. Some of the improvement took time -
Illinois has its statewide alltime record high temperature in the late
1950's IIRC, at East St. Louis.

The early 1950s was the only time I have seen
brick pavement upheave from heat, and those streets
were put in before 1930. (Cleveland)

Meanwhile, yearround temperatures in the Plains/Midwest have shown a
trend of getting warmer in the past decade or two, despite summer peaks
not breaking the more spectacular dustbowl records.

Warmer than the 60s in the midwest for sure,
that entire decade was an average of 10 degrees
below normal, and now one degree is suppose to
scare people into giving up partial use of energy.

Now, for Philadelphia: January 1932 was freakishly warm, possibly
unbeatable even for the next 100 years. The alltime high for Philadelphia
was from an early August day at a time back when the official thermometer
was downtown - it's now close to a half-mile-wide river. Since the mid
1980's there has been a trend of things getting warmer, despite lack of
alltime July record high since 1964 or alltime August high since much
farther back.
- Don Klipstein )

Austin in the 1980s was bad enough for me,
99 is almost a constant thing there in summer.
But the 50s in Cleveland and 1964 in Pasadena
were the two warmest spells I have seen.

But temperature alone does not cause the
big weather events, it takes both heat and a cold
source to cause big storms and cyclonics.

Joe Fischer

Bernd Felsche wrote
Joe Fischer writes
Bernd Felsche wrote

Sequence is not proof of causality.

Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means
the proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.

Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.

Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
relationship, according to the laws of nature.

Wrong.

My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
stopped yet.

There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150 ybp.

CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
it falls to Earth.

CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.

Wrong.

Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
of dissolved CO2.

Wrong.

That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that
from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity.

But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times
the shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.

There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by preventing free convection.

Wrong. They work by reducing the radiation of long wavelength IR.

The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing.

They do however stop the earth radiating as much, just like real greenhouses do.

They simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the molecular
arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of the radiation;

Meaningless gobbledegook.

and warm themselves.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

The molecules can't get a "second bite" of radiation already absorbed by other molecules;

Meaningless gobbledegook.

either of the same gas or others. The resulting
temperature increase is logarithmic; not linear.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
(in places) for humans.

The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
activity was, until quite recently (10 years) at a maximum similar
to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.

Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.

Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.

Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do computational
fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary conditions... and adjust
the fudge-factors until the output looks right.

Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and indirectly.

If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
it's actually possible to measure such a thing.

We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
(more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.

On Feb 2, 12:19 pm, Joe Fischer wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 07:55:19 -0800, "donquijote1954"

wrote:
See what they are doing in Canada...

Go away spammer, this is the renewable energy
newsgroup, not a do without, go hungry and freeze
to death newsgroup.

Joe Fischer

I hear about a dimming theory somewhere, and must be somehow related
to it... Don't you realize pedal power is renewable? Not a bad idea
for lazy fat Americans...

"The Pedal-a-Watt bike was designed to keep the user aerobically fit
while creating some extra power that may be sent to a bank of
batteries. These batteries may then be tapped at a later time, after
dark for example, when the energy is needed to power lights or
appliances. The Pedal-a-Watt bicycle is an excellent addition to an
existing battery system that may already be charged from the
photovoltaic panels, 120 VAC grid power or wind power. The concept
behind the Pedal-a-Watt bicycle is that electricity can be created
from human effort and then stored in batteries.

The average rider will produce between 150 and 200 watts using the
Pedal-a-Watt. While this may not seem like much power, solid state
equipment draws very little power and can be powered for long spans of
time with small amounts of power. VHF/UHF Ham Radios, laptops, and DC
stereos all draw small amounts of current at 12 volts DC. In
addition, LED lighting and high efficiency fluorescent lighting now
allow 200 watts to go a long way. A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/WCEE/keep/Re...PedalPower.htm

On Feb 2, 1:30 pm, "nash" wrote:

I always thought it was the Lions against the Christians anyway.
Moneyed vs the poor.

The Christians (as did the Jews) learned that instead of facing the
lion is better to become one. They still playing the victim though.

On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, (Brent P) wrote:

The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain more control
over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end any sort of freedom of the
masses, and put the whole world in the control of a small group of
elites.

I thought that was the job of Globalization.


I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.

It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.

On Feb 2, 5:12 pm, Bill Baka wrote:

BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.

Chocolate is a fancy drug used by liberals given to European socialist
ideas of biking and small cars. Real Americans eat something like
Freedom Fries --and drive SUVs.

Wayne Pein wrote:
Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.

Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...atistics/2004/
html/table_04_20.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw221.html

No way. Buses with racks go a long way for bicyclists who just use the
bikes for shorter distances. They are complementary...

Why Add Bike Racks to Public Transit Buses?

Encourages Multimodal Trips:
The federal government, originally through ISTEA, (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), "encourages states and
metropolitan areas to develop innovative transportation plans and
programs which better integrate public transit, bicycle facilities,
and other modes of travel into the existing transportation system. The
goal of this multimodal planning is to provide travelers with a real
choice of travel options." (Federal Transit Administration, Bicycles
and Transit, A Partnership that Works, 1999). Adding bike racks on
buses does exactly that: provides people with real transportation
options by allowing a bicycle trip to be incorporated with a public
transit one. Through this incorporation, the bicycle and the public
transit vehicle create endless opportunities for a person with a bike
and bus fare!

Contributes to Cleaner Air and More Livable Communities:
"In many areas, increased investment in transit and bicycle facilities
can help meet goals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested
roadways and more livable communities. Used individually, bicycling
and transit provide low-cost mobility and place fewer demands on local
roads and highways to carry everyday trips. Used in combination,
bicycles and public transportation provide millions of Americans with
enhanced access to work, shopping, services and family and
friends." (Federal Transit Administration, Bicycles and Transit, A
Partnership that Works, 1999). The bike - bus combination not only
provides more mobility options to everyone, but also fewer automobiles
on the street mean quieter and safer neighborhoods.

Expands Ridership:
"Studies show that people are most likely to use public transit when
it's within a quarter mile walking distance or when it's within a
three mile biking distance. Making it easier for bike riders to take
their vehicles along on public transit opens up a 12 times larger
drawing zone for riders." (Passenger Transport, November 16, 1992.)
Not to mention, bicyclists often fill a gap in the weekend or off-peak
market, when transit ridership is typically lower.

Improves Bicycle Access:
Many commuters and recreational bicycle riders are constrained by
bridges, tunnels, dramatic hills and unsafe city streets. Adding a bus
bicycle rack into the public transit equation creates more options to
overcome geographical barriers, thus creating more opportunities for a
cyclist to ride and use the bus. Rail stations, businesses and
communities overall are continuing to get more bicycle friendly, and
it makes good proactive sense to extrapolate this out into the public
transit realm.

Promotes Good Public Relations:
Adding bicycle racks onto buses is one of the only value-added
services a public transit authority can provide to its riders. These
high profile programs market themselves. The community views bikes
being carried on the front of buses, and not only gets a direct
message about new transit options, but also gets a positive
environmental image of the public service. Statistics show that
cyclists have both outspoken advocate voices and are consistent
voters! Not bad, considering that the product is less expensive than a
bus tire!

Working Partnership:
As federal transportation spending now incorporates bicycles, a new
trend is growing and ultimately embracing a new partnership - one
between bicycles and public transportation. The importance of
strengthening the connections between bicycling and public transit is,
as Federal Transit Administrator, Gordon J. Linton, says, "a win-win
proposition". This partnership addresses our concern about traffic
congestion, air quality, and limited resources. The federal
transportation bill requires that this partnership be addressed at the
planning level, where multimodal concerns must be taken into
consideration. This is resulting in a viable partnership between the
bicycling community and public transit authority. Further, grant
monies under the federal transportation bill are widely available for
bike-on-bus projects, including up to a 95% match under the Transit
Enhancements Program.

On Feb 2, 6:15 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

Those are just a pre-cursor to what CAN happen.

Nothing will be taking out most of humanity, you watch.

Nothing will happens, so is the prediction of the "Church of the
Flying Spaghetti Monster." I quote them here, where the clearly state
there's nothing to fear...

"I have attached a picture of pirate weatherman reporting a rather low
temperature, which is even more evidence that pirates reduce global
warming."

http://www.venganza.org/

See, it seems this Spaghetti Monster (report back to me if you figure
it out) will help us clean all the filth and puke put out by our shiny
SUVs. What a neat solution, ain't it?

BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.

Thats the drug you're crazed by, stupid.

I told you it would make you suspicious before the Freedom Fries
crowd.

On Feb 2, 7:57 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:

You said it best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
soon)...

Stick it.

I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that
we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why
wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up
10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources,
and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-)

That's not all that hard to do. All you got to do is connect Global
Warming with Armageddon, and that so is the will of God. Actually, I
think they are already working hard to make Global Warming happen with
all those SUVs with God's bumper stickers.

So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
causing Armageddon!

Can Humanity Survive? Want to Bet on It?
Sixty ago years, a group of physicists concerned about nuclear weapons
created the Doomsday Clock and set its hands at seven minutes to
midnight. Now, the clock's keepers, alarmed by new dangers like
climate change, have moved the hands up to 11:55 p.m.

http://www.armageddononline.org/ind...t_from=&ucat=1&

SEE POLL TAKING PLACE AT PRAVDA...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...69#post2172469

donquijote1954 wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.

Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...atistics/2004/
html/table_04_20.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw221.html


No way. Buses with racks go a long way for bicyclists who just use the
bikes for shorter distances. They are complementary...

So, the 2 bicyclists that use the bus are still chauffered energy
users/polluters for their bus leg.

Wayne