"Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:rR8rb.46753$ns.7306@bignews4.bellsouth.net...> > "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53... > > > > I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because > > there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many > > measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sources > and > > sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either. > > Hello Glen, Rune et. al., > > You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very > small signal in something that has a lot of noise.(snip)> Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases inthat> we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, orwe> can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a > solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to > get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the > politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and > the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general,tend> to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias inanalyzing> the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or > break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method tomake> the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects > this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression thatif> your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment. Thelatest> trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide > lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has > been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small.A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and natural gas we have. While there is still more to find, we will still run out in the not so distant future. Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me. Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it. -- glen
OT: Authority
Started by ●November 7, 2003
Reply by ●November 8, 20032003-11-08
Reply by ●November 9, 20032003-11-09
Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:> "Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:rR8rb.46753$ns.7306@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > >>"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message >>news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53... >> >>>I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because >>>there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many >>>measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sources >> >>and >> >>>sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either. >> >>Hello Glen, Rune et. al., >> >>You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very >>small signal in something that has a lot of noise. > > > (snip) > > >>Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in > > that > >>we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or > > we > >>can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a >>solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to >>get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the >>politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and >>the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general, > > tend > >>to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in > > analyzing > >>the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or >>break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to > > make > >>the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects >>this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that > > if > >>your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment. The > > latest > >>trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide >>lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has >>been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small. > > > A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and > natural gas we have. While there is still more to find, we will still run > out in the not so distant future. Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel > usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me. > > Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should > wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it. > > -- glenWe are surely warming. Only the cause can be debated, not the trend. The weather pattern is buried in a lot of noise, but statistics can dig it out. If the variations were purely random, there ought to be no correlations among the dates of high-temperature records. It's not unusual or particularly significant when a record high is set on a particular date. It is significant that the previous record had been established relatively recently. We see that more and more now. In very cold climates, the major symptoms of warming is the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Where I live, about 40 degrees north on the Atlantic coast, ponds and lakes froze over regularly as recently as 30. Ice skating every winter was the norm. After a brief period of thin ice warnings, they became unnecessary. For ten years or so, there has been no ice at all that would stop a rowboat. We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure, however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see a man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait to be sure he's really drowning. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 9, 20032003-11-09
In article <bokg0d$6bk$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, jya@ieee.org wrote:>We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure, >however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see a >man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait to be >sure he's really drowning. > >JerryYou have to realize that five or so billion people will die in the reversal of the situation. Probably more than will die by global warming, if it gets as bad as predicted.
Reply by ●November 9, 20032003-11-09
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bojtmv$27i$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...> Clay S. Turner wrote: > > ... > > > Hello Rune, > > It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983 > > Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me > > hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many > > popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about > > geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s. > > ... > > Many texts are out of date, even when published. A generation of physics > texts showed a picture, copied from one to the next, of water issuing > from holes in the side of a container at three distances below the water > surface. The purpose was to illustrate the variation of pressure with > depth, but the stream trajectories weren't physically realizable. People > still design PID control systems despite a better way's having been > published in 1977 by Richard Phelan. > > > Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory: > > > > Echo sounding ... deep ocean trenches. > > [Much else snipped] > > > Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge. > > When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic > > field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded > > in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges. > > In the late 40s and up to the mid 50s, these findings, mostly from > Columbia University's Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, were > regularly written up by the researchers themselves in Scientific > American, where I read of them. No mention of drift was in the reports, > just the findings. Drift was obvious even to me, a naive reader, as at > least the likely explanation of all the findings. Still, they spent > years erecting a robust framework to support the idea before it was ever > explicitly, if tentatively, mentioned. You can imagine the intellectual > climate!After some "on-the-shelf archaeology" (book shelf, that is) I found a book on plate tectonics I had forgotten that I bought ("Global Tectonics" by Kearey and Vine). In the first chapter they give a historical summary and I was quite amazed to see that the term "tectonics" date no longer back than 1968! Still, it appears that Clay's account is essentially correct, there were just so many facts pointing in the direction of continental drift that it seems as when the magnetic "fingerprint" in the sea floor was discovered in the 1960-70ies, everybody accepted the idea, based on the "sea floor conveyor belt" as the driving mechanism behind the drift. Of course, research is a full contact sport, so I can imagine tehre were some bruises and perhapse even some casualties before then. Rune
Reply by ●November 9, 20032003-11-09
"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<IKirb.106428$mZ5.719451@attbi_s54>...> A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and > natural gas we have. While there is still more to find, we will still run > out in the not so distant future. Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel > usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.You may or may not be aware of this, but I wrote a PhD thesis on processing of seismic data. The work was funded by an oil company. I am also actively working to find a job in the oil business. Just for your information. There are many good arguments in favour of reducing the use of fossile fuels. Some types of fossile fules (coal) both disperse dust and chemicals not related to the hydrocarbons themselves (various components causing acid rain) but that emanate from the rocks or soil where the hydrocarbons are embedded. The finite amount of hydrocarbons available suggest that we should try to find other uses for these resources than merely burning them. One alternative could be to use them as bases for chemical products. Still, there is the question about alternative energy sources. I think the one alternative likely to make an impact would be the fusion nuclear reactor, if it ever gets developed.> Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should > wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it.Eh... I don't follow that argument. In my naive world, quite a few criteria need to be met to implement any sort of corrective action: - The goal to be achieved by the action must be defined in advance. - The system to be acted upon must be defined. By this I mean the general and *complete* description of *all* relevant causes and effects must be known sufficiently well. I am not at all sure if present climate research would stand to scrutiny from this point of view. DISCALIMER: I'm only a layman what climate research and metheorology is concerned. - The "control action" must be shown to actually be a significant (actually, the most significant) parameter in controling the output parameter. - The output parameter must be measurable - The impact by adjusting the "control parameter" must be measurable as well as identifiable To do *something* feels good. However, unless the action is justified by the above criteria, it's not going to be more efficient than voodoo. In some cases unjustified "feel-good" actions can cause unnecessary discomfort or even exacerbate the problem that was to be solved in the first place. Rune
Reply by ●November 9, 20032003-11-09
Rune Allnor wrote: ...> After some "on-the-shelf archaeology" (book shelf, that is) I found a > book on plate tectonics I had forgotten that I bought ("Global Tectonics" > by Kearey and Vine). In the first chapter they give a historical summary > and I was quite amazed to see that the term "tectonics" date no longer > back than 1968! Still, it appears that Clay's account is essentially > correct, there were just so many facts pointing in the direction of > continental drift that it seems as when the magnetic "fingerprint" in > the sea floor was discovered in the 1960-70ies, everybody accepted > the idea, based on the "sea floor conveyor belt" as the driving > mechanism behind the drift.... I checked too, and it's clear that my chronology was off by about a decade. Oops! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 10, 20032003-11-10
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick Lyons) wrote: (snipped)> > > Neat. What an interesting thread!!! > >Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me >that automobiles are causing global warming and >that we're all gonna die, I ask them: > > "If that's true, what caused the global warming > 20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age' > when there were no automobiles? In case you > didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, > Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were > *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 > years ago!!!" >Hey guys, isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post? Shoot! [-Rick-]
Reply by ●November 10, 20032003-11-10
Clay S. Turner wrote: > I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in> Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese > actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date > corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa > region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to > be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at > the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere > that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark.PBS ran a program on that a few years ago, which is how I became aware of it. I found the evidence very compelling. More info here: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm A book I'm in the middle of reading now[1] says that when Krakatoa blew in 1883, the shock wave went around the world seven times! It was recorded on gas meters (for gas lamps) in London as well as in other places. [1] Krakatoa / Simon Winchester, HarperCollins / 01 April, 2003 / 0066212855 -- Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc jthomas@bittware.com http://www.bittware.com (703) 779-7770 Air conditioning may have destroyed the ozone layer - but it's been worth it!
Reply by ●November 10, 20032003-11-10
Rick Lyons wrote:> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick > Lyons) wrote: > > (snipped) > >> >> Neat. What an interesting thread!!! >> >>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me >>that automobiles are causing global warming and >>that we're all gonna die, I ask them: >> >> "If that's true, what caused the global warming >> 20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age' >> when there were no automobiles? In case you >> didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, >> Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were >> *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 >> years ago!!!" >> > > > Hey guys, > isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post? > > Shoot! > > [-Rick-]I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke. Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork? Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock makers and all that. It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 10, 20032003-11-10
"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:IKirb.106428$mZ5.719451@attbi_s54...> A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and > natural gas we have. While there is still more to find, we will still run > out in the not so distant future. Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel > usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.Glen, I agree with you on this point and I believe to problem will be self solving even without political intervention. I read a great article in Scientific American magazine a couple of years ago about the petroleum industry in that the peak production of easy to obtain oil will occur right around 2010. The author is a chief scientist at a major petroleum company. He presents neat models for estimating oil field production, rate of discovery of new fields, and most importantly the world oil reserve. After the peak production year, the cost of extraction will climb and thus the prices we pay at the pump. Well there's nothing like high energy cost to encourage people to practice conservation. Right now in the U.S. with cheap petroleum, people are buying huge fuel inefficient cars (announced this year is the fact that the U.S. fleet's average fuel economy is worse than it was 5 years ago.) But in terms of totally running out, there is good evidence that shale rock reserves can fuel the world (at current rates of consumption) for several centuries. However, the cost of extraction from this kind of rock will be $5 or more per U.S. gallon. So we will have to recycle our SUVs and push hard into alternative technologies. In the U.K. during the industrial revolution when a large amount of coal was being used without any method of reducing the smoke, an interesting consequence of polution was seen where a native moth species which existed in both black and white versions actually changed in a decade from predominantely white to predominantely black. White both genotypes existed in the genepool, strong selection effects swapped the demonant phenotype. Since the local trees, whose bark was light in color, became stained black from the soot, the moths which exhibited a high contrast against the trees were picked off by the birds. Certainly our high use of fossil fuels will affect the environment, and some of those ways a hard to predict. The question is can we reduce mankind's dependence on fossil fuels and does the planet's biota have enough genetic diversity built in to survive changes effected by the current and future use of such fuels? Clay> > Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should > wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it. > > -- glen > >
