Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+JoNova+(JoNova)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher


Bret Cahill

On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
immediately: There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
made in the paper make sense.

Rune

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> There are natural phenomena that
> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>

....it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-sc=
ientists-sure

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
<openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> There are natural phenomena that
>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>>
>
>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
>at all about them.
>
>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
>sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized.   I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

>Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
>but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

Trepanation has been successfully performed for many hundreds of
years.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 12 Des, 11:56, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> ...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> at all about them.

Which is why it is ridiculous to attach so much
meaning to *one* factor. There was someone who
claimed competence on the issue, who went on
Norwegian National TV a couple of weeks ago, and
said that the by-products associated with burning
coal (cases, soot, particles) counteract the
heating effects of CO2 to such a degree that
coal in fact has a smaller impact on 'man made'
heating than burning natural gas.

Assming this guy's numbers are right, this only
shows how ridiculous the claims about CO2 are:
Everything else has at least as large impact,
in one direction or the other. Which means
CO2 is just one of a zillion causes for variation,
which in turn means it is not particularly
important.

> OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> changing the composition of the atmosphere

Stay off the baked beans, then.

A few das ago I read about the background for the
Scandinavian legend of 'Fimbulvinter', a 3-year
winter that according to the Norse mythology preceeds
'Ragnarokk', the end of times. It turns out that
there is a climate event that matches the legend's
cold summers, around 535-537 AD. The event as such
is recorded all over the world, in Greenland ice
cores, in written annals of China, and so on.
But no hypotheses as to what caused the event,
were presented. And of ocurse, there are the
Santorini, Krakatoa, Pinatubo, St Helens etc
volcanic events that are *not* man-made, but which
change the atmosphere at least as much as
repercussions from fast food.

Again,there is so much else going on that it is
ridiculous to attach meaning to *one* detail at
the expense of all the others.

> and
> what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> sunlight will be trapped).

Well, I'm rather sceptical to people who fine-tune
fractions of a percent of CO2 contents, but fail to
match the main trends of the major climate gas, H20.

Read Svensmark's 'The Chilling Stars' to get an idea
of what kinds of mechanisms to look for: Solar radiation
governs cloud formations, which in turn reflects
heat away from Earth. Variations of solar activity
correlates with variations in climate.

Once it has been established that the sun, which
drives the whole system, also drive the climate
variations, the whole CO2 issue becomes ridiculous.

Rune

On Dec 11, 11:52=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> Bret Cahill

I call people who want to curtail the use of fossil fuel - "Pro
slavery people".

It is the extensive use of coal and later oil that put an end to
slavery in the Western world.  Take away fossil fuel and we go right
back to slavery.  Wind Power, Solar power , those are thing advocated
by people who wish to bring back human slavery.

On Dec 12, 11:56=A0pm, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> ...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> at all about them.
>
> OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> sunlight will be trapped).

..> Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
..> but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

If surgeons in hospitals told lies, and stuffed things up as badly as
climate "scientists" have, then people WOULD do brain surgery at home.

On Dec 12, 12:10=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>  I think it's foolish to assume that because
> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

On Dec 12, 1:21=A0pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> .. told lies, and stuffed things up as badly as climate "scientists"

Citation needed.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org
(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
><openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>> There are natural phenomena that
>>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
>>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>>>
>>
>>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
>>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
>>at all about them.
>>
>>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
>>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
>>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
>>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
>>sunlight will be trapped).
>
>More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
>some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
>previously recognized.   I think it's foolish to assume that because
>the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
>the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
>and have over history had, much larger influences.

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this.  If
the termperature is really rising (which is almost
universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down?   To say that we don't understand every
little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
the gas.  You might want to down-shift.  You might even want
to try the brakes.  You focus your best judgement on how to
slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
made the road so steep.

When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
not the arson investigators.

Best regards,


Bob Masta
 
              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
              www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI 
          Science with your sound card!

On 12 Des, 14:00, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:10=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
> > =A0I think it's foolish to assume that because
> > the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> > the changes
>
> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
> people are burning.
>
> The rest is basic arithmetic.

No, it isn't.

The textbook on data analysis by Box, Hunter & Hunter
quotes an example of the relation between the number
of storks in an area, and the human population.

The relation shown is as perfect as can be expected
by measured data, and point strongly in the direction
that the number of storks influence the birth rate,
as per a popular 'myth'.

Having *data* that indicate some co-variance between
two factors, does *not* imply that there is a cause-
effect relation between them.

Rune

On Dec 12, 8:21=A0am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
> (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
> ><openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 12, 10:37=3DA0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >>> There are natural phenomena that
> >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> >>at all about them.
>
> >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
> >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> than a little strange.
>
> When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
> the gas. =A0You might want to down-shift. =A0You might even want
> to try the brakes. =A0You focus your best judgement on how to
> slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
> made the road so steep.
>
> When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
> not the arson investigators.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Masta
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DAQARTA =A0v6.02
> =A0 =A0Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.daqarta.com
> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
> =A0 =A0 Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Science with your sound card!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Similarly, if one is worried about accidental fires, one buys fire
insurance, true, unless the cost of the insurance is greater than the
cost of your house.

Uncle Ben

On Dec 12, 8:21=A0am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
> ><openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 12, 10:37=3DA0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >>> There are natural phenomena that
> >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> >>at all about them.
>
> >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
> >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> than a little strange.
>
> When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
> the gas. =A0You might want to down-shift. =A0You might even want
> to try the brakes. =A0You focus your best judgement on how to
> slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
> made the road so steep.
>
> When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
> not the arson investigators.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Masta
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DAQARTA =A0v6.02
> =A0 =A0Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.daqarta.com
> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
> =A0 =A0 Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Science with your sound card!

"GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY
TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CAN NOT CHANGE,
THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN,
AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE"

I think you lack the wisdom to know the difference.

On Dec 12, 9:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> There is too little information to see exactly how
> they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
> the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
> immediately: There are natural phenomena that
> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
> made in the paper make sense.
>
> Rune

So what are these "natural phenomena"? Do they sit outside the laws of
physics? Do tell us what they are and how they have been responsible
for the current steep rise in global temperatures. We'd love to know.
In fact, I've been trying to coax the exact nature of these "natural
phenomena" out of climate deniers for years.

Their links to the current warming always seem to escape the deniers
at the crucial moment, though..........

On 12/12/2011 13:32, Uncle Ben wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org

>> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this.  If
>> the termperature is really rising

Topped out in 2006 according to the top graph.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-predictions-web.gif

  (which is almost
>> universally agreed by the actual climate experts,

It's called wages.

  if not by
>> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
>> can to slow it down?

Slow what down, plumes from the magnetic core?
Solar cycles?

The trouble with fright films is that they've left everyone fearing
a bit of natural warmth, forgeting that man's very explosion on
the seen was due to the end of the last ice age.

Of course the hockey stick was designed to scare people, the gulibe 
people. You'd think there was some straight line forever in the past
and then pow, according to their scare. But take a closer look at
the hockey stick, it's cut of point. No ice ages to tackle, no
recent competing warm periods, all they had to kill was the little
ice age and sell their story.

Now they got gullible types jumping on their chair scratching their
heads everytime they hear the words warm. And they're at a total
loss as to explain the end of every ice age and every warm spike
inbetween.

   To say that we don't understand every
>> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
>> than a little strange.

Do you run for the hills every time you put your heating on?

On Dec 12, 2:46=A0pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> So what are these "natural phenomena"?

Don't hold your breath...

On Dec 12, 3:32=A0pm, Blue <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> >> can to slow it down?
>
> Slow what down, plumes from the magnetic core?
> Solar cycles?
>

Nope, he's referring to the amount of solar radiation
being trapped by the atmosphere due to rising CO2.

It's called "The Greenhouse Effect".

It's a theory so simple and so easily repeatable that
even Mythbusters have managed it.

On Dec 12, 8:46=A0am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh.=
...
>
> > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> > The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> > that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> > is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
> > the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
> > immediately: There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
> > made in the paper make sense.
>
> > Rune
>
> So what are these "natural phenomena"? Do they sit outside the laws of
> physics? Do tell us what they are and how they have been responsible
> for the current steep rise in global temperatures. We'd love to know.
> In fact, I've been trying to coax the exact nature of these "natural
> phenomena" out of climate deniers for years.
>
> Their links to the current warming always seem to escape the deniers
> at the crucial moment, though..........

The climate deniers say that Greenland was a farm-able island 1000
years ago.  I am not a climate denier.  You are a "Lesson of
Greenland" denier.

On Dec 12, 4:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> There is too little information to see exactly how
> they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
> the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
> immediately: There are natural phenomena that
> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
> made in the paper make sense.
>
> Rune

Certainly we have the predictability of the Milankovitch cycles and
their correlation with past ice ages and dust concentrations in ice
cores. Not as clear are the phenomina of Maunder minima - will there
be more than one? likely! Solar astronomers just this year have
predicted a reduced solar output (lack of sunspots) for the next
sunspot cycle or two. These predictions come from three different
(thought to be unrelated) solar theories! One of the things the Kepler
space telescope has discovered is stars are more variable in their
output than previously thought.  This has hindered the search for
other Earths. The search is effected by looking for very small
periodic variations in brighness of a stellar host when eclipsed by a
planet.

If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
resources.

Clay

> > There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic.

> ...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> at all about them.

Most would go with the 2 higher frequencies.  It's the 1300 year cycle
that doesn't have much credibility.  The whole thing is relying on
less than two events.

> OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> sunlight will be trapped).
>
> Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
> but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/https://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skepti...

On Dec 11, 11:52=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> Bret Cahill

Use of Fourier analysis.

On 12/12/2011 8:35 AM, brent wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
>>> <openglMYSO...@artlum.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no>  wrote:
>>>>> There are natural phenomena that
>>>>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
>>>>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>>
>>>> ...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
>>>> phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
>>>> at all about them.
>>
>>>> OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
>>>> changes climate. We also know that man is busy
>>>> changing the composition of the atmosphere and
>>>> what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
>>>> sunlight will be trapped).
>>
>>> More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
>>> some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
>>> previously recognized.   I think it's foolish to assume that because
>>> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
>>> the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
>>> and have over history had, much larger influences.
>>
>> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this.  If
>> the termperature is really rising (which is almost
>> universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
>> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
>> can to slow it down?   To say that we don't understand every
>> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
>> than a little strange.
>>
>> When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
>> the gas.  You might want to down-shift.  You might even want
>> to try the brakes.  You focus your best judgement on how to
>> slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
>> made the road so steep.
>>
>> When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
>> not the arson investigators.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Bob Masta
>>
>>                DAQARTA  v6.02
>>     Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
>>               www.daqarta.com
>> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
>>      Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
>>             Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
>>            Science with your sound card!
>
> "GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY
> TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CAN NOT CHANGE,
> THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN,
> AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE"
>
> I think you lack the wisdom to know the difference.

Perhaps you lack the courage to change what you can.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh.=
...
>
> > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> > The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> > that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> > is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
> > the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
> > immediately: There are natural phenomena that
> > govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
> > made in the paper make sense.
>
> > Rune
>
> Certainly we have the predictability of the Milankovitch cycles and
> their correlation with past ice ages and dust concentrations in ice
> cores. Not as clear are the phenomina of Maunder minima - will there
> be more than one? likely! Solar astronomers just this year have
> predicted a reduced solar output (lack of sunspots) for the next
> sunspot cycle or two. These predictions come from three different
> (thought to be unrelated) solar theories! One of the things the Kepler
> space telescope has discovered is stars are more variable in their
> output than previously thought. =A0This has hindered the search for
> other Earths. The search is effected by looking for very small
> periodic variations in brighness of a stellar host when eclipsed by a
> planet.
>
> If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
> fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
> resources.

A lot of other things can be done as well.  PV solar cost has dropped
so fast no one was prepared for that game changer.  In fact, very few
can fully appreciate that enormous event _now_.

More breakthroughs are guaranteed.


Bret Cahill

> > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.


Bret Cahill

On 12/12/2011 6:22 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> Again,there is so much else going on that it is
> ridiculous to attach meaning to *one* detail at
> the expense of all the others.

When things are tending out of control, one does what little one can. If 
the patient has a fever that in itself can be lethal, reducing its 
severity can save his life, even if the underlying infection is not 
controlled. The earth is getting a fever. There are now mosquitoes in La 
Paz, which was built high in the Andes precisely to avoid malaria. 
Dengue fever is advancing northward, already reaching the southern US. A 
little cooling, even if all sources of warming are not addressed, would 
be a good thing.

   ...

> Once it has been established that the sun, which
> drives the whole system, also drive the climate
> variations, the whole CO2 issue becomes ridiculous.

Once it has been established that foot brakes, which slow the car 
efficiently, the whole notion of a hand brake becomes ridiculous?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/12/2011 8:01 AM, fungus wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:21 pm, "1/3 of land cooling"<skeptic....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> .. told lies, and stuffed things up as badly as climate "scientists"
>
> Citation needed.

Not so. To a True Believer, no evidence of any kind is needed.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/12/2011 10:44 AM, Clay wrote:

   ...

> If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
> fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
> resources.

Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences 
are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and 
waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Dec 12, 11:49=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh.=
...
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem is
> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
> Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

As someone once said: "Paper won't blush"

> > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-s=
h...
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem is
> > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

> They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
> 4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.


Bret Cahill

On Dec 12, 12:47=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study=
-sh...
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem is
> > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > This is all bs
>
> They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
> events documented in other places but then they include the un
> collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> Is it noise or signal?
>
> > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
> > 4
>
> Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
> you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
> noise.
>
> That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
> and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
> anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.
>
> Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money  ...)

> >>> There are natural phenomena that
> >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> >>at all about them.
>
> >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
> >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> than a little strange.
>
> When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
> the gas. =A0You might want to down-shift. =A0You might even want
> to try the brakes. =A0You focus your best judgement on how to
> slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
> made the road so steep.
>
> When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
> not the arson investigators.

Another persistent argument is that "it was warmer before" or
"Antartica was ice free before."  You tell them that a billion people
interested in their own survival weren't living 5' above mean high
tide back then but that never seems to register.

It's like they somehow think that going back to 30 million old sea
levels will "naturally" take human population levels back to what they
were 30 million years ago.

They are correct that extinctions may be considered "natural" but
other events may be considered natural as well, pandemics, famine,
etc., and you don't see them arguing against modern agriculture or
health care, at least not private health insurance.

At first I thought that argument was astro turfed, that most deniers
weren't sincere and were just trying to obfuscate.  That may be
optimistic.

Most of the deniers are just really stupid, sub 80 IQ, etc.


> Best regards,
>
> Bob Masta
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DAQARTA =A0v6.02
> =A0 =A0Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.daqarta.com
> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
> =A0 =A0 Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Science with your sound card!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-stu=
dy-sh...
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem is
> > > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > This is all bs
>
> > They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
> > events documented in other places but then they include the un
> > collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> > Is it noise or signal?
>
> > > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
> > > 4
>
> > Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> > The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
> > you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
> > noise.
>
> > That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
> > and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> > This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
> > anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> China still burns lots of coal

In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
That could be changing.  China is ready to go to war for the oil in
the S. China Sea.

> Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>
> They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
> ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
> Kyoto's money =A0...)

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Solar power is now dirt cheap.  They just need to convert to solar.


Bret Cahill

> > If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
> > fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
> > resources.
>
> Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
> are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
> waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
with science and technology.  It'll be interesting to see how long our
luck holds up.


Bret Cahill


"May you live in interesting times."

-- Chinese curse

On Dec 12, 1:21=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-s=
tudy-sh...
>
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem is
> > > > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > This is all bs
>
> > > They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
> > > events documented in other places but then they include the un
> > > collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> > > Is it noise or signal?
>
> > > > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fi=
g.
> > > > 4
>
> > > Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> > > The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
> > > you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
> > > noise.
>
> > > That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decad=
e
> > > and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> > > This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
> > > anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > China still burns lots of coal
>
> In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
> That could be changing. =A0China is ready to go to war for the oil in
> the S. China Sea.
>
> > Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>
> > They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
> > ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
> > Kyoto's money =A0...)
>
> When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
> natural gas becomes the worst offender.
>
> Solar power is now dirt cheap. =A0They just need to convert to solar.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
CO2 including

The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
water vapor

Converting steel industry to solar ??? Never heard of it

> > > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring=
-study-sh...
>
> > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > > > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem i=
s
> > > > > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency=
..
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > This is all bs
>
> > > > They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
> > > > events documented in other places but then they include the un
> > > > collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> > > > Is it noise or signal?
>
> > > > > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in =
Fig.
> > > > > 4
>
> > > > Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> > > > The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods =
is
> > > > you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
> > > > noise.
>
> > > > That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /dec=
ade
> > > > and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> > > > This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto tha=
n
> > > > anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science=
..
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > China still burns lots of coal
>
> > In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
> > That could be changing. =A0China is ready to go to war for the oil in
> > the S. China Sea.
>
> > > Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>
> > > They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to ston=
e
> > > ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denie=
d
> > > Kyoto's money =A0...)
>
> > When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
> > natural gas becomes the worst offender.
>
> > Solar power is now dirt cheap. =A0They just need to convert to solar.
>
> > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
> for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
> CO2 including
>
> The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
> 95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
> water vapor

But it's lowering O2 levels.

Play around with an O2 meter sometime.  Hold your breath until you
start to gag and get a reading.  It's nearly impossible to go below
14%.

> Converting steel industry to solar ???

Once a country has become sustainable it's not a big contributor.


Bret Cahill

On Dec 12, 1:32=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
> > > fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need fo=
r
> > > resources.
>
> > Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
> > are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
> > waste disposal pretty well sums it up.
>
> Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
> with science and technology. =A0It'll be interesting to see how long our
> luck holds up.
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "May you live in interesting times."
>
> -- Chinese curse

"We" ???

Population density is extremely uneven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

On 12/12/2011 1:21 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

   ...

> When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
> natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Fossil hydrogen? Where? On Jupiter?

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Dec 12, 1:54=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ri=
ng-study-sh...
>
> > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > > > > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The problem=
 is
> > > > > > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequen=
cy.
>
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > This is all bs
>
> > > > > They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the rece=
nt
> > > > > events documented in other places but then they include the un
> > > > > collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> > > > > Is it noise or signal?
>
> > > > > > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition i=
n Fig.
> > > > > > 4
>
> > > > > Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> > > > > The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China period=
s is
> > > > > you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
> > > > > noise.
>
> > > > > That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /d=
ecade
> > > > > and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> > > > > This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto t=
han
> > > > > anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk scien=
ce.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > China still burns lots of coal
>
> > > In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
> > > That could be changing. =A0China is ready to go to war for the oil in
> > > the S. China Sea.
>
> > > > Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>
> > > > They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to st=
one
> > > > ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already den=
ied
> > > > Kyoto's money =A0...)
>
> > > When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
> > > natural gas becomes the worst offender.
>
> > > Solar power is now dirt cheap. =A0They just need to convert to solar.
>
> > > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
> > for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
> > CO2 including
>
> > The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
> > 95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
> > water vapor
>
> But it's lowering O2 levels.
>
> Play around with an O2 meter sometime. =A0Hold your breath until you
> start to gag and get a reading. =A0It's nearly impossible to go below
> 14%.
>
> > Converting steel industry to solar ???
>
> Once a country has become sustainable it's not a big contributor.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lowering O2 level in atmosphere is not a problem (for a foreseable
future)

Increasing CO2 level beyond 0.04% by volume is a major deal

On 12/12/2011 1:32 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
>>> fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
>>> resources.
>>
>> Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
>> are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
>> waste disposal pretty well sums it up.
>
> Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
> with science and technology.  It'll be interesting to see how long our
> luck holds up.

Malthus would have felt delighted, not cheated. We need to avoid 
assuming that we can continue to move the limits as we have in the past. 
Just as with semiconductor geometries, the end point might not be near, 
but it is out there somewhere.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12 Des, 14:21, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
> (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
> ><openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 12, 10:37=3DA0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >>> There are natural phenomena that
> >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> >>at all about them.
>
> >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
> >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> than a little strange.

It is stupid to do *anything* until  you are sure you
understand what is going on. A lot of people here have
compared this to regulating a vehcle's speed by using
brakes. You need to be sure that you just *adjust* the
speeed, and that this adjustment is reversible. Which is
the case in vehicles.

The laternative, when dealing with unknown systems, is
that one pokes at the emergency brakes, which stop the
vehichle but at the possible expense of velding shut.
You stop the vehicle, but in an irrevesible way.

Rune

fungus wrote:
> 
> On Dec 12, 3:32 pm, Blue ?b...@ntlworld.com? wrote:
> ?
> ? ?? the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> ? ?? can to slow it down?
> ?
> ? Slow what down, plumes from the magnetic core?
> ? Solar cycles?
> ?
> 
> Nope, he's referring to the amount of solar radiation
> being trapped by the atmosphere due to rising CO2.
> 
> It's called "The Greenhouse Effect".
> 
> It's a theory so simple and so easily repeatable that
> even Mythbusters have managed it.


    Just like they managed to shoot a cannon ball through a house and
hit a mini van with it, the other day.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

fungus wrote:
> 
> On Dec 12, 2:46 pm, Dawlish ?pjg...@hotmail.com? wrote:
> ? On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor ?all...@tele.ntnu.no? wrote:
> ?
> ? ? On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill ?BretCah...@peoplepc.com? wrote:
> ? ? There are natural phenomena that
> ? ? govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> ? ? well be suspected to be cyclic.
> ?
> ? So what are these "natural phenomena"?
> 
> Don't hold your breath...


   What kind of fungus are you?  Nail fungus, or Jock Itch and is there
a cure?


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

> > > > If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
> > > > fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need =
for
> > > > resources.
>
> > > Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experienc=
es
> > > are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
> > > waste disposal pretty well sums it up.
>
> > Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
> > with science and technology. =A0It'll be interesting to see how long ou=
r
> > luck holds up.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> > "May you live in interesting times."
>
> > -- Chinese curse
>
> "We" ???
>
> Population density is extremely uneven
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

With global trade it doesn't matter so much.  If China and India
import a lot of food then Australians will be paying more for food.

Maybe the Australians can do well by selling more food, coal and iron
ore to Asia, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone will be
paying more for food.


Bret Cahill

In comp.dsp brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I call people who want to curtail the use of fossil fuel - "Pro
> slavery people".

What do you call people who believe that the population can grow
exponentially forever?

> It is the extensive use of coal and later oil that put an end to
> slavery in the Western world.  Take away fossil fuel and we go right
> back to slavery.  Wind Power, Solar power , those are thing advocated
> by people who wish to bring back human slavery.

We knew 40 years ago that population growth was a problem.

If we had done more to reduce population growth 40 years ago,
then the demand for fossil fuel today would have been much smaller.

Maybe enough smaller that more sustainable energy sources could
come along fast enough.

But we haven't removed slavery, just hidden it in 3rd world countries.

-- glen

On 12/12/2011 3:53 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.dsp brent<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com>  wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> I call people who want to curtail the use of fossil fuel - "Pro
>> slavery people".
>
> What do you call people who believe that the population can grow
> exponentially forever?
>
>> It is the extensive use of coal and later oil that put an end to
>> slavery in the Western world.  Take away fossil fuel and we go right
>> back to slavery.  Wind Power, Solar power , those are thing advocated
>> by people who wish to bring back human slavery.
>
> We knew 40 years ago that population growth was a problem.
>
> If we had done more to reduce population growth 40 years ago,
> then the demand for fossil fuel today would have been much smaller.
>
> Maybe enough smaller that more sustainable energy sources could
> come along fast enough.
>
> But we haven't removed slavery, just hidden it in 3rd world countries.

World population when I was born was around 2 billion. Today, it is 
around 7 billion. Well more than half the human beings who were ever 
born are alive today. To put it differently, there are more people alive 
today than all those who have already died.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/12/11 3:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> fungus wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2:46 pm, Dawlish ?pjg...@hotmail.com? wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor ?all...@tele.ntnu.no? wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill ?BretCah...@peoplepc.com? wrote:
>>>> There are natural phenomena that
>>>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
>>>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>>>
>>> So what are these "natural phenomena"?
>>
>> Don't hold your breath...
>
>
>     What kind of fungus are you?  Nail fungus, or Jock Itch

maybe [s]he's a chanterelle.

could someone nice (like Jerry) explain to me what this thread (that 
sprouted like a mushroom) is about?  i tried to peek at the original 
post and the link, and have gathered that it's something about climate 
change, but i do not know what the "Signal Processing Analysis Problem" 
is to consider its Major Flaw.

not unhappy to jump into the fray, but am quite clueless.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 12/12/2011 02:23 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 12 Des, 14:00, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com>  wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>>
>>>   I think it's foolish to assume that because
>>> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
>>> the changes
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
>> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
>> people are burning.
>>
>> The rest is basic arithmetic.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> The textbook on data analysis by Box, Hunter&  Hunter
> quotes an example of the relation between the number
> of storks in an area, and the human population.
>
> The relation shown is as perfect as can be expected
> by measured data, and point strongly in the direction
> that the number of storks influence the birth rate,
> as per a popular 'myth'.
>
> Having *data* that indicate some co-variance between
> two factors, does *not* imply that there is a cause-
> effect relation between them.
>
> Rune

I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and 
oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere 
really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies 
and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?

On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>
>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>

There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is 
some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals 
described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation 
between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record?  By Principal 
Component Analysis?  If so, why are their results any more reliable than 
Briffa's?
  Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?

On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>>
>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>
>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>>
>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>>
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation
> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
> Briffa's?
> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
>
>
>
>
Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper 
for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on 
tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!

BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it 
comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with 
sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.

On 12/12/2011 07:21 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>
>>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>
>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>>
>>>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
>>>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>>
>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>>> This is all bs
>>
>>> They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
>>> events documented in other places but then they include the un
>>> collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>>
>>> Is it noise or signal?
>>
>>>> They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
>>>> 4
>>
>>> Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>>
>>> The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
>>> you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
>>> noise.
>>
>>> That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
>>> and that CO2 is the major cause.
>>
>>> This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
>>> anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> China still burns lots of coal
>
> In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
> That could be changing.  China is ready to go to war for the oil in
> the S. China Sea.
>
>> Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>>
>> They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
>> ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
>> Kyoto's money  ...)
>
> When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
> natural gas becomes the worst offender.
>

natural gas is primarily methane, and per joule produces less CO2 than 
any other fossil fuel.  I wouldn't worry too much about oxygen 
depletion, CO2 poisoning will set in first.

> Solar power is now dirt cheap.  They just need to convert to solar.
>
Something to hope for. Meanwhile in China hundreds of millions of tons 
of coal are burning away in uncontrollable wildfires.
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 13 Des, 00:02, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 02:23 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Des, 14:00, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com> =A0wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
> >>> =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >>> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >>> the changes
>
> >> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
> >> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
> >> people are burning.
>
> >> The rest is basic arithmetic.
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> > The textbook on data analysis by Box, Hunter& =A0Hunter
> > quotes an example of the relation between the number
> > of storks in an area, and the human population.
>
> > The relation shown is as perfect as can be expected
> > by measured data, and point strongly in the direction
> > that the number of storks influence the birth rate,
> > as per a popular 'myth'.
>
> > Having *data* that indicate some co-variance between
> > two factors, does *not* imply that there is a cause-
> > effect relation between them.
>
> > Rune
>
> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and
> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
> really is extremely easy to calculate

Yes, it is. But what is *not* easy, is to associate
causes and effects.

> and has nothing to do with babies
> and storks -

Read up on trivial data analysis. You can find
whatever co-variations you like; you will never
find causes and effects from observational studies.

> or is that how you balance your bank account?

Rather on babies and storks, than frauds and amateurs.

Rune

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
> On 12/12/11 3:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> ?
> ? fungus wrote:
> ??
> ?? On Dec 12, 2:46 pm, Dawlish ?pjg...@hotmail.com? wrote:
> ??? On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor ?all...@tele.ntnu.no? wrote:
> ???
> ???? On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill ?BretCah...@peoplepc.com? wrote:
> ???? There are natural phenomena that
> ???? govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> ???? well be suspected to be cyclic.
> ???
> ??? So what are these "natural phenomena"?
> ??
> ?? Don't hold your breath...
> ?
> ?
> ?     What kind of fungus are you?  Nail fungus, or Jock Itch
> 
> maybe [s]he's a chanterelle.
> 
> could someone nice (like Jerry) explain to me what this thread (that
> sprouted like a mushroom) is about?  i tried to peek at the original
> post and the link, and have gathered that it's something about climate
> change, but i do not know what the "Signal Processing Analysis Problem"
> is to consider its Major Flaw.
> 
> not unhappy to jump into the fray, but am quite clueless.
> 


   It has no meaning since it's another thread created by a well known
troll.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Oh great. Back and forth.....

One talks about ability to measure quantities and the other talks about 
relating one quantity to another.

That one may or may not be able to relate seems to the point here.

That one can measure one quantity doesn't imply that one can properly 
relate that measure to some other measure or to a prediction.  It's only 
that it probably helps.

Fred

On 13 Des, 02:32, Fred Marshall <fmarshallxremove_th...@acm.org>
wrote:
> Oh great. Back and forth.....
>
> One talks about ability to measure quantities and the other talks about
> relating one quantity to another.

And both are *neccesary* to establish a
cause-effect relation: If you can't measure
the variable, it's irrelevant. If has no
relation with the possible response, there
is no cause-effect relation.

But even with an *apparent* relation, you can not
establish a cause-effect relation. The only way
to do that, is to poke the system and see what
happens. Now, that's fine in the la, but not
necessarily in real life. There is a huge schism
betwen the physical sciences and humanior for
exactly this reason: Physicists can easily poke
a system and see what happens. It is hard to
start subjecting people to various living
conditions to see the effects.

> That one may or may not be able to relate seems to the point here.

No, it's not. The point is that it takes far
more than an apparent co-variation to establish
a cause-effect relation. Karl Popper said a lot
about such issues about 70 years ago.

> That one can measure one quantity doesn't imply that one can properly
> relate that measure to some other measure or to a prediction. =A0It's onl=
y
> that it probably helps.

Again: No.

Being able to come up with a prediction presupposes
that a cause-effect relation has already been
established. In order to do that, one needs to
come up with a hypothesis for how the stimulus and
response are connected, make a prediction of what
will happen if the system input is disturbed, _and_
_then_disturb_the_system_and_see_what_happens_.

As with the humaniora sciences, the risk / cost /
moral issues about poking into the global climate
system are such that competent, sane people stay
away from even thinking it: If the idea that the
present global warming is man-made is wrong, then
the correctiive actions are likely to cause a
significant cooling, maybe to the effect of causing
a permanent, global ice age.

Back to the general case, even if the preditied
result is observed, there are no guarantees that
the hypothesized cause-effect mechanism is true.
The only reliable outcome is if the predicted
outcome _fails_ to materialize. In that case the
hypothesis has been falsified.

Again, Karl Popper said a lot about such questions.
Understanding his views are essential during data
analysis.

Rune

In comp.dsp Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

(snip)
> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and 
> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere 
> really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies 
> and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?

No, it isn't so easy.  There is a slow equilibrium between the
atmosphere and ocean.  Every day, much CO2 goes in and much comes out,
where the difference is what is added to the atmosphere.  
The not so big difference between two large numbers.

Now, ocean acidification is another problem that is more
recently being considered.

There is also the amount being used by trees to consider.

-- glen

In article <9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
> > On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
> >>>
> >>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Bret Cahill
> >>>
> >>> Use of Fourier analysis.
> >>
> >> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
> >> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bret Cahill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
> > The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
> > some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
> > described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation
> > between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
> > Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
> > Briffa's?
> > Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper 
> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on 
> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
> 
> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it 
> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with 
> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.

.... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the 
FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream 
that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the 
"hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.

On 12/12/2011 6:03 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

Rune,

And here I thought I was agreeing with you.

Fred

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:01:35 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>In comp.dsp Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and 
>> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere 
>> really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies 
>> and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?
>
>No, it isn't so easy.  There is a slow equilibrium between the
>atmosphere and ocean.  Every day, much CO2 goes in and much comes out,
>where the difference is what is added to the atmosphere.  
>The not so big difference between two large numbers.
>
>Now, ocean acidification is another problem that is more
>recently being considered.
>
>There is also the amount being used by trees to consider.

As well as all other plants.

And the amount of methane, which is worse than CO2, being generated by
livestock (and most other animals).

And the CO2 from volcanoes, and particularly what will be released by
the Yellowstone caldera when it goes off, which probably won't be in
the so distant future.

The fact that there's a pretty huge economic incentive for some people
to benefit by regulating something as natural as CO2 should give one
pause.  Follow the money and the politics.   It wasn't that long ago
that global cooling was threatening the planet, again for political
reasons.

You're right, it's not easy. 


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 12 Des, 19:15, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > >>> There are natural phenomena that
> > >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> > >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> > >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> > >>at all about them.
>
> > >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> > >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> > >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> > >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> > >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> > >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
> > >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> > >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that because
> > >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> > >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> > >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> > I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> > the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> > universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> > the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> > can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> > little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> > than a little strange.
>
> > When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
> > the gas. =A0You might want to down-shift. =A0You might even want
> > to try the brakes. =A0You focus your best judgement on how to
> > slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
> > made the road so steep.
>
> > When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
> > not the arson investigators.
>
> Another persistent argument is that "it was warmer before" or
> "Antartica was ice free before." =A0You tell them that a billion people
> interested in their own survival weren't living 5' above mean high
> tide back then but that never seems to register.

Well, the problem is not the change in sea levels,
but that people live in places where they are
exposed to those changes.

In Norwegian media there are reporst that 2011 will
be a record year, what damage compensation from
weather and other natural events, are concerned.
The comments from insurance companies are unequivocal:
"New building and housing projects are located where
they ought not to be, near waterfornts and in other
exposed areas."

It's the same thing with forest fires in the US
and Australia: The problem is not that the forest
burns - just look at how many species depend on
fires for procreation - but that people have
selected to live where fires tend to happen.

One needs to be very cautious to keep the two
apart.

Rune

In comp.dsp Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:01:35 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>>In comp.dsp Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

>>(snip)
>>> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and 
>>> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere 
>>> really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies 
>>> and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?

>>No, it isn't so easy.  There is a slow equilibrium between the
>>atmosphere and ocean.  Every day, much CO2 goes in and much comes out,
>>where the difference is what is added to the atmosphere.  
>>The not so big difference between two large numbers.

(snip)
>>There is also the amount being used by trees to consider.

> As well as all other plants.

Yes, them, but trees are a lot bigger.

> And the amount of methane, which is worse than CO2, being generated by
> livestock (and most other animals).

But methane oxidizes to CO2.  I was going to look up the lifetime
in the atmosphere, but I didn't do that.  CO2 goes between
the atmosphere and ocean, but stays CO2 for a long time.

> And the CO2 from volcanoes, and particularly what will be released by
> the Yellowstone caldera when it goes off, which probably won't be in
> the so distant future.

> The fact that there's a pretty huge economic incentive for some people
> to benefit by regulating something as natural as CO2 should give one
> pause.  Follow the money and the politics.   It wasn't that long ago
> that global cooling was threatening the planet, again for political
> reasons.

Some have suggested that the government tax it, and then reduce other
taxes such that there is no net gain.  

> You're right, it's not easy. 

-- glen

On 12/13/2011 06:31 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:01:35 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>  wrote:
>
>> In comp.dsp Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and
>>> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
>>> really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies
>>> and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?
>>
>> No, it isn't so easy.  There is a slow equilibrium between the
>> atmosphere and ocean.  Every day, much CO2 goes in and much comes out,
>> where the difference is what is added to the atmosphere.
>> The not so big difference between two large numbers.
>>
>> Now, ocean acidification is another problem that is more
>> recently being considered.
>>
>> There is also the amount being used by trees to consider.
>
> As well as all other plants.
>
> And the amount of methane, which is worse than CO2, being generated by
> livestock (and most other animals).
>
> And the CO2 from volcanoes, and particularly what will be released by
> the Yellowstone caldera when it goes off, which probably won't be in
> the so distant future.
>
> The fact that there's a pretty huge economic incentive for some people
> to benefit by regulating something as natural as CO2 should give one
> pause.

Don't you think that the economic incentive for NOT regulating CO2 is 
even larger? As long as demand for oil keeps going up you can make money 
on it.  An effective CO2 reduction program would result in a declining 
fuel market.  How can you make money on a declining fuel market?

   Follow the money and the politics.

Quite so.

  It wasn't that long ago
> that global cooling was threatening the planet, again for political
> reasons.
>
A journalistic invention.

> You're right, it's not easy.
>
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> www.anchorhill.com

On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
>   Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>
>>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>>>>
>>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
>>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
>>> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
>>> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
>>> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation
>>> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
>>> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
>>> Briffa's?
>>> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
>> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on
>> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
>>
>> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it
>> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
>> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.
>
> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.

The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier 
analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part 
derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the  PCA 
technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm 
wrong.
   PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy 
data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate 
with the instrumental data.  It' not at all clear to me why anyone 
should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures 
should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the 
major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone 
the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without 
which the PCA analysis is meaningless.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:10:04 +0100, Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

>On 12/13/2011 06:31 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:01:35 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
>> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.dsp Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>> I'm sorry to have to point out that if you burn 9 gigatonnes of coal and
>>>> oil every year, then the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
>>>> really is extremely easy to calculate and has nothing to do with babies
>>>> and storks - or is that how you balance your bank account?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't so easy.  There is a slow equilibrium between the
>>> atmosphere and ocean.  Every day, much CO2 goes in and much comes out,
>>> where the difference is what is added to the atmosphere.
>>> The not so big difference between two large numbers.
>>>
>>> Now, ocean acidification is another problem that is more
>>> recently being considered.
>>>
>>> There is also the amount being used by trees to consider.
>>
>> As well as all other plants.
>>
>> And the amount of methane, which is worse than CO2, being generated by
>> livestock (and most other animals).
>>
>> And the CO2 from volcanoes, and particularly what will be released by
>> the Yellowstone caldera when it goes off, which probably won't be in
>> the so distant future.
>>
>> The fact that there's a pretty huge economic incentive for some people
>> to benefit by regulating something as natural as CO2 should give one
>> pause.
>
>Don't you think that the economic incentive for NOT regulating CO2 is 
>even larger? As long as demand for oil keeps going up you can make money 
>on it.  An effective CO2 reduction program would result in a declining 
>fuel market.  How can you make money on a declining fuel market?

It's not whether anybody can make money, it's who.  There are ways to
make money on both sides, and whoever has the better lobbyists and
most persuasive (or persistent) politicians will do well.   I'm sure
you've heard of Cap and Trade and other related global wealth
redistribution schemes that have been associated with the political
bodies discussing how to "fix" global warming.  


>   Follow the money and the politics.
>
>Quite so.
>
>  It wasn't that long ago
>> that global cooling was threatening the planet, again for political
>> reasons.
>>
>A journalistic invention.

Of a real event with real political motivations.   I remember it
pretty well, so I know it wasn't invented.

>> You're right, it's not easy.
>>
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communications
>> www.anchorhill.com


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Dec 12, 9:16=A0pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> fungus wrote:
> > Don't hold your breath...
>
> =A0 =A0What kind of fungus are you? =A0Nail fungus, or Jock Itch and is t=
here
> a cure?
>

You know how I know you don't have any real
arguments or evidence on your side?

On Dec 12, 7:54=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> Play around with an O2 meter sometime. =A0Hold your breath until you
> start to gag and get a reading. =A0It's nearly impossible to go below
> 14%.
>

It's not lack of O2 that causes you to gag, it's
build-up of CO2.

What you need to do is set up a closed system
where the air you breathe is recycled after it's
passed through some lime water to absorb the
CO2. You'll die of hypoxia* without gagging, feeling
out of breath or noticing anything at all is wrong.

PS: All this is basic biology so I take it you
don't know any...yet somehow you're an expert
on climate science?

[*] This big, scary word means lack of oxygen

In article <9kpfq4FquqU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

> On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >   Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
> >>> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh..
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bret Cahill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
> >>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bret Cahill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
> >>> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
> >>> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
> >>> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation
> >>> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
> >>> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
> >>> Briffa's?
> >>> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
> >> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on
> >> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
> >>
> >> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it
> >> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
> >> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.
> >
> > .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
> > FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
> > that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
> > "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
> 
> The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier 
> analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part 
> derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the  PCA 
> technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm 
> wrong.
>    PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy 
> data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate 
> with the instrumental data.  It' not at all clear to me why anyone 
> should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures 
> should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the 
> major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone 
> the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without 
> which the PCA analysis is meaningless.

You need the Fourier analysis just to sort through the data scatter -- 
even with "instrumental" data, which, BTW, has not covered the Earth 
until recent times.

> > > >>> There are natural phenomena that
> > > >>> govern climate, at least major parts of which could
> > > >>> well be suspected to be cyclic.
>
> > > >>...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
> > > >>phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
> > > >>at all about them.
>
> > > >>OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
> > > >>changes climate. We also know that man is busy
> > > >>changing the composition of the atmosphere and
> > > >>what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
> > > >>sunlight will be trapped).
>
> > > >More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, an=
d
> > > >some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
> > > >previously recognized. =A0 I think it's foolish to assume that becau=
se
> > > >the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> > > >the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
> > > >and have over history had, much larger influences.
>
> > > I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. =A0If
> > > the termperature is really rising (which is almost
> > > universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
> > > the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
> > > can to slow it down? =A0 To say that we don't understand every
> > > little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
> > > than a little strange.
>
> > > When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
> > > the gas. =A0You might want to down-shift. =A0You might even want
> > > to try the brakes. =A0You focus your best judgement on how to
> > > slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
> > > made the road so steep.
>
> > > When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
> > > not the arson investigators.
>
> > Another persistent argument is that "it was warmer before" or
> > "Antartica was ice free before." =A0You tell them that a billion people
> > interested in their own survival weren't living 5' above mean high
> > tide back then but that never seems to register.
>
> Well, the problem is not the change in sea levels,
> but that people live in places where they are
> exposed to those changes.

You can that that philosophy to its final conclusion if some
[currently unknown] effect from some human activity makes the entire
globe uninhabitable.  Then people need to move to another planet.

Moreover, the loss of millions of square kilometers of low lying areas
may not be the biggest threat to human survival.  Finally, humans very
slowly evolved to a climate / biosphere and we prefer it that way.  We
like the biodiversity.  We like low lying areas like the SE and Gulf
coasts of the U. S.

> In Norwegian media there are reporst that 2011 will
> be a record year, what damage compensation from
> weather and other natural events, are concerned.

You have a choice of two kinds of Keynesian economics, rebuilding
Keynesian economics and green tech Keynesian economics.

Which Keynesian economics do you prefer?

> The comments from insurance companies are unequivocal:
> "New building and housing projects are located where
> they ought not to be, near waterfornts and in other
> exposed areas."

> It's the same thing with forest fires in the US
> and Australia: The problem is not that the forest
> burns - just look at how many species depend on
> fires for procreation - but that people have
> selected to live where fires tend to happen.

What about the people grandfathered in _before_ climate change.

It's like a family was on a farm for generations and a super fund site
creating industry decides to build a plant just upstream of the farm
and pollutes the irrigation water.

The only difference is that many of the people destroying your
property's value are on the other side of the planet.


Bret Cahill

"fungus" <openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote in message 
news:4c437092-744a-4c2b-91be-3db4d7062e15@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 12, 7:54 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> Play around with an O2 meter sometime. Hold your breath until you
> start to gag and get a reading. It's nearly impossible to go below
> 14%.
>

It's not lack of O2 that causes you to gag, it's
build-up of CO2.

What you need to do is set up a closed system
where the air you breathe is recycled after it's
passed through some lime water to absorb the
CO2. You'll die of hypoxia* without gagging, feeling
out of breath or noticing anything at all is wrong.

PS: All this is basic biology so I take it you
don't know any...yet somehow you're an expert
on climate science?

[*] This big, scary word means lack of oxygen
=========================================
Hey shithead!
The Earth isn't a closed system, the Sun shines on it.

On 13 Des, 19:45, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> There are natural phenomena that

> > > Another persistent argument is that "it was warmer before" or
> > > "Antartica was ice free before." =A0You tell them that a billion peop=
le
> > > interested in their own survival weren't living 5' above mean high
> > > tide back then but that never seems to register.
>
> > Well, the problem is not the change in sea levels,
> > but that people live in places where they are
> > exposed to those changes.
>
> You can that that philosophy to its final conclusion if some
> [currently unknown] effect from some human activity makes the entire
> globe uninhabitable. =A0Then people need to move to another planet.

You don't get it, do you: The world changes all the time.
It has always done so, and it always will, people or no
people.

There are two new factors to the equation:

1) Over the past two or three centuries, western
   civilization type settlements have taken to
   dominate the world. That's what's different
   in western USA and Australia. The aboriginal
   peoples in both places knew the fires, and how
   to deal with them.

2) Over the past 50-100 years, people have begun
   to make meteorological measurements. It's funny,
   but one usually don't know how stuff change
   until one actually measure. It's one of the
   more disturbing aspects of data analysis that
   people mistake 'new measurement' for 'new change'.

   Somehow, it seems that the perception is that
   whatever parameter strted to change in the same
   moment one takes the measurement: "These changes
   didn't happen in the past!" should *really* be
   "We couldn't _observe_ such changes in the past."

   The difference might seem minuscule; the
   implications are enormous.

> Moreover, the loss of millions of square kilometers of low lying areas
> may not be the biggest threat to human survival. =A0Finally, humans very
> slowly evolved to a climate / biosphere and we prefer it that way. =A0We
> like the biodiversity. =A0We like low lying areas like the SE and Gulf
> coasts of the U. S.

Sure. As long as you understand the risks. Re-building
New Orleans is a total waste of $$$ - those kinds of
things will happen again. It's only a matter of time.

> > The comments from insurance companies are unequivocal:
> > "New building and housing projects are located where
> > they ought not to be, near waterfornts and in other
> > exposed areas."
> > It's the same thing with forest fires in the US
> > and Australia: The problem is not that the forest
> > burns - just look at how many species depend on
> > fires for procreation - but that people have
> > selected to live where fires tend to happen.
>
> What about the people grandfathered in _before_ climate change.

There is no 'before'. The climate has always changed,
various ice ages being trivial examples.

The worst climate disaster was the first bacteria which
produced O2 through their metabolism. The O2 bonded
with Fe in water, to form huge deposits of rust on the
seabed. Just about all the rust-brown rocks you see
outdoor are formed this way, some billion years ago.

Only when the Fe was sedimented out from seawater did
O2 start to build up in the atmosphere.

> It's like a family was on a farm for generations and a super fund site
> creating industry decides to build a plant just upstream of the farm
> and pollutes the irrigation water.
>
> The only difference is that many of the people destroying your
> property's value are on the other side of the planet.

No. The difference is that in your examle there
is an actual pollutant.

Rune

In comp.dsp Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>>Don't you think that the economic incentive for NOT regulating CO2 is 
>>even larger? As long as demand for oil keeps going up you can make money 
>>on it.  An effective CO2 reduction program would result in a declining 
>>fuel market.  How can you make money on a declining fuel market?

> It's not whether anybody can make money, it's who.  There are ways to
> make money on both sides, and whoever has the better lobbyists and
> most persuasive (or persistent) politicians will do well.   

Yes, the "let's use it up now before our kids have a chance" so 
more money for us now, instead of others later.

This is especially noticable in the ANWR case, which has a fairly
small amount of oil that some want to use up as soon as possible.

There is also the jobs or environment discussion, claiming that
jobs now are more important than environmental disasters later.

-- glen

> > Play around with an O2 meter sometime. =A0Hold your breath until you
> > start to gag and get a reading. =A0It's nearly impossible to go below
> > 14%.

> It's not lack of O2 that causes you to gag, it's
> build-up of CO2.

CO2 obviously builds up in the lungs of divers that swim straight down
on nothing but a breath of air.  The record is something like a 100
meters straight down which is impossible just below the surface.  Why
can a diver burn more calories at depth per breath of air with all
this CO2 that he couldn't do just below the surface?

None of this is an argument against carbon abatement or even natural
gas just that burning the H in hydrocarbons esp. in Nat. gas is
lowering the partial pressure of O2 as the C is increasing CO2.

Most animals are sensitive to even small changes in O2, especially if
it's over the entire life span.  Studies have shown that people living
at altitude live longer so maybe deniers should try to spin the lower
partial pressure of O2 as one of the health benefits of burning
natural gas.

As a blue water fisherman / medical student said of the study, "yea,
sure, if you want to call being that far from the ocean that
'living'."  You don't need a study or a medical background to know if
you reduce O2 to zero then heart disease and cancer rates drop to
zero.

The sea level rise from burning fossil hydrogen isn't a significant,
but since it is being cracked back to O2 more slowly than it is being
formed the drop in O2 partial pressure could become a concern, health
studies notwithstanding.


Bret Cahill

> > > > > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-=
ring-study-sh...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > > > Use of Fourier analysis.
>
> > > > > > > > Most would go with the two higher frequencies. =A0The probl=
em is
> > > > > > > > extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequ=
ency.
>
> > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > This is all bs
>
> > > > > > They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the re=
cent
> > > > > > events documented in other places but then they include the un
> > > > > > collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.
>
> > > > > > Is it noise or signal?
>
> > > > > > > They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition=
 in Fig.
> > > > > > > 4
>
> > > > > > Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.
>
> > > > > > The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China peri=
ods is
> > > > > > you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency i=
s
> > > > > > noise.
>
> > > > > > That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is =
/decade
> > > > > > and that CO2 is the major cause.
>
> > > > > > This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto=
 than
> > > > > > anything else. =A0Most Chinese scientists know this is junk sci=
ence.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > China still burns lots of coal
>
> > > > In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
> > > > That could be changing. =A0China is ready to go to war for the oil =
in
> > > > the S. China Sea.
>
> > > > > Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)
>
> > > > > They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to =
stone
> > > > > ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already d=
enied
> > > > > Kyoto's money =A0...)
>
> > > > When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydroge=
n,
> > > > natural gas becomes the worst offender.
>
> > > > Solar power is now dirt cheap. =A0They just need to convert to sola=
r.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
> > > for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
> > > CO2 including
>
> > > The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
> > > 95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO an=
d
> > > water vapor
>
> > But it's lowering O2 levels.
>
> > Play around with an O2 meter sometime. =A0Hold your breath until you
> > start to gag and get a reading. =A0It's nearly impossible to go below
> > 14%.
>
> > > Converting steel industry to solar ???
>
> > Once a country has become sustainable it's not a big contributor.
>
> > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lowering O2 level in atmosphere is not a problem (for a foreseable
> future)

We can only hope you are correct.  The biosphere is a complicated
system.  A tiny effect here can often turn out to be a big effect
there.  Time and again climate scientists have been way too optimistic
on the speed of the warming and the impact on the biosphere from CO2.

> Increasing CO2 level beyond 0.04% by volume is a major deal-

As far as we know at this time.


Bret Cahill

On 12/13/2011 2:35 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Play around with an O2 meter sometime.  Hold your breath until you
>>> start to gag and get a reading.  It's nearly impossible to go below
>>> 14%.
>
>> It's not lack of O2 that causes you to gag, it's
>> build-up of CO2.
>
> CO2 obviously builds up in the lungs of divers that swim straight down
> on nothing but a breath of air.  The record is something like a 100
> meters straight down which is impossible just below the surface.  Why
> can a diver burn more calories at depth per breath of air with all
> this CO2 that he couldn't do just below the surface?
>
> None of this is an argument against carbon abatement or even natural
> gas just that burning the H in hydrocarbons esp. in Nat. gas is
> lowering the partial pressure of O2 as the C is increasing CO2.
>
> Most animals are sensitive to even small changes in O2, especially if
> it's over the entire life span.  Studies have shown that people living
> at altitude live longer so maybe deniers should try to spin the lower
> partial pressure of O2 as one of the health benefits of burning
> natural gas.
>
> As a blue water fisherman / medical student said of the study, "yea,
> sure, if you want to call being that far from the ocean that
> 'living'."  You don't need a study or a medical background to know if
> you reduce O2 to zero then heart disease and cancer rates drop to
> zero.
>
> The sea level rise from burning fossil hydrogen isn't a significant,
> but since it is being cracked back to O2 more slowly than it is being
> formed the drop in O2 partial pressure could become a concern, health
> studies notwithstanding.

Where is fossil hydrogen found? What is being "cracked" back to o2?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Assume the tree ring data is good.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+JoNova+(JoNova)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher


LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
too.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Assume the tree ring data is good.
> > 
> > http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+JoNova+(JoNova)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
> > 
> > 
> > Bret Cahill

> There is too little information to see exactly how
> they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
problem with that?

> The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> is man-made.

All of the evidence says it is. Why would someone wish to "let go"
of the observed facts?


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
>
> <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> > > Bret Cahill
> > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> problem with that?

Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.
If these guys are any good, their journal article
will contain a good enough description of what they
did, so other researchers can

1) re-do their analysis on the same data
2) repeat the investigation in other areas.

I have seen severe criticisms of Mann et al, on the
basis that no one were able to reproduce the 'hockey-
stick' graph. Others being able to replicate the results
is one main divider between science and fraud.

> > The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
> > that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
> > is man-made.
>
> All of the evidence says it is. Why would someone wish to "let go"
> of the observed facts?

The *facts* are that the present climate is warmer than
amere couple of decades ago. Any claims that the change
is *man-made* are speculation. As I said in an earlier
post, one can easily find data that show any co-variation,
like between population numbers of humans and storks.

The numbers are facts. Any claim that there is a cause-effect
relation needs to be justified.

Rune

On 13 Des, 22:59, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> > All of the evidence says it is. Why would someone wish to "let go"
> > of the observed facts?
>
> The *facts* are that the present climate is warmer than
> amere couple of decades ago. Any claims that the change
> is *man-made* are speculation. As I said in an earlier
> post, one can easily find data that show any co-variation,
> like between population numbers of humans and storks.
>
> The numbers are facts. Any claim that there is a cause-effect
> relation needs to be justified.

The baby-stork example is available on-line, in Amazon's
pre-view of the Box, Hunter & Hunter 2005 edition:

http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Experimenters-Design-Innovation-Discovery/dp/0471718130/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323814230&sr=8-2#reader_0471718130

Don't know how close one gets through that link, but it's
figure 1.3, page 8, under the Look Inside flag.

This is a standard text on data analysis, so it is
rather disturbing that somebody who claim affiliations
with IPCC (the email address you post from) don't
know this.

Maybe just as well you don't post under your real name.

Rune

> > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> too.

True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
events.

Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
doesn't even have two periods of sampling time.  To be somewhat sure
it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.

That doesn't get it when the ocean is rising 2 in every 13 years.


Bret Cahill


> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... =A0and CO2 =
levels
> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

On 14 Des, 00:04, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh.=
...
>
> > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > too.

Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
findings are relevant on a global scale?

> True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
> correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> events.

And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
data sets point in the same direction.

> Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
> doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat sure
> it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.

Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
all there was. But since the authors compare their own
findings with other, independent data sets, they have
a substantially stronger case.

Rune

> > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-s=
h...
>
> > > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> > > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > > too.
>
> Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> > True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
> > correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> > events.

> And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> data sets point in the same direction.

That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
be accurate.

> > Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
> > doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat sure
> > it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.

> Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> all there was.

It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
accurate.  That was the point of the OP.


There is no way to know if the < 2 cycles of the 1/1300 year frequency
are signal or noise.  You have to wait a few thousand more years to be
sure.

There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
but there just isn't any time.


Bret Cahill

> > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
> > > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> > The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> > Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> > problem with that?
>
> Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
> to that area as well.

Actually part of the surface is _cooling_ as the rest is warming.

Sea level is the same way.  In most places the sea level will rise but
in some it will drop.

Can you figure out why?


Bret Cahill

On 14 Des, 01:37, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study=
-sh...
>
> > > > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> > > > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > > > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > > > too.
>
> > Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> > way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> > core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> > findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> > > True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
> > > correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> > > events.
> > And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> > data sets point in the same direction.
>
> That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
> be accurate.

It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
conditions can be taken at face value. If several
independent measurements point in the same direction,
that tends to be mutually supportive.

> > > Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
> > > doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat sur=
e
> > > it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
> > Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> > all there was.
>
> It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
> accurate. =A0That was the point of the OP.

The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
isolation; in that case they are just numbers. It is
only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
by other measurements, that they start making sense.

> There is no way to know if the < 2 cycles of the 1/1300 year frequency
> are signal or noise. =A0You have to wait a few thousand more years to be
> sure.

So what? The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
a mathematical method you can apply to the available
data.

This is what I have said throughout the whole thread:
The data themselves say nothing about what causes
them to look like they do. OK, the present data set
may or may not be subject to a 1300 year cycle.
That's not the point. The point is that the *present*
data, recorded over the past couple of decades, show
variation on a scale that is not at all unique for the
period and location under study.

> There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
> but there just isn't any time.

Why would they? Just have a look at the data available.
As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.

Rune

On Dec 13, 3:31=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 2:35 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Play around with an O2 meter sometime. =A0Hold your breath until you
> >>> start to gag and get a reading. =A0It's nearly impossible to go below
> >>> 14%.
>
> >> It's not lack of O2 that causes you to gag, it's
> >> build-up of CO2.
>
> > CO2 obviously builds up in the lungs of divers that swim straight down
> > on nothing but a breath of air. =A0The record is something like a 100
> > meters straight down which is impossible just below the surface. =A0Why
> > can a diver burn more calories at depth per breath of air with all
> > this CO2 that he couldn't do just below the surface?
>
> > None of this is an argument against carbon abatement or even natural
> > gas just that burning the H in hydrocarbons esp. in Nat. gas is
> > lowering the partial pressure of O2 as the C is increasing CO2.
>
> > Most animals are sensitive to even small changes in O2, especially if
> > it's over the entire life span. =A0Studies have shown that people livin=
g
> > at altitude live longer so maybe deniers should try to spin the lower
> > partial pressure of O2 as one of the health benefits of burning
> > natural gas.
>
> > As a blue water fisherman / medical student said of the study, "yea,
> > sure, if you want to call being that far from the ocean that
> > 'living'." =A0You don't need a study or a medical background to know if
> > you reduce O2 to zero then heart disease and cancer rates drop to
> > zero.
>
> > The sea level rise from burning fossil hydrogen isn't a significant,
> > but since it is being cracked back to O2 more slowly than it is being
> > formed the drop in O2 partial pressure could become a concern, health
> > studies notwithstanding.
>
> Where is fossil hydrogen found? What is being "cracked" back to o2?
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He means fossil *hydrocarbons* (oil and gas)

fungus wrote:
> 
> You know how I know you don't have any real
> arguments or evidence on your side?


  Yes.  You pull it out of your ass, like everything else you post.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

> > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-stu=
dy-sh...
>
> > > > > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe th=
e
> > > > > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > > > > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > > > > too.
>
> > > Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> > > way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> > > core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> > > findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> > > > True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree dat=
a
> > > > correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> > > > events.
> > > And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> > > data sets point in the same direction.
>
> > That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
> > be accurate.
>
> It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
> conditions can be taken at face value.

Then feel free to start a thread on it.

The OP here assumes the Chinese had good data.

>  If several
> independent measurements point in the same direction,
> that tends to be mutually supportive.

> > > > Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when =
he
> > > > doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat s=
ure
> > > > it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
> > > Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> > > all there was.

> > It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
> > accurate. =A0That was the point of the OP.

> The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
> isolation;

That's not the point of _this_ thread.  See the OP.

> in that case they are just numbers. It is
> only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
> by other measurements, that they start making sense.

> > There is no way to know if the < 2 cycles of the 1/1300 year frequency
> > are signal or noise. =A0You have to wait a few thousand more years to b=
e
> > sure.

> So what?

We don't have several thousand years.

> The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
> a mathematical method you can apply to the available
> data.

And when it comes to determining if a frequency is signal or noise,
that method doesn't work for sample times < 2X the period.

> This is what I have said throughout the whole thread:
> The data themselves say nothing about what causes
> them to look like they do. OK, the present data set
> may or may not be subject to a 1300 year cycle.
> That's not the point. The point is that the *present*
> data, recorded over the past couple of decades, show
> variation on a scale that is not at all unique for the
> period and location under study.
>
> > There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
> > but there just isn't any time.

> Why would they?

Ask the Chinese who did the low pass filtering in _their_ study.

> Just have a look at the data available.
> As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
> mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.

That the deniers' problem.


Bret Cahill

On 12/13/2011 7:42 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>
>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>
>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>> There is too little information to see exactly how
>>>> they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
>>>> problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>>
>>> The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
>>> Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
>>> problem with that?
>>
>> Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
>> to that area as well.
>
> Actually part of the surface is _cooling_ as the rest is warming.
>
> Sea level is the same way.  In most places the sea level will rise but
> in some it will drop.

Define "sea level"

> Can you figure out why?

There's only one way: the land rises faster than the sea. Tide aside, 
"water seeks its own level."

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/13/2011 9:17 PM, fatalist wrote:
> On Dec 13, 3:31 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 12/13/2011 2:35 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

   ...

>>> The sea level rise from burning fossil hydrogen ...

>> Where is fossil hydrogen found? What is being "cracked" back to o2?

   ...

> He means fossil *hydrocarbons* (oil and gas)

How does one crack them back to O2?

I'd like to hear it from him.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/13/2011 07:18 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article<9kpfq4FquqU1@mid.individual.net>,
>   Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>> In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>    Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh..
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
>>>>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
>>>>> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
>>>>> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
>>>>> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the correlation
>>>>> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
>>>>> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
>>>>> Briffa's?
>>>>> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
>>>> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on
>>>> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
>>>>
>>>> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it
>>>> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
>>>> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.
>>>
>>> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
>>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
>>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
>>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
>>
>> The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier
>> analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part
>> derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the  PCA
>> technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>     PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy
>> data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate
>> with the instrumental data.  It' not at all clear to me why anyone
>> should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures
>> should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the
>> major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone
>> the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without
>> which the PCA analysis is meaningless.
>
> You need the Fourier analysis just to sort through the data scatter --
> even with "instrumental" data, which, BTW, has not covered the Earth
> until recent times.

What you have said so far makes little sense. You said:
<quote>
..... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
 >>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
 >>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
 >>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
</quote>

But the post industrial data is NOT derived from FT analysis, and 
moreover Mann's analysis is not based on FFT

So if you say that FFT "goes unstable",  why are you now saying that you 
need to use it?

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
>>
>> <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>
>> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>
>> > > Bret Cahill
>> > There is too little information to see exactly how
>> > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
>> > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>>
>> The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
>> Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
>> problem with that?
>
>Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
>to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
>to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.

This is a common misconception by the general public, and by
anyone else who hasn't been paying attention.  *Global*
warming refers to average temperature over the whole planet,
not the average temperature of any given spot.  Climate is
not a simple linear system.  

Best regards,




Bob Masta
 
              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
              www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI 
          Science with your sound card!

On 12/14/2011 05:49 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>
>>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>>
>>>>>> LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
>>>>>> central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
>>>>>> all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
>>>>>> too.
>>
>>>> Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
>>>> way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
>>>> core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
>>>> findings are relevant on a global scale?
>>
>>>>> True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
>>>>> correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
>>>>> events.
>>>> And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
>>>> data sets point in the same direction.
>>
>>> That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
>>> be accurate.
>>
>> It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
>> conditions can be taken at face value.
>
> Then feel free to start a thread on it.
>
> The OP here assumes the Chinese had good data.
>
>>   If several
>> independent measurements point in the same direction,
>> that tends to be mutually supportive.
>
>>>>> Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
>>>>> doesn't even have two periods of sampling time.  To be somewhat sure
>>>>> it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
>>>> Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
>>>> all there was.
>
>>> It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
>>> accurate.  That was the point of the OP.
>
>> The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
>> isolation;
>
> That's not the point of _this_ thread.  See the OP.
>
>> in that case they are just numbers. It is
>> only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
>> by other measurements, that they start making sense.
>
>>> There is no way to know if the<  2 cycles of the 1/1300 year frequency
>>> are signal or noise.  You have to wait a few thousand more years to be
>>> sure.
>
>> So what?
>
> We don't have several thousand years.
>
>> The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
>> a mathematical method you can apply to the available
>> data.
>
> And when it comes to determining if a frequency is signal or noise,
> that method doesn't work for sample times<  2X the period.
>
>> This is what I have said throughout the whole thread:
>> The data themselves say nothing about what causes
>> them to look like they do. OK, the present data set
>> may or may not be subject to a 1300 year cycle.
>> That's not the point. The point is that the *present*
>> data, recorded over the past couple of decades, show
>> variation on a scale that is not at all unique for the
>> period and location under study.
>>
>>> There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
>>> but there just isn't any time.
>
>> Why would they?
>
> Ask the Chinese who did the low pass filtering in _their_ study.
>
>> Just have a look at the data available.
>> As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
>> mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.
>
> That the deniers' problem.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>


I'd like to try and summarize some of the problems with this piece of 
research.

1. The reliability of the tree-ring method.
  Tree-rings do not deliver temperatures. Tree-rings tell us about 
annual growth. By using tree-ring data as a proxy for temperatures we 
are making assumptions.

2. The proxy data evaluation.

  The paper does not describe the method used but refers to another 
paper as source. However, if the same procedure is used as per Briffa, 
then most likely the Principal Component Analysis is used.  This in any 
case requires an overlap between the proxy data and instrumental 
temperature data. It is not clear over what time span reliable 
instrumental temperature data has been available in the central-eastern 
Tibetan Plateau.  Figure 1 refers to "orange line, calibration series, 
464 BC�834 AD; purple line, verification series, 835�1980 AD"
  It's pretty obvious that there is no instrumental data covering the 
whole of either of these time spans, so what did they use?

3. Reliability of conclusions from PCA analysis.

  The idea of PCA is that we can set up a model that fits the proxy data 
to the instrumental data.  So long as the model is then used for 
interpolating, this is unproblematic. However, the model can also be 
used to hindcast, meaning estimate past temperatures, as well as 
forecast into the future, which means that we are assuming that the 
model is valid for time spans outside of the instrumental record.
  Not long ago we had a discussion about PCA in connection with the 
"hockey stick" graph. The upshot is that that according to the methods 
used to discard or select the principal components it is possible to get 
wildly different results. In addition, the Briffa pine-cone analysis 
suffered a major debacle when revealed that the resulting forecasts for 
years after the calibration timespan were wildly inaccurate. This calls 
into question whether PCA analysis of tree-ring data really can deliver 
any meaningful results in general, let alone provide a basis for Fourier 
analysis.

4. The statistical significance of the conclusions from PCA analysis

  The figure 1 displayed on the website shows standard deviations for 
the temperature reconstruction. It is notable that with the exception of 
a few points all of the values fall inside the 1 SD limits.
  By comparison, CERN's non-announcement yesterday of the observation of 
the Higgs Boson presented data with sigma 1.9 - not enough for a 
conclusive announcement.

We now consider the Fourier analysis itself and the presentation of the 
results.

5. Exaggerated power spectrum.

Figure 2 shows the power density vs. frequency a-1.  Noticeable is that 
the power density is extremely high for values corresponding to 500 
years or more. However, this distribution may well be artifact, and is 
quite typical for the power spectrum of any noisy data.
  Conversely, the high frequency components are extremely weak.

6. Claimed frequency components.

  As Bret points out, it is meaningless to identify frequency components 
comparable to half the timespan of the data itself. Indeed, it is 
questionable whether some of the higher frequencies are not simply 
harmonics. Figure 3 shows such a picture, so it could be that we are 
seeing harmonics of a sawtooth - but could it be we are also seeing 
harmonics arising from the "clipping" of 2485 years of data?

7. Presentation of results.

The JoanneNova website chose to present Figure 5 as their favorite 
graph, showing as it does a "forecast" of temperatures for the next 120 
years(!).
  Interesting is that the 1SD noise present in the original data has 
totally vanished. Why no confidence limits?

On Dec 13, 5:16=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 13 Des, 22:59, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > All of the evidence says it is. Why would someone wish to "let go"
> > > of the observed facts?
>
> > The *facts* are that the present climate is warmer than
> > amere couple of decades ago. Any claims that the change
> > is *man-made* are speculation. As I said in an earlier
> > post, one can easily find data that show any co-variation,
> > like between population numbers of humans and storks.
>
> > The numbers are facts. Any claim that there is a cause-effect
> > relation needs to be justified.
>
> The baby-stork example is available on-line, in Amazon's
> pre-view of the Box, Hunter & Hunter 2005 edition:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Experimenters-Design-Innovation-Disc...
>
> Don't know how close one gets through that link, but it's
> figure 1.3, page 8, under the Look Inside flag.
>
> This is a standard text on data analysis, so it is
> rather disturbing that somebody who claim affiliations
> with IPCC (the email address you post from) don't
> know this.
>
> Maybe just as well you don't post under your real name.
>
> Rune

I didn't know of the stork example. The example I like from astromomy
is in the Northern Hemisphere that total solar eclipses occur more
often on Wednesday than any other day of the week. What could possibly
be the linkage? This fact holds true when looking over 50, 100, 500,
1000 or more years time spans! The astromomer Jean Meus wrote a great
article on this.  This is a great example that illustrates statistical
clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.

Clay

On 12/14/2011 10:37 AM, Clay wrote:

   ...

> I didn't know of the stork example. The example I like from astromomy
> is in the Northern Hemisphere that total solar eclipses occur more
> often on Wednesday than any other day of the week. What could possibly
> be the linkage? This fact holds true when looking over 50, 100, 500,
> 1000 or more years time spans! The astromomer Jean Meus wrote a great
> article on this.  This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.

The seasonal variation of deaths by drowning the consumption of ice 
cream and in the US correlate well. Does this imply causality? Probably 
not. Is it to be expected? Almost certainly.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

In article <9krlsgFuv2U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

> On 12/13/2011 07:18 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article<9kpfq4FquqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >   Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>> In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>    Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh
> >>>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
> >>>>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bret Cahill
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
> >>>>> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that there is
> >>>>> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
> >>>>> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the 
> >>>>> correlation
> >>>>> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By Principal
> >>>>> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable than
> >>>>> Briffa's?
> >>>>> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
> >>>> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- based on
> >>>> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly when it
> >>>> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
> >>>> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.
> >>>
> >>> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
> >>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
> >>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
> >>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
> >>
> >> The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier
> >> analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part
> >> derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the  PCA
> >> technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm
> >> wrong.
> >>     PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy
> >> data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate
> >> with the instrumental data.  It' not at all clear to me why anyone
> >> should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures
> >> should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the
> >> major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone
> >> the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without
> >> which the PCA analysis is meaningless.
> >
> > You need the Fourier analysis just to sort through the data scatter --
> > even with "instrumental" data, which, BTW, has not covered the Earth
> > until recent times.
> 
> What you have said so far makes little sense. You said:
> <quote>
> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
>  >>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
>  >>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
>  >>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
> </quote>
> 
> But the post industrial data is NOT derived from FT analysis, and 
> moreover Mann's analysis is not based on FFT
> 
> So if you say that FFT "goes unstable",  why are you now saying that you 
> need to use it?

....because you can't get smooth data without it. there is too much data 
scatter.

"Orval Fairbairn" <orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:orfairbairn-9EFB30.11511514122011@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
.......snip..........
> ...because you can't get smooth data without it. there is too much data
> scatter.

Ergo, the variable (global temperature) is a random variable.... and all 
serious students of statistics know that any value is possible for a random 
variable including MOMENTARY very low and very high values. The culprit here 
is the very thought that such any given HIGH value can remain permanent (hot 
days every day). It's absurd to express that in public as the present 
Democratic administration ninnies are want to do! Throw them out!

Ange. 

On Dec 14, 4:37=A0pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
> =A0This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>

Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

* Theory
The Greenhouse Effect was  postulated in 1824
by a guy called Joseph Fourier.

* Predicition
"Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases"

* Experiment
In 1859 the prediction was proved experimentally
in the laboratory by a guy called John Tyndall.

(And the "ongoing experiment" is of course The Earth...)


Since then the climateologists have been observing
and looking to see if the theory breaks down, it hasn't.

They're also looking for other possible explanations
for their observations. They haven't found anything
that stands up to scrutiny.

Climate change isn't some "Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi"
or "X-Factor" thing where every last idiot's opinion
is valid and we can have phone-in voting to decide
who wins.

The Earth *cannot* warm itself up, the energy has
to come from The Sun (there's nothing else around
here to provide it).

Two indisputable facts:

* The Greenhouse Effect is real, it traps solar energy
and warms The Earth.

* We're pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases
into the air. They're not being absorbed by trees/algae,
they're measurably changing the composition of the
atmosphere.

On Dec 14, 5:59=A0pm, "Angelo Campanella" <a.campane...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Ergo, the variable (global temperature) is a random variable....

Fail.

A random variable has no memory.

eg. Roulette is random. On a roulette table
seeing 100 reds in a row doesn't imply the
next spin is more likely to be black. The
probability of coming up black remains
exactly the same as always.

Temperature is not random. Having a hot day
will definitely influence the temperature of the
following day. This is why the highest summer
temperatures are in July-August, not on the
21st of June.

Similarly, having a hot year definitely changes
the temperature of the following year (although
the relationship is a lot more complex).

On 14 Des, 05:49, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-s=
tudy-sh...
>
> > > > > > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe =
the
> > > > > > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > > > > > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > > > > > too.
>
> > > > Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> > > > way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> > > > core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> > > > findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> > > > > True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree d=
ata
> > > > > correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> > > > > events.
> > > > And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> > > > data sets point in the same direction.
>
> > > That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
> > > be accurate.
>
> > It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
> > conditions can be taken at face value.
>
> Then feel free to start a thread on it.
>
> The OP here assumes the Chinese had good data.

Sure, the *measurements* might well be good or flawless
or noiseless or whatever. They usually are flawed in
several sense.

The *analysis* is not at all trivial, even with a perfect
data set, when done in isolation. Only when several data
sets have been recorded can one start to see what is
noise or measurement errors in the data themselves,
local variation at a site, and global trends among the
measurements.

> > =A0If several
> > independent measurements point in the same direction,
> > that tends to be mutually supportive.
> > > > > Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal whe=
n he
> > > > > doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat=
 sure
> > > > > it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
> > > > Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> > > > all there was.
> > > It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
> > > accurate. =A0That was the point of the OP.
> > The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
> > isolation;
>
> That's not the point of _this_ thread. =A0See the OP.

The OP did not indicate there was any point,
whatsoever. You ought to know; the first post
in this thread was posted under your name. Either
you need to express your views somewhat more clearly,
or find out who nicked your identity.

> > in that case they are just numbers. It is
> > only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
> > by other measurements, that they start making sense.
> > > There is no way to know if the < 2 cycles of the 1/1300 year frequenc=
y
> > > are signal or noise. =A0You have to wait a few thousand more years to=
 be
> > > sure.
> > So what?
>
> We don't have several thousand years.

So what?

Unlike climate 'research', *science* works by testing claims,
and expanding on ideas. As I said in a different post, other
people can have a go at these data, or types of data:

- Dendrochronology is well established, tree growth records
  are available in large parts of the world.
- Use the same kind of analysis on tree growth records,
  and look for similar patterns.
- Tree growth rates are linked to local growth conditions,
  the variation for one indivinual tree being dominated
  by temperature: Serasonal variations are the reasons
  there are growth ring sin trees at all.
- Map growth rates to known local events, like particularly
  cold or hot years.

This idea works everywhere, for the time period tree samples
are available. In some parts of the world, tree trunks have
been preserved in marshes and bogs. So if one can find
such a trunk, one can get an idea of local growth
variations during its lifetime. With C14 dating, one can
get an idea about when that life time was.

So you don't need thousands of years, only good, old-
fashioned *scientific* craftmanship.

> > The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
> > a mathematical method you can apply to the available
> > data.
>
> And when it comes to determining if a frequency is signal or noise,
> that method doesn't work for sample times < 2X the period.

As I said, these idnividual data don't prove or
disprove anything. What these people did, is to
do one type of analysis for onr area of the world,
and one period in time. OK, they used the FFT, and
see a strong component at a certain cycle.

It does not prove anything other than that *these*
data show this kind of behaviour. But as I said above,
others can do the same types of analyses for other
parts of the world, and other time periods.

The interesting results will only appear when there
is a large number of such analyses available.


> > Just have a look at the data available.
> > As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
> > mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.
>
> That the deniers' problem.

That's the *scientist's* problem. Thanks for reinforcing
my distinction between climate 'research' and science.

Rune

On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 4:37=A0pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
>
> > =A0This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> > clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>
> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
studies. You need to do the experiments.

In order to represent the whole real-worldsystem,
you need to replicate *all* the factors simultaneously,
in the experiment. You can test the effects of CO2,
H20, coulds, methane, and so on *individually* in the
lab, but these results are not valid for the whole
system until you have tested everything at once.

The Achilles heel of climate models is the relation
between water vapour and water clouds:

1) Water vapor absorbs heat and tend to heat up
   the atmosphere, when illuminated by the sun.
2) Water clouds reflect inboud solar radiation
   back into space, preventing heating from
   taking place.

So the key is to understan how, why and where
water vapour switches to droplets, and become
clouds.

Svensmark's criticism against the climate models
is that no climate model is able to predict cloud
formations. That is, no one understand exactly
why clouds for. Sure, there are the condensation
nuklei that cause droplets for form, but where
did those nuklei come from?

No one knows. Svensmark suggests an answer.
Read his 'The Chilling Stars'.

Rune

> >>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >>>>>>>http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study=
-sh...
>
> >>>>>> LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> >>>>>> central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> >>>>>> all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> >>>>>> too.
>
> >>>> Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> >>>> way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> >>>> core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> >>>> findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> >>>>> True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree dat=
a
> >>>>> correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> >>>>> events.
> >>>> And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> >>>> data sets point in the same direction.
>
> >>> That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
> >>> be accurate.
>
> >> It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
> >> conditions can be taken at face value.
>
> > Then feel free to start a thread on it.
>
> > The OP here assumes the Chinese had good data.
>
> >> =A0 If several
> >> independent measurements point in the same direction,
> >> that tends to be mutually supportive.
>
> >>>>> Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when =
he
> >>>>> doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat s=
ure
> >>>>> it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
> >>>> Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> >>>> all there was.
>
> >>> It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
> >>> accurate. =A0That was the point of the OP.
>
> >> The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
> >> isolation;
>
> > That's not the point of _this_ thread. =A0See the OP.
>
> >> in that case they are just numbers. It is
> >> only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
> >> by other measurements, that they start making sense.
>
> >>> There is no way to know if the< =A02 cycles of the 1/1300 year freque=
ncy
> >>> are signal or noise. =A0You have to wait a few thousand more years to=
 be
> >>> sure.
>
> >> So what?
>
> > We don't have several thousand years.
>
> >> The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
> >> a mathematical method you can apply to the available
> >> data.
>
> > And when it comes to determining if a frequency is signal or noise,
> > that method doesn't work for sample times< =A02X the period.
>
> >> This is what I have said throughout the whole thread:
> >> The data themselves say nothing about what causes
> >> them to look like they do. OK, the present data set
> >> may or may not be subject to a 1300 year cycle.
> >> That's not the point. The point is that the *present*
> >> data, recorded over the past couple of decades, show
> >> variation on a scale that is not at all unique for the
> >> period and location under study.
>
> >>> There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
> >>> but there just isn't any time.
>
> >> Why would they?
>
> > Ask the Chinese who did the low pass filtering in _their_ study.
>
> >> Just have a look at the data available.
> >> As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
> >> mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.
>
> > That the deniers' problem.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> I'd like to try and summarize some of the problems with this piece of
> research.
>
> 1. The reliability of the tree-ring method.
> =A0 Tree-rings do not deliver temperatures. Tree-rings tell us about
> annual growth. By using tree-ring data as a proxy for temperatures we
> are making assumptions.
>
> 2. The proxy data evaluation.
>
> =A0 The paper does not describe the method used but refers to another
> paper as source. However, if the same procedure is used as per Briffa,
> then most likely the Principal Component Analysis is used. =A0This in any
> case requires an overlap between the proxy data and instrumental
> temperature data. It is not clear over what time span reliable
> instrumental temperature data has been available in the central-eastern
> Tibetan Plateau. =A0Figure 1 refers to "orange line, calibration series,
> 464 BC=96834 AD; purple line, verification series, 835=961980 AD"
> =A0 It's pretty obvious that there is no instrumental data covering the
> whole of either of these time spans, so what did they use?
>
> 3. Reliability of conclusions from PCA analysis.
>
> =A0 The idea of PCA is that we can set up a model that fits the proxy dat=
a
> to the instrumental data. =A0So long as the model is then used for
> interpolating, this is unproblematic. However, the model can also be
> used to hindcast, meaning estimate past temperatures, as well as
> forecast into the future, which means that we are assuming that the
> model is valid for time spans outside of the instrumental record.
> =A0 Not long ago we had a discussion about PCA in connection with the
> "hockey stick" graph. The upshot is that that according to the methods
> used to discard or select the principal components it is possible to get
> wildly different results. In addition, the Briffa pine-cone analysis
> suffered a major debacle when revealed that the resulting forecasts for
> years after the calibration timespan were wildly inaccurate. This calls
> into question whether PCA analysis of tree-ring data really can deliver
> any meaningful results in general, let alone provide a basis for Fourier
> analysis.
>
> 4. The statistical significance of the conclusions from PCA analysis
>
> =A0 The figure 1 displayed on the website shows standard deviations for
> the temperature reconstruction. It is notable that with the exception of
> a few points all of the values fall inside the 1 SD limits.
> =A0 By comparison, CERN's non-announcement yesterday of the observation o=
f
> the Higgs Boson presented data with sigma 1.9 - not enough for a
> conclusive announcement.
>
> We now consider the Fourier analysis itself and the presentation of the
> results.
>
> 5. Exaggerated power spectrum.
>
> Figure 2 shows the power density vs. frequency a-1. =A0Noticeable is that
> the power density is extremely high for values corresponding to 500
> years or more. However, this distribution may well be artifact, and is
> quite typical for the power spectrum of any noisy data.
> =A0 Conversely, the high frequency components are extremely weak.
>
> 6. Claimed frequency components.
>
> =A0 As Bret points out, it is meaningless to identify frequency component=
s
> comparable to half the timespan of the data itself. Indeed, it is
> questionable whether some of the higher frequencies are not simply
> harmonics. Figure 3 shows such a picture, so it could be that we are
> seeing harmonics of a sawtooth - but could it be we are also seeing
> harmonics arising from the "clipping" of 2485 years of data?

By now NASA must have looked at every last thing that has to do with
celestial mechanics, Euler's equations, etc.  A 1/1300 year comet or
astroid would be confirmed immediately.

So the question is, what periodic event on earth could take place
every 1300 years?

And if it was solar activity why hasn't 1300 years appeared in some
other record?

It's not impossible but it really seems unlikely this is useful at
all.

> 7. Presentation of results.
>
> The JoanneNova website chose to present Figure 5 as their favorite
> graph, showing as it does a "forecast" of temperatures for the next 120
> years(!).
> =A0 Interesting is that the 1SD noise present in the original data has
> totally vanished. Why no confidence limits?

Maybe the Chinese government finally decided to "go denial" but it's
too late to find any good shills and they don't want to execute their
competent scientists.  Maybe they knew it would be exposed but just
wanted to see how long it would take.

In this case the scientist probably wasn't very good.


Bret Cahill

On 14 Des, 15:28, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 05:49 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> >>>>>>>http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study=
-sh...
>
> >>>>>> LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> >>>>>> central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> >>>>>> all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> >>>>>> too.
>
> >>>> Sure. The same argument works against claims the other
> >>>> way, that are based on findings on the Greenland glacier
> >>>> core samples: How would you justify a claim that local
> >>>> findings are relevant on a global scale?
>
> >>>>> True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree dat=
a
> >>>>> correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> >>>>> events.
> >>>> And do contemplate what this means: *several* independent
> >>>> data sets point in the same direction.
>
> >>> That's irrelevate in this thread as the tree ring data is assumed to
> >>> be accurate.
>
> >> It's very relevant, as few if any data from outside lab
> >> conditions can be taken at face value.
>
> > Then feel free to start a thread on it.
>
> > The OP here assumes the Chinese had good data.
>
> >> =A0 If several
> >> independent measurements point in the same direction,
> >> that tends to be mutually supportive.
>
> >>>>> Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when =
he
> >>>>> doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. =A0To be somewhat s=
ure
> >>>>> it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
> >>>> Such a claim would be problematic if these data were
> >>>> all there was.
>
> >>> It's problematic even if the temperature/time graphs are taken as
> >>> accurate. =A0That was the point of the OP.
>
> >> The point is that you can not evaluate these data in
> >> isolation;
>
> > That's not the point of _this_ thread. =A0See the OP.
>
> >> in that case they are just numbers. It is
> >> only when they fit the big picture, already sketched
> >> by other measurements, that they start making sense.
>
> >>> There is no way to know if the< =A02 cycles of the 1/1300 year freque=
ncy
> >>> are signal or noise. =A0You have to wait a few thousand more years to=
 be
> >>> sure.
>
> >> So what?
>
> > We don't have several thousand years.
>
> >> The FFT or periodogra or whatever is just
> >> a mathematical method you can apply to the available
> >> data.
>
> > And when it comes to determining if a frequency is signal or noise,
> > that method doesn't work for sample times< =A02X the period.
>
> >> This is what I have said throughout the whole thread:
> >> The data themselves say nothing about what causes
> >> them to look like they do. OK, the present data set
> >> may or may not be subject to a 1300 year cycle.
> >> That's not the point. The point is that the *present*
> >> data, recorded over the past couple of decades, show
> >> variation on a scale that is not at all unique for the
> >> period and location under study.
>
> >>> There is no question climate scientists would like to low pass filter
> >>> but there just isn't any time.
>
> >> Why would they?
>
> > Ask the Chinese who did the low pass filtering in _their_ study.
>
> >> Just have a look at the data available.
> >> As I said early on, the hard part is to let go of
> >> mythlogy, vested interests and presuppositions.
>
> > That the deniers' problem.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> I'd like to try and summarize some of the problems with this piece of
> research.
>
> 1. The reliability of the tree-ring method.
> =A0 Tree-rings do not deliver temperatures. Tree-rings tell us about
> annual growth. By using tree-ring data as a proxy for temperatures we
> are making assumptions.

Sure, but testable assumptions: Subject a set of
sapling plants to different temperatures but otherwise
in similar growth onditions greenhouses for a few years.
Analyze differnces in growth rings. Presumably, the
biologists have already done this, so relations between
groth rates and temperature is assumed known.

No problem at all - that's what's life is like outside
the lab.

> 2. The proxy data evaluation.
>
> =A0 The paper does not describe the method used but refers to another
> paper as source. However, if the same procedure is used as per Briffa,
> then most likely the Principal Component Analysis is used. =A0This in any
> case requires an overlap between the proxy data and instrumental
> temperature data. It is not clear over what time span reliable
> instrumental temperature data has been available in the central-eastern
> Tibetan Plateau.

If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
while reliable meaurements are ony available for
the past dozen of decades.

This is one of my main arguments against the
climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
they have so little reliable data?

>=A0Figure 1 refers to "orange line, calibration series,
> 464 BC=96834 AD; purple line, verification series, 835=961980 AD"
> =A0 It's pretty obvious that there is no instrumental data covering the
> whole of either of these time spans, so what did they use?

C14 dating? Ancient tree trunks are available everywhere.
Record its growth pattern, do the C14. Average over
hundreds of samples to pin-point ring patterns to
precise intervals.

Apart from that,, written records, particularly in that
part of the world, go a long way back. Some claim
thousands of years. While one would not find statements
like '-10C' in such records, officials will make general
notes as to famines and other problems. So general trends
will be known.

Tax incomes, grain prices, all those economic details
will, when recorded, be very good indocators og general
living conditions. C14 might help to pin-point the
details.

But yes, you point is a valid one: Lack of good data
is a big deal.

> 3. Reliability of conclusions from PCA analysis.
>
> =A0 The idea of PCA is that we can set up a model that fits the proxy dat=
a
> to the instrumental data. =A0So long as the model is then used for
> interpolating, this is unproblematic. However, the model can also be
> used to hindcast, meaning estimate past temperatures, as well as
> forecast into the future, which means that we are assuming that the
> model is valid for time spans outside of the instrumental record.

Wrong. The problem is not if the model is valid *outside*
the time span; the problem is if the model is valid *at all*.

But the wise analyst stays away from model-based methods
for precisely this reason.

> =A0 Not long ago we had a discussion about PCA in connection with the
> "hockey stick" graph.

Mann et al was severely criticesed a few years ago
because no one seemed to be able to reproduce that
graph.

> 4. The statistical significance of the conclusions from PCA analysis
>
> =A0 The figure 1 displayed on the website shows standard deviations for
> the temperature reconstruction. It is notable that with the exception of
> a few points all of the values fall inside the 1 SD limits.
> By comparison, CERN's non-announcement yesterday of the observation of
> the Higgs Boson presented data with sigma 1.9 - not enough for a
> conclusive announcement.

You need to be aware of the difference between observational
studies and experimental studies. The objectives, and thus
the tools, differ. This study was an observational study.
Sure, you need to fuse the data from several data sources
into one main trend, but those data can be found from
standard dendrochronology references.

You could argue for or against the exclusion of data points
from known anomalies, like e.g. trees in well-sheltered
areas, that are not subjected to the general climate
variations. Or from trees that are particularly exposed.

But that's part of the scientific method: Explain what
you did, so others can challenge it.

> We now consider the Fourier analysis itself and the presentation of the
> results.
>
> 5. Exaggerated power spectrum.
>
> Figure 2 shows the power density vs. frequency a-1. =A0Noticeable is that
> the power density is extremely high for values corresponding to 500
> years or more. However, this distribution may well be artifact, and is
> quite typical for the power spectrum of any noisy data.
> =A0 Conversely, the high frequency components are extremely weak.

The power spectrum is not the tool for this type of data.
I'd rather use a state space model, random walk + trends,
and maybe use spectrum analysis on the residuals to look
for periodicals.

> 6. Claimed frequency components.
>
> =A0 As Bret points out, it is meaningless to identify frequency component=
s
> comparable to half the timespan of the data itself. Indeed, it is
> questionable whether some of the higher frequencies are not simply
> harmonics. Figure 3 shows such a picture, so it could be that we are
> seeing harmonics of a sawtooth - but could it be we are also seeing
> harmonics arising from the "clipping" of 2485 years of data?

Which is why the power spectrum is the wrong tool.

Which in turn brings us to the value of the data set:
It raises questions and inspires ideas of replicating
the same kind of analysis in different parts of the world.
The value of the data is not in the FFT or PCA analysis,
but in the questions they raise.

> 7. Presentation of results.
>
> The JoanneNova website chose to present Figure 5 as their favorite
> graph, showing as it does a "forecast" of temperatures for the next 120
> years(!).
> =A0 Interesting is that the 1SD noise present in the original data has
> totally vanished. Why no confidence limits?

That's the main weakness of the paper: I can't
see, from the material on the website, how one
could make such a prediction, let alone come up
with confidence limits.

Rune

On 14 Des, 16:37, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:16=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Des, 22:59, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > > All of the evidence says it is. Why would someone wish to "let go"
> > > > of the observed facts?
>
> > > The *facts* are that the present climate is warmer than
> > > amere couple of decades ago. Any claims that the change
> > > is *man-made* are speculation. As I said in an earlier
> > > post, one can easily find data that show any co-variation,
> > > like between population numbers of humans and storks.
>
> > > The numbers are facts. Any claim that there is a cause-effect
> > > relation needs to be justified.
>
> > The baby-stork example is available on-line, in Amazon's
> > pre-view of the Box, Hunter & Hunter 2005 edition:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Experimenters-Design-Innovation-Disc...
>
> > Don't know how close one gets through that link, but it's
> > figure 1.3, page 8, under the Look Inside flag.
>
> > This is a standard text on data analysis, so it is
> > rather disturbing that somebody who claim affiliations
> > with IPCC (the email address you post from) don't
> > know this.
>
> > Maybe just as well you don't post under your real name.
>
> > Rune
>
> I didn't know of the stork example.

I like it, for two reasons:

1) It's available in a standard textbook. Carries some
   weight with some, it might not otherwise have had.
2) *Everyone* understand it. One only needs to know
   certain extremely basic facts of life, to see the
   point. Which means only those who miss those basic
   facts of life miss the point.

Rune

On 12/14/2011 11:29 AM, Jerry Avins wrote:

   ...

> The seasonal variation of deaths by drowning the consumption of ice
> cream and in the US correlate well. Does this imply causality? Probably
> not. Is it to be expected? Almost certainly.

Arrgh!

The seasonal variations of deaths by drowning and the consumption of ice 
cream in the US correlate well.

Better yet: In the US, the seasonal variations of death by drowning and 
consumption of ice cream are well correlated.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
> 'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
> then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
> talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
> while reliable meaurements are ony available for
> the past dozen of decades.
>
> This is one of my main arguments against the
> climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
> they have so little reliable data?

The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of 
global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types 
plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a 
certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way.

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:54:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/14/2011 11:29 AM, Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>> The seasonal variation of deaths by drowning the consumption of ice
>> cream and in the US correlate well. Does this imply causality? Probably
>> not. Is it to be expected? Almost certainly.
>
>Arrgh!
>
>The seasonal variations of deaths by drowning and the consumption of ice 
>cream in the US correlate well.
>
>Better yet: In the US, the seasonal variations of death by drowning and 
>consumption of ice cream are well correlated.
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Knew what you meant, I did.   ;)


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 14 Des, 20:07, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> > If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
> > 'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
> > then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
> > talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
> > while reliable meaurements are ony available for
> > the past dozen of decades.
>
> > This is one of my main arguments against the
> > climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
> > they have so little reliable data?
>
> The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of
> global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types
> plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a
> certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way.

And which way is that?

These records tend to show, like the article that
set this thread off, that things change, and always
have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
there is anything unusual going on, other than that
people have started doing easurements with the
subsequent onset of mass panic.

Rune

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:31:49 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> In comp.dsp Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

> (snip, someone wrote)

> >>Don't you think that the economic incentive for NOT regulating CO2 is 
> >>even larger? As long as demand for oil keeps going up you can make money 
> >>on it.  An effective CO2 reduction program would result in a declining 
> >>fuel market.  How can you make money on a declining fuel market?

> > It's not whether anybody can make money, it's who.  There are ways to
> > make money on both sides, and whoever has the better lobbyists and
> > most persuasive (or persistent) politicians will do well.   

Look at this stupid shit above; it's all about "making money" to
this idiot. Never mind the fact that human-caused climate change
costs everyone on the planet: he's out to "make money" on human
suffering and hardship.

> Yes, the "let's use it up now before our kids have a chance" so 
> more money for us now, instead of others later.
> 
> This is especially noticable in the ANWR case, which has a fairly
> small amount of oil that some want to use up as soon as possible.
> 
> There is also the jobs or environment discussion, claiming that
> jobs now are more important than environmental disasters later.
> 
> -- glen


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

On Dec 14, 7:11=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 4:37=A0pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
>
> > > =A0This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> > > clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>
> > Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> > isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> > for correlation, it follows the scientific method.
>
> You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> studies. You need to do the experiments.
>

But you're with me that the "stork" thing is
completely stupid...?

That's a start I guess...

On Dec 14, 9:13=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> These records tend to show, like the article that
> set this thread off, that things change, and always
> have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
> there is anything unusual going on, other than that
> people have started doing easurements with the
> subsequent onset of mass panic.
>

Of course it's not "unusual" that increased
atmospheric CO2 will cause the ice to melt.

The question is whether it's a good idea
for us to be increasing it.

Me? I think it's a very bad idea and I don't see
how any sensible person can think otherwise.

On 14 Des, 21:30, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 7:11=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 4:37=A0pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
>
> > > > =A0This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> > > > clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>
> > > Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> > > isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> > > for correlation, it follows the scientific method.
>
> > You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> > cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> > studies. You need to do the experiments.
>
> But you're with me that the "stork" thing is
> completely stupid...?

Stupid in what sense? The data have been published
in some journal. Did the authors make them up?
The editors of the journal mess up? What do you
mean?

Rune

On 14 Des, 21:43, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:13=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > These records tend to show, like the article that
> > set this thread off, that things change, and always
> > have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
> > there is anything unusual going on, other than that
> > people have started doing easurements with the
> > subsequent onset of mass panic.
>
> Of course it's not "unusual" that increased
> atmospheric CO2 will cause the ice to melt.

So you attribute all previous changes to changed
levels of CO2?

For the sake of argument, let's run along with that:

1) What natural (i.e. non man-made) sources of CO2
   would account for pre-1850 rises in temperature?
2) What natural *sinks* of CO2 would accoubnt for
   *falls* in temperature?
3) What would be the reason for discounting the effects
   any of the factors listed under 1) and 2), at
   present or in the future?

> The question is whether it's a good idea
> for us to be increasing it.

There are many good arguments against burning
fossile fuels. Global warming is *not* among them.

Rune

On 12/14/2011 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 14 Des, 20:07, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>     ...
>>
>>> If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
>>> 'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
>>> then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
>>> talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
>>> while reliable meaurements are ony available for
>>> the past dozen of decades.
>>
>>> This is one of my main arguments against the
>>> climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
>>> they have so little reliable data?
>>
>> The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of
>> global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types
>> plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a
>> certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way.
>
> And which way is that?

I don't know. When they all point the same way, each imparts credence to 
the others.

> These records tend to show, like the article that
> set this thread off, that things change, and always
> have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
> there is anything unusual going on, other than that
> people have started doing easurements with the
> subsequent onset of mass panic.

Winter ice skating was the norm on lakes around here even 40 years ago 
and long before that. It hasn't been possible at all for the last 20 
years. I don't call that a long-term trend, but records extend it back 
in time for another hundred years or so. People who live in the tropics 
or the arctic will notice little. Those of us in more temperate areas 
see the phenomenon -- whatever it is -- more clearly. For the past few 
weeks, many forsythia bushes around here have been showing the 
characteristic yellow of their spring foliage. Some of my crocuses, 
which often poke up through late-spring snow, are already breaking 
ground. Of course, they'll be nipped by the first hard freeze, but that 
won't happen for at least a week. I must remember to disconnect and 
drain my garden hoses before New Years Day.

Dengue fever has marched steadily northward through Mexico over the last 
20 years and has now reached parts of the US. How long before it will be 
the scourge in Washington, DC that malaria once was? Tropical fishes are 
invading our lakes and rivers. Tropical vegetation is taking over both 
water and field. Whatever the cause, warming is not an unmitigated blessing.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:48:41 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/14/2011 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>> On 14 Des, 20:07, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>
>>>> If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
>>>> 'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
>>>> then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
>>>> talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
>>>> while reliable meaurements are ony available for
>>>> the past dozen of decades.
>>>
>>>> This is one of my main arguments against the
>>>> climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
>>>> they have so little reliable data?
>>>
>>> The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of
>>> global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types
>>> plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a
>>> certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way.
>>
>> And which way is that?
>
>I don't know. When they all point the same way, each imparts credence to 
>the others.
>
>> These records tend to show, like the article that
>> set this thread off, that things change, and always
>> have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
>> there is anything unusual going on, other than that
>> people have started doing easurements with the
>> subsequent onset of mass panic.
>
>Winter ice skating was the norm on lakes around here even 40 years ago 
>and long before that. It hasn't been possible at all for the last 20 
>years. I don't call that a long-term trend, but records extend it back 
>in time for another hundred years or so. People who live in the tropics 
>or the arctic will notice little. Those of us in more temperate areas 
>see the phenomenon -- whatever it is -- more clearly. For the past few 
>weeks, many forsythia bushes around here have been showing the 
>characteristic yellow of their spring foliage. Some of my crocuses, 
>which often poke up through late-spring snow, are already breaking 
>ground. Of course, they'll be nipped by the first hard freeze, but that 
>won't happen for at least a week. I must remember to disconnect and 
>drain my garden hoses before New Years Day.
>
>Dengue fever has marched steadily northward through Mexico over the last 
>20 years and has now reached parts of the US. How long before it will be 
>the scourge in Washington, DC that malaria once was? Tropical fishes are 
>invading our lakes and rivers. Tropical vegetation is taking over both 
>water and field. Whatever the cause, warming is not an unmitigated blessing.
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Nor is it a curse, necessarily, and if it's natural I think it's
beyond folly to try to stop it.

Where I grew up in South Dakota, which is not all that warm
(relatively) in the summer and seriously frigid in the winter, used to
be a tropical swamp according to the fossil records.  Retreating
glaciers expose artifacts from people living in the area before the
glaciers formed.   Things may well change, and may well change for the
worse, but nature is like that.  It seems like it's all happened
before and the earth survived just fine. 




Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:28:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org>
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:31:49 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
><gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> In comp.dsp Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> (snip, someone wrote)
>
>> >>Don't you think that the economic incentive for NOT regulating CO2 is 
>> >>even larger? As long as demand for oil keeps going up you can make money 
>> >>on it.  An effective CO2 reduction program would result in a declining 
>> >>fuel market.  How can you make money on a declining fuel market?
>
>> > It's not whether anybody can make money, it's who.  There are ways to
>> > make money on both sides, and whoever has the better lobbyists and
>> > most persuasive (or persistent) politicians will do well.   
>
>Look at this stupid shit above; it's all about "making money" to
>this idiot. Never mind the fact that human-caused climate change
>costs everyone on the planet: he's out to "make money" on human
>suffering and hardship.

Wow.   You sure missed the point on that one.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 14 Des, 22:48, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Des, 20:07, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 ...
>
> >>> If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
> >>> 'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
> >>> then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
> >>> talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
> >>> while reliable meaurements are ony available for
> >>> the past dozen of decades.
>
> >>> This is one of my main arguments against the
> >>> climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
> >>> they have so little reliable data?
>
> >> The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of
> >> global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types
> >> plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a
> >> certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way=
..
>
> > And which way is that?
>
> I don't know. When they all point the same way, each imparts credence to
> the others.
>
> > These records tend to show, like the article that
> > set this thread off, that things change, and always
> > have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
> > there is anything unusual going on, other than that
> > people have started doing easurements with the
> > subsequent onset of mass panic.
>
> Winter ice skating was the norm on lakes around here even 40 years ago
> and long before that. It hasn't been possible at all for the last 20
> years. I don't call that a long-term trend, but records extend it back
> in time for another hundred years or so.

The question is not *if* things change. The question
is *why*, what causes the changes.

> People who live in the tropics
> or the arctic will notice little. Those of us in more temperate areas
> see the phenomenon -- whatever it is -- more clearly.

Sure. When I was 6 years old, we climbed up snow drifts
and onto the roofs of houses. No ladders or anything,
just snow. Jumped back down. Last winter I shuffled more
snow in a month than I had done for the previous ten
years combined. But which was about what I had to shuffle
per week at age 12.

But then, the long-term records are interesting: Where
I am, 100 km north of the arctic circle, flora changes
rapidly. Tell me what trees and plants grow where you
are, and I can tell in which region or county you are.
Interestingly, there are pollen records of warm-weather
plants that just don't grow here now. There is anecdotal
evidence of viking-age wildlife, that just isn't anywhere
near here now. There is the Greenland settlement, which
did just fine, from around 1000 AD and for several centuries,
but was abandoned in the 15th century, just at the time
of the onset of the little ice age.

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

Rune

In sci.math Angelo Campanella <a.campanella@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Orval Fairbairn" <orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
> news:orfairbairn-9EFB30.11511514122011@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> ......snip..........
>> ...because you can't get smooth data without it. there is too much data
>> scatter.
> 
> Ergo, the variable (global temperature) is a random variable.... and all 
> serious students of statistics know that any value is possible for a random 
> variable including MOMENTARY very low and very high values. The culprit here 
> is the very thought that such any given HIGH value can remain permanent (hot 
> days every day). It's absurd to express that in public as the present 
> Democratic administration ninnies are want to do! Throw them out!

Of course "hot days" have a specific definition in absolute, not relative,
terms. I.e. >35C.

So if the average temperature has increased and we know that "global average"
being derrived from essentially the sum of many    random variates
implies a good approximation to a Gaussian, then we expect the number
of times a daily max exceeds 35 to increase.

And that is what is observed -- e.g. for Australia:

<http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/aus-extreme.html> 

-- 
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
  -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

Tom P wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 07:18 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> 
>> In article<9kpfq4FquqU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>   Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>    Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assume the tree ring data is good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh.. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Use of Fourier analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
>>>>>>> extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
>>>>>> The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that 
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>> some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
>>>>>> described- all well and good - but how do they determine the 
>>>>>> correlation
>>>>>> between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By 
>>>>>> Principal
>>>>>> Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable 
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> Briffa's?
>>>>>> Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
>>>>> for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years- 
>>>>> based on
>>>>> tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly 
>>>>> when it
>>>>> comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
>>>>> sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
>>>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
>>>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
>>>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
>>>
>>>
>>> The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier
>>> analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part
>>> derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the  PCA
>>> technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm
>>> wrong.
>>>     PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy
>>> data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate
>>> with the instrumental data.  It' not at all clear to me why anyone
>>> should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures
>>> should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the
>>> major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone
>>> the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without
>>> which the PCA analysis is meaningless.
>>
>>
>> You need the Fourier analysis just to sort through the data scatter --
>> even with "instrumental" data, which, BTW, has not covered the Earth
>> until recent times.
> 
> 
> What you have said so far makes little sense. You said:
> <quote>
> .... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
>  >>> FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
>  >>> that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
>  >>> "hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
> </quote>
> 
> But the post industrial data is NOT derived from FT analysis, and 
> moreover Mann's analysis is not based on FFT
> 
> So if you say that FFT "goes unstable",  why are you now saying that you 
> need to use it?
> 
> 
Because he's unstable?

Jamie

In comp.dsp fungus <openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:

(snip)
> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

(snip)
> They're also looking for other possible explanations
> for their observations. They haven't found anything
> that stands up to scrutiny.

(snip)
> The Earth *cannot* warm itself up, the energy has
> to come from The Sun (there's nothing else around
> here to provide it).

Well, there is natural radioactivity, but that isn't changing much.

There are some who believe if the problem isn't manmade, or even
mostly manmade, then there isn't anything to worry about.

The people watching for large meteors that could strike the earth don't
seem to follow that belief.  Anyone know the average number of people
killed each year by large meteors?  (It was in Scientific American a
few years ago.)

-- glen

In comp.dsp Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
>> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
>> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

> You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> studies. You need to do the experiments.

If I tell you that touching the terminals on a high-voltage
power supply could kill you, as I understand it you should
do the experiment to find out.

Now, say I have a power supply and tell you that there is
only a 1% chance that it is turned on, but will kill you
if it is.  Will you still be as careful as if you knew 100% 
that it was on, or only 1% as careful?

We know that there is a good chance that global warming will
affect many people, including kill many of them.  We don't know
the exact probability, but, as with the power supply, it is
better to be safe than sorry.  

There is a good chance that many have died already as the result
of weather changes due to global warming.  As with radioactivity
and cancer, we don't know specifically who, but we know that they
are out there.  (Or were, until they died.)

-- glen

In comp.dsp fungus <openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:

(snip)
> A random variable has no memory.

> eg. Roulette is random. On a roulette table
> seeing 100 reds in a row doesn't imply the
> next spin is more likely to be black. The
> probability of coming up black remains
> exactly the same as always.

More likely, 100 reds in a row means that the roulette
wheel isn't a good random variable, maybe with magnets
below the reds.  Small enough not to be noticed when
picking up the ball, but large enough to affect the results.

> Temperature is not random. Having a hot day
> will definitely influence the temperature of the
> following day. This is why the highest summer
> temperatures are in July-August, not on the
> 21st of June.

> Similarly, having a hot year definitely changes
> the temperature of the following year (although
> the relationship is a lot more complex).

And many effects due to global warming have long time constants,
such as the 2000 year equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and
oceanic CO2.  The math isn't easy, but that doesn't make it
any less real.

-- glen

On 15 Des, 00:52, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In comp.dsp Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>
> >> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> >> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> >> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.
> > You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> > cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> > studies. You need to do the experiments.
>
> If I tell you that touching the terminals on a high-voltage
> power supply could kill you, as I understand it you should
> do the experiment to find out.

That experiment is carried outon a regular
basis, not least in vaious correctional facilities
in the US. There is plenty of experence around,
as well as well understood causes and effects,
to how and why it would be dangerous to touch
the poles.

What global arning is concerned, any connection
with human activities are speculative, at best.

> We know that there is a good chance that global warming will
> affect many people, including kill many of them. =A0We don't know
> the exact probability, but, as with the power supply, it is
> better to be safe than sorry.

It is easy, in the case of the power supply:
Use it according to the manual. The power supply
is man-made, so the reason it works, with associated
risks, are well known.

> There is a good chance that many have died already as the result
> of weather changes due to global warming. =A0As with radioactivity
> and cancer, we don't know specifically who, but we know that they
> are out there. =A0(Or were, until they died.)

Well, around here people tend to die because
of cold weather: Avalanches, being caught in storms,
freezing.

Living is dangerous. One does from it.

Rune

On 15 Des, 00:46, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> There are some who believe if the problem isn't manmade, or even
> mostly manmade, then there isn't anything to worry about.

There isn't. The issue is to relate to what is
really out there, and not do stupid things like
building houses in the beach or in forest fire
areas.

> The people watching for large meteors that could strike the earth don't
> seem to follow that belief. =A0Anyone know the average number of people
> killed each year by large meteors? =A0(It was in Scientific American a
> few years ago.)

None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.

Rune

In comp.dsp Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> The people watching for large meteors that could strike the earth don't
>> seem to follow that belief. �Anyone know the average number of people
>> killed each year by large meteors? �(It was in Scientific American a
>> few years ago.)

> None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
> human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.

OK, giving away the answer before everyone has a chance to try,
according to SA it is about 100.  That is, 1e9 people with a 
probability of 1e-7.  (1e9)*(1e-7)=100.

That tells you, statistically, how hard you should work to keep
large meteors away.  

-- glen

In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 4:37?pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ?This is a great example that illustrates statistical
>> > clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>>
>> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
>> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
>> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.
> 
> You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> studies. You need to do the experiments.
....

The first "scientific causation" was established via observation.
I.e. the US Surgeon General laid out the case that cigarettes caused
cancer using several kinds of epidemiological studies: prospective,
restrospective, and cross-sectional, given there was an a priori reason
to accept there was a causal link (aka a known mechanism, although not
known in all details).


I'm beginning to suspect the most expedient thing to do is follow a strategy 
adopted by the Australian govt during WWII.

At that time AUS had a population of around 10 mn and realised there was
no way to defend its northern borders (given they were 2x the US/Canadian
border) against invasion from Japan.

So there was a secret plan to not defend Australian territory until
an invading army reached a given latitude -- I think it was somewhere down
near Brisbane.

In the same way, let the world adopt a policy of "no defence" until
a certain trigger point. 

Given the intelligence of our collective repreasentatives, we need to keep
the terms very simple.

Since latitudes about 50N and below 50S are lightly population and allegedly
will feel the biggest effects first (Alaskans are starting to complain 
already), let us allow the expected increase in storms, heatwaves, ice loss,
etc to take out some fraction of the relevant population (e.g. 10%) before we 
think to defend the rest of us.

Until that trigger is reached we can just do business as usual or maybe 
make whatever minimum preparation is possible without spending anything.

I figure either way CC works out humanity will be ahead and Rush will
surely approve.

-- 
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.  It proves that all science is lies 
and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

Rune Allnor wrote:


> None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
> human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.

Indeed there were quite a few cases:

http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/bsimonso/group9.htm

VLV

On 15 Des, 01:32, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 4:37?pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
>
> >> > ?This is a great example that illustrates statistical
> >> > clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.
>
> >> Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
> >> isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
> >> for correlation, it follows the scientific method.
>
> > You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
> > cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
> > studies. You need to do the experiments.
>
> ...
>
> The first "scientific causation" was established via observation.
> I.e. the US Surgeon General laid out the case that cigarettes caused
> cancer using several kinds of epidemiological studies: prospective,
> restrospective, and cross-sectional, given there was an a priori reason
> to accept there was a causal link (aka a known mechanism, although not
> known in all details).

These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:

- They were not designed experiments in the sense
  that subjects were randomly exposed, or not,
  to tobacco. The subjects were either smokers
  or non-smokers already, which means the study
  is subject to bias: Whatever causes the person
  to start (or not) to smoke, might also have
  influence on whatever factor is studied.

- Experiment-type studies could be carried out
  anyway, by comparing smokers with non-smoker
  controls. Which was possible since this control
  group was available for study.

The problem with global warming is that there is
no control, no 'Tellus 2' which is comparable to
our planet in every way except human industrial
activity.

Rune

In article <jcbecl$5t8$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> In comp.dsp Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 
> (snip, I wrote)
> >> The people watching for large meteors that could strike the earth don't
> >> seem to follow that belief. �Anyone know the average number of people
> >> killed each year by large meteors? �(It was in Scientific American a
> >> few years ago.)
> 
> > None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
> > human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.
> 
> OK, giving away the answer before everyone has a chance to try,
> according to SA it is about 100.  That is, 1e9 people with a 
> probability of 1e-7.  (1e9)*(1e-7)=100.
> 
> That tells you, statistically, how hard you should work to keep
> large meteors away.  
> 
> -- glen

Actually, it doesn't. Even though the annual probability of an Earth 
Life Ending (ELE) impact is on the order of 1e-8, the very fact that 
such an event can occur and that its outcome is so catastrophic, means 
that we need to devote significant effort toward its solution.

In the case of CO2 and AGW, it is really only a hypothesis and does not 
carry the same risk as an ELE meteorite. In fact, the amount of CO2 in 
the atmosphere (<0.04%) implies that its effect is insignificant.

In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
....
> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
....

That's science for you.

-- 
Our research shows a rolling record of the earth's mean surface temperature.  
The warming figures reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all 
point to a warming of the earth to around 0.75 degrees.
-- Richard Muller, Jul 16 2011

On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> ...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
>
> ...
>
> That's science for you.

Not *good* science; *permissible* science.

Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
studies actually worked. Try the same method with the
claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.

No one have been able to find any connection; the number
of patients with this type of cancer is first of all low
at the outset, and very few people do *not* use mobile
phones. So the comparisions between users and non-user
control groups is not as convenient as with the smoker
vs non-smoker case.

A scientific study would have set up an experiment
where subjects were exposed to various, controlled
doses of radiation to record the resulting effects.
That's obviously impossible to do in practice, for
ethical reasons.

One does not carry put those kinds of tests on human
beings.

And unlike the case of smoking, where effects of
exposure to tobacco can be lab tested with animals,
this might well be one of those cases where lab
studies with animals can not replace tests with
Homo Sapiens. Whereas lunds work the same way in
most or all mammals, details in the mobile phone
case depend critically on the anatomy of the
subject under study. The human head and brain is
unique in the animal world, and no acceptable
proxy is available.

So keep the two separate: Observational studies are
used, but not because they are very good. They aren't.
They are used because the scientific methods are not
permissible.

Rune

On Dec 14, 10:28=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > Of course it's not "unusual" that increased
> > atmospheric CO2 will cause the ice to melt.
>
> So you attribute all previous changes to changed
> levels of CO2?
>

Of course not.

The only thing I believe is that temperature doesn't
change spontaneously and the only real source
of heat around here is The Sun.

Logically then: Messing with the composition of the
Earth's atmosphere shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
If at all.

Especially if you know from repeatable experiments
what the likely outcome will be.

On Dec 14, 11:00=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> It seems like it's all happened
> before and the earth survived just fine.
>

Of course The Earth survived, it's a great big rock.

We could have an all-out nuclear war and the
rock would survive.

In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
>> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> ...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
>> ...
>> That's science for you.
> Not *good* science; *permissible* science.
.....

Yea, like astrophysics or cosmology, according to your naive arguments. LOL.

-- 
[Rain as the origin of SLR:]
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
The acceleration during the last 50 years is caused by using gas and oil 
instead of coal. Gas and oil are changed into water during combustion.
So the slow or the accelerated rise of sea level is not a problem.
-- Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek@wp.pl>, 28 May 2011 09:50 +0200

On 12/14/2011 11:15 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

   ...

> In the case of CO2 and AGW, it is really only a hypothesis and does not
> carry the same risk as an ELE meteorite. In fact, the amount of CO2 in
> the atmosphere (<0.04%) implies that its effect is insignificant.

So the consequence of, say, 0.04% HCN in your blood must also be 
insignificant? How about 0.04% H2S?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/14/2011 7:47 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>
>> None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
>> human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.
>
> Indeed there were quite a few cases:
>
> http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/bsimonso/group9.htm

And nobody knows how many died in the Tunguska incident.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

   ...

> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to 
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use 
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that 
make sense?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 2011-12-15, Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
>> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> ...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> That's science for you.
>
> Not *good* science; *permissible* science.

The method is perfectly valid.

> Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
> studies actually worked. 

Observation studies "worked" for tobacco and lung cancer, because, 
like, tobacco causes lung cancer. 

I suspect that you might confusing "working" with "finding a positive
correlation where there isn't one, no matter what".

Sometimes the study has to be honest and conclude that the observations
do not support the hypothesis that there is a link.

Of course, you can never prove the absence of an effect. But you can
put a cap on its upper bound.

> Try the same method with the
> claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.
> No one have been able to find any connection; the number

The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the link
between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
statistical noise.

All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to prove
that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.

On Dec 15, 6:37=A0pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
>
> The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the l=
ink
> between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
> statistical noise.
>
> All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to pro=
ve
> that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.

Not to mention they're deliberately blinkering themselves
to all those pesky scientific experiments to find out the
exact frequencies at which electromagnetic radiation
becomes ionizing.

It's a bit like 'arguing' with AGW deniers. The real science
upsets them so they close their eyes whenever it appears.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:21:19 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/14/2011 7:47 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> None. As far as I know, it hasn't been a recorded
>>> human fatality due to meteors at all. Ever.
>>
>> Indeed there were quite a few cases:
>>
>> http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/bsimonso/group9.htm
>
>And nobody knows how many died in the Tunguska incident.
>
>Jerry
 
My understanding was that the estimate was zero, since the locals
didn't indicate anybody had gone missing afterward.   That seems
believable to me since it was a pretty remote area with no real reason
for anybody to be out there.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
>
>Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
>
>   ...
>
>> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
>> going on.
>
>For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to 
>dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use 
>while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that 
>make sense?
>
>Jerry


Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 15 Des, 16:52, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> >> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >> ...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
> >> ...
> >> That's science for you.
> > Not *good* science; *permissible* science.
>
> ....
>
> Yea, like astrophysics

Many aspects of astrophysics can be lab tested.
Not everyrthing, but a lot.

> or cosmology,

Certainly.

> according to your naive arguments. LOL.

Well, talk with any competent experimenters you
might know. You might be surprised.

Rune

On 15 Des, 18:37, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2011-12-15, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> >> In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >> ...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> That's science for you.
>
> > Not *good* science; *permissible* science.
>
> The method is perfectly valid.

Not 'perfectly'. It is not an unconditional failure.

> > Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
> > studies actually worked.
>
> Observation studies "worked" for tobacco and lung cancer, because,
> like, tobacco causes lung cancer.
>
> I suspect that you might confusing "working" with "finding a positive
> correlation where there isn't one, no matter what".

No. I mean 'find the parameters for when an actual
interaction takes place'.

> Sometimes the study has to be honest and conclude that the observations
> do not support the hypothesis that there is a link.

Sure. That's what statistics is for. Establishing
the nature of that link - coincidence, like in the
baby-stork example, or a real cause-effect relation? =
requires experimetation.

> Of course, you can never prove the absence of an effect. But you can
> put a cap on its upper bound.

According to Karl Popper, that is, on fact all one
can possibly prove:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

When one disturbs a system and see the expected effect,
on can never be sure that it was the cause-effect
relation one have in mind, that was at work. So an
expected outcome does onl indicate thet the system
reacts to the disturbance, it does not say *how*
that reaction comes about.

According to Popper, the only certain conclusions
can be drawn when the expected outcome is *not*
observed> In that case, whatever cause-effect
hypothesis one has in mind, is proved wrong.

> > Try the same method with the
> > claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.
> > No one have been able to find any connection; the number
>
> The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the link
> between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
> statistical noise.

Agreed.

> All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to prove
> that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.

No. It is a perfectly understandable vantage point,
as long as the question is not setteled.

To establish what it takes to actually induce brain
cancer through that kind of radiation (indeed, to
answer if it is at all possible), one needs to
to do experiments.

And those exteriment are not permissible.

Rune

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> >
> > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
> >
> > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
> >
> > > > Bret Cahill

> > > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

> > The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> > Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> > problem with that?

> Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
> to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
> to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.

Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....

Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?

Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:04:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> > > Assume the tree ring data is good.

> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

> > LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
> > central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
> > all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
> > too.

> True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
> correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
> events.

Of course the Medieval Warm Period had regional cooling, which
tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau will not
show. It just gets funnier and funnier.

> Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
> doesn't even have two periods of sampling time.  To be somewhat sure
> it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.

Ah, thank you; of course. Silly me. Of course the Tibetan glacers
have been melting anomalously for nearly 30 years, but that
doesn't seem to worry the hysterical alarmist deniers any.

"Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in
China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed
than in any other part of the world.

"In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring
floods and mudflows.

"In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian
rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish,
water supplies in those regions will be in peril."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1eE4Xw3njaW1MKpJRYOch4hOdLQ

> That doesn't get it when the ocean is rising 2 in every 13 years.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

On 15 Des, 18:46, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

> It's a bit like 'arguing' with AGW deniers. The real science
> upsets them so they close their eyes whenever it appears.

Right..., we already have agreed that climate 'research'
and science in general don't see eye to eye. There might
be very specific reasons why you find it hard or
impossible to argue with competent scientists.

Meeting opposing philosophies is not an uncommon situation
for a scientist to be in, so there are guidelines to
identify certain psychological and rethorical traps
that on might fall into; identifiers of *pseudoscience*:

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

That page is written with an inclination to meet
differing views based on religion, so some adaptions
need to be made for it to fit this debate.

Still, let's take the general ideas, expressed as
eight specific items a-h, modify them slightly
away from discussing religion, and see how they fit the
climate 'research' debate:

     "Scientific theories are characterized by such things as"

Which means that views, beliefs or theories that *don't*
match the items listed below, are un-scientific.

     "(a) being based on empirical observation rather than
          the authority of some sacred text;"

'Sacred text' don't match in this case but 'authority'
certainly does. It would be interesting to see how the
debate would *without* the involvement of the UN, IPCC
and various governments and lobbyists. Such heavy
political involvment is virtually unique, what supposed-
to-be-scientic debates, are concerned. We *already*
have agreements in place to impose heavy economical
restrictions on CO2 etc. Scientists are virtually
locked, it would be carreer suicide to oppose your
own government's politics.

     "(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;"

'Range' being the operative word. The climate debate
focuses on CO2 to the exclusion of everything else;
on the post 1850 era, at the expense of all other
times.

     "(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way,
          usually involving testing specific predictions
          deduced from the theory;"

This fails miserably. There are lab tests to study
individual factors, although one tend to focus on
CO2 at the expense of, say, H2O (ref item b above).
And no one have been able to test all relevant factors
at once, to check for interaction effects that don't
show up in single-factor investigations. And of course,
lab tests only address the questions researchers are
aware of. They will not adrres that factor no one
thought about. Disastrous, if such factors exists
in the system.

     "(d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical
          tests or with the discovery of new facts;"

Well, no emoprircal test have been made to confirm the
effects of CO2 build-up on the *total* system. So no
confirming experiments are available. And of course,
data like those referenced in the seed post of
this thread attract ridicule from the 'non-deniers',
not professional interest. The comment about 'hidden',
surprising factors under item c above, applies here
as well.

     "(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone
          regardless of personal religious or metaphysical
          beliefs;"

Mann & al have been severely criticised as others have
been unable to reproduce their 'hockey stick' curve.
It is a bad sign that one needs to know the outcome
prior to analysis, to be able to produce a confirming
result...

     "(f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators
          to new knowledge and understanding of the
          interrelatedness of the natural world rather than
          being static and stagnant leading to no research
          or development of a better understanding of anything
          in the natural world;"

Again, the IPCC side claims to know the answer to the
question, showing few if any signs of willingness to
approach the data with sufficient leeway to modify
their views. Might be bad science, might be political
pressure. The result is a fixed argument.

     "(g) being approached with skepticism rather than
          gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces
          or supernatural powers, and "

'Scepticism rather than gullibility' are, of course, the
operative words here. I note that the former PM of
Norway (ref item a, 'authority', above), Brundtland, went
on public record stating that "it is immoral to question
the standpoints of IPCC." Such statements leave little
room for scepticism.

     "(h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather
          than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."

This should not be necessary to comment on, but the
comment about former PM, Brundtland, under item g
above, applies here as well. There are no identifiable
signs of tentativeness or conditionals, in the
'argumnetation' originating from the IPCC side
of the debate.

So the IPCC side fails eight out of eight listed
identifiers of pseudo science. Impressive, really.

Food for thought...?

Rune

"Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:4eea422e.1210451381@www.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
> >
> >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> >> going on.
> >
> >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
> >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
> >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
> >make sense?
> >
> >Jerry
>
>
> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
>
> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
>
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> www.anchorhill.com

Regardless of if you believe that the AGW theory is valid or not, the more
important question is what should society do regarding energy.

1) I think we all agree there are many good reasons to seek alternative form
of energy besides fossil fuel even if AGW is not one of them (someone
already said that and I think everyone agrees).
We should invest in research to develop these   Alternative fuel research
YES

2)  I think we all agree it is not a good idea to waste energy in any form
so we should invest in conservation .   YES

3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX.  Who
should get that money and what should it be used for?  If you want to use it
for 1 and 2 above, I might even agree to that. CARBON TAX DEPENDS

4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more money
to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants.  This would be a
total waste of money time and effort.  CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!


My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to take
regarding an energy policy.

Mark

On Dec 15, 1:55=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> > =A0 ...
>
> >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
>
> >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
>
> > =A0 ...
>
> >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> >> going on.
>
> >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
> >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
> >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
> >make sense?
>
> >Jerry
>
> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
>
> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

In article 
<c283953b-9bc5-49c8-8ec0-a7fce2bc2b58@t38g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
 Clay <clay@claysturner.com> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 1:55�pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> >
> > > � ...
> >
> > >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
> >
> > >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
> >
> > > � ...
> >
> > >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> > >> going on.
> >
> > >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
> > >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
> > >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
> > >make sense?
> >
> > >Jerry
> >
> > Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
> > accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
> > distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
> >
> > I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
> > only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
> >
> > Eric Jacobsen
> > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
> each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
> suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
> numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
> the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
> patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
> combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
> should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
> There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.
> 
> Clay

How about texting while operating in the OR?

Clay wrote:
> 
> On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> >
> > >   ...
> >
> > >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
> >
> > >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
> >
> > >   ...
> >
> > >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> > >> going on.
> >
> > >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
> > >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
> > >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
> > >make sense?
> >
> > >Jerry
> >
> > Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
> > accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
> > distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
> >
> > I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
> > only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
> >
> > Eric Jacobsen
> > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
> each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
> suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
> numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
> the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
> patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
> combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
> should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
> There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.


   YES!!!  Doctors need to learn better and safer methods of removing
cell phones from people after they have a wreck, and embed it into their
bodies.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 
> > On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> > >
> > > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
> > >
> > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
> > >
> > > > > Bret Cahill
> 
> > > > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > > > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > > > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
> 
> > > The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> > > Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> > > problem with that?
> 
> > Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
> > to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
> > to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.
> 
> Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
> than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
> Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
> it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
> Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....
> 
> Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?
> 
> Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
> regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
> Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
> papers, published in science journals, on the subject.
> 
> Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.

Utter silence from the "Rune Allnor" moron. Science: it works,
bitch.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

Clay wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>>    ...
>>
>>>> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
>>
>>> Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
>>
>>>    ...
>>
>>>> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
>>>> going on.
>>
>>> For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
>>> dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
>>> while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
>>> make sense?
>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
>> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
>> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
>>
>> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
>> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
> each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
> suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
> numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
> the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
> patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
> combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
> should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
> There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.
>
> Clay

In his book "The Checklist Manifesto", Atul Gawande describes how he
*radically* reduced patient injury by medical personnel by introducing
.... checklists.  ISBN-13: 978-0805091748

No clue whether this has caught on or not, but the book sold well.

--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:24:16 -0800 (PST), Clay <clay@claysturner.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 15, 1:55=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>> > =A0 ...
>>
>> >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
>>
>> >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
>>
>> > =A0 ...
>>
>> >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
>> >> going on.
>>
>> >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
>> >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
>> >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
>> >make sense?
>>
>> >Jerry
>>
>> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
>> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
>> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
>>
>> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
>> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
>each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
>suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
>numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
>the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
>patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
>combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
>should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
>There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.
>
>Clay

I doubt addressing causes of auto accidents precludes addressing
medical mistakes as well.

Part of the basic issue is that there are much better statistics
available for causes of auto accidents than there are for medical
errors (actual cause, preventable or not, etc., etc.), and it's
probably more practical to influence individual driver behavior than
the medical community which is traditionally resistant to change.

Low hanging fruit and all that.

This is, however, one of the reasons that there's a push to move more
IT and data automation into the medical community so that the record
keeping (and data collection opportunities) improves.  The stimulus
package included funding for Health Care IT partly to help address the
issue you raise.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.  I don't think addressing any sort
of accident prevention is a bad idea.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:24:16 -0800 (PST), Clay <clay@claysturner.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Dec 15, 1:55=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> >>
> >> > =A0 ...
> >>
> >> >> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
> >>
> >> >Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
> >>
> >> > =A0 ...
> >>
> >> >> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
> >> >> going on.
> >>
> >> >For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
> >> >dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
> >> >while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
> >> >make sense?
> >>
> >> >Jerry
> >>
> >> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
> >> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
> >> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
> >>
> >> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
> >> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
> >>
> >> Eric Jacobsen
> >> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
> >each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
> >suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
> >numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
> >the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
> >patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
> >combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
> >should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
> >There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.
> >
> >Clay
> 
> I doubt addressing causes of auto accidents precludes addressing
> medical mistakes as well.
> 
> Part of the basic issue is that there are much better statistics
> available for causes of auto accidents than there are for medical
> errors (actual cause, preventable or not, etc., etc.), and it's
> probably more practical to influence individual driver behavior than
> the medical community which is traditionally resistant to change.
> 
> Low hanging fruit and all that.
> 
> This is, however, one of the reasons that there's a push to move more
> IT and data automation into the medical community so that the record
> keeping (and data collection opportunities) improves.  The stimulus
> package included funding for Health Care IT partly to help address the
> issue you raise.
> 
> The two aren't mutually exclusive.  I don't think addressing any sort
> of accident prevention is a bad idea.


   The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time.  Every
visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
they can call up anything they need.  Every prescription I've had is on
file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
something new is prescribed.  It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
transcribed.  It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
whoever was logged into a patient's file.

-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 12/17/2011 2:52 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

   ...

>     The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time.  Every
> visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
> they can call up anything they need.  Every prescription I've had is on
> file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
> something new is prescribed.  It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
> using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
> transcribed.  It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
> whoever was logged into a patient's file.

It will take more than paperless.  When my doctor sent me to a local ER 
to get a dog bite stitched up (it turned out not to need stitching) the 
front desk knew all about me, including allergies to penicillin and 
antihistamines, and that my tetanus shots were up to date. (It did no 
good to explain that penicillin was only a suspicion, and that the 
problem with antihistamines was not allergy, but its well-known side 
effect of inhibiting urination.)

After some hours, I got to a treatment room, the bite was cleaned and 
found to be minor, and I was given a prescription for an antibiotic.  I 
got a funny look from my pharmacist when I brought the prescription to 
be filled. It was for penicillin by another name.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/16/2011 5:24 PM, Clay wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>>    ...
>>
>>>> Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
>>
>>> Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)
>>
>>>    ...
>>
>>>> Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
>>>> going on.
>>
>>> For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
>>> dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
>>> while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
>>> make sense?
>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>> Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
>> accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
>> distracted driving, there's some logic to it.
>>
>> I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
>> only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
> each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
> suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
> numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
> the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
> patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
> combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
> should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
> There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

That is very interesting, and it shows me that my post was too oblique. 
I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't 
deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 17 Des, 04:26, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
>
> > > > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
>
> > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > > > > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > > > > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
>
> > > > The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> > > > Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> > > > problem with that?
>
> > > Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
> > > to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
> > > to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.
>
> > Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
> > than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
> > Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
> > it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
> > Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....
>
> > Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?
>
> > Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
> > regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
> > Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
> > papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Doesn't matter. Science is not about popularity
or number of votes.

> > Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.
>
> Utter silence from the "Rune Allnor" moron. Science: it works,
> bitch.

*Science* works. However, the climate 'research'
doesn't qualify, as I showed in an earlier post:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/msg/f581401dfeb53c65?hl=no

Rune

Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> On 12/17/2011 2:52 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
> >     The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time.  Every
> > visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
> > they can call up anything they need.  Every prescription I've had is on
> > file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
> > something new is prescribed.  It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
> > using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
> > transcribed.  It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
> > whoever was logged into a patient's file.
> 
> It will take more than paperless.  When my doctor sent me to a local ER
> to get a dog bite stitched up (it turned out not to need stitching) the
> front desk knew all about me, including allergies to penicillin and
> antihistamines, and that my tetanus shots were up to date. (It did no
> good to explain that penicillin was only a suspicion, and that the
> problem with antihistamines was not allergy, but its well-known side
> effect of inhibiting urination.)
> 
> After some hours, I got to a treatment room, the bite was cleaned and
> found to be minor, and I was given a prescription for an antibiotic.  I
> got a funny look from my pharmacist when I brought the prescription to
> be filled. It was for penicillin by another name.


   Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.



-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

   ...

>     Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think 
the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his 
patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records 
was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My 
pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy 
without consulting a computer.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 17 Des, 10:05, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't
> deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.

That something *can* be addressed is not a sufficient
reason for *actually* addressing it.

Where I am, heads-on car collisions on single-lane roads
(one lane in each direction) has been a big deal fro some
time. For some reason, these kinds of accidents have
recievded a lot of attention, to the exlusion of most
other types.

So the remedy has been to install 'fences' between the
two lanes, so that cars would not be able to stray or
otherwise get over into the opposing lane. Now, that's
fine if one talked about *two*-lane roads (two lanes
in each direction), as there would be space available
for overtaking slower traffic. But these are *one*-lane
roads.

So the net effect is that everyone are slowed to the
speed of the slowest car travelling in your direction,
no matter what traffic there might be in the opposing
direction, What happens, then, is that even at night,
two cars on the road for miles in each direction, one
is trapped behind the slower one.

When I catch up with slower traffic in such situations,
I occasionally try to 'encourage' the car in front to
stop where available. Stop, not let me overtake.
Because there is no space for me to overtake inside
the one lane. When other people catch me up, I find
it very uncomfortable, since I have no way of letting
them overtake, except stopping.

So the problem is not the intentions and motivations
for doing whatever - they are usually benign. But benign
intention does not ensure the absence of severe collateral
damage.

In effect, one needs to do a cool, calm, collected and
*informed* analysis, before committing to an action:

1) What benefits are achieved?
2) What drawbacks are avoided?
3) What benefits are forefited?
4) What drawbacks are imposed?

I suspect particularly the three latter points are
not often considered. At times, even the first seems
to recieve little attention.

Rune

On 12/17/2011 11:32 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 17 Des, 10:05, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>> I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't
>> deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.
>
> That something *can* be addressed is not a sufficient
> reason for *actually* addressing it.
>
> Where I am, heads-on car collisions on single-lane roads
> (one lane in each direction) has been a big deal fro some
> time. For some reason, these kinds of accidents have
> recievded a lot of attention, to the exlusion of most
> other types.
>
> So the remedy has been to install 'fences' between the
> two lanes, so that cars would not be able to stray or
> otherwise get over into the opposing lane. Now, that's
> fine if one talked about *two*-lane roads (two lanes
> in each direction), as there would be space available
> for overtaking slower traffic. But these are *one*-lane
> roads.
>
> So the net effect is that everyone are slowed to the
> speed of the slowest car travelling in your direction,
> no matter what traffic there might be in the opposing
> direction, What happens, then, is that even at night,
> two cars on the road for miles in each direction, one
> is trapped behind the slower one.
>
> When I catch up with slower traffic in such situations,
> I occasionally try to 'encourage' the car in front to
> stop where available. Stop, not let me overtake.
> Because there is no space for me to overtake inside
> the one lane. When other people catch me up, I find
> it very uncomfortable, since I have no way of letting
> them overtake, except stopping.
>
> So the problem is not the intentions and motivations
> for doing whatever - they are usually benign. But benign
> intention does not ensure the absence of severe collateral
> damage.
>
> In effect, one needs to do a cool, calm, collected and
> *informed* analysis, before committing to an action:
>
> 1) What benefits are achieved?
> 2) What drawbacks are avoided?
> 3) What benefits are forefited?
> 4) What drawbacks are imposed?
>
> I suspect particularly the three latter points are
> not often considered. At times, even the first seems
> to recieve little attention.

That we assess your four numbered points differently in the case of 
planetary warming doesn't detract from from their validity and 
importance. A fifth might also be appropriate:

5) What steps can restore the forfeited benefits and mitigate the 
imposed drawbacks?

In the traffic case you use as an example, there is a simple 
improvement. Many roads in Canada's Maritime Provinces are narrow and 
wind along the coast or around mountains. In many places, the roadbed is 
carved out of a mountainside, and widening the road impose great cost in 
money and scenic value. Canada's solution is simple, and you might want 
to propose it for your roads. Turnouts are provided where the topology 
allows it. One is required by law to use them to allow a following 
vehicle to pass. It is rare that one is delayed for more than a 
kilometer or two by a slow vehicle.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:30:23 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On 17 Des, 04:26, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> > > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
> >
> > > > > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Assume the tree ring data is good.
> >
> > > > > > >http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...
> >
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
> >
> > > > > > There is too little information to see exactly how
> > > > > > they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
> > > > > > problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.
> >
> > > > > The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
> > > > > Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
> > > > > problem with that?
> >
> > > > Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
> > > > to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
> > > > to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.
> >
> > > Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
> > > than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
> > > Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
> > > it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
> > > Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....
> >
> > > Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?
> >
> > > Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
> > > regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
> > > Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
> > > papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

> Doesn't matter. Science is not about popularity
> or number of votes.

Idiot.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

AGWFacts wrote:
> 
> Idiot.


   Admitting it is the first step for you to lead a usefull life.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
> >     Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.
> 
> This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think
> the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his
> patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records
> was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My
> pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy
> without consulting a computer.


   You haven't said who provides your medical care, but at the VA clinic
the pharmacy is right across the hall from the Primary Care Physicians
at the CBOC I am assigned to.  If there is any question about any
prescription, they call the PCP and tell them to change it.  In all the
years I've had VA healthier the only thing they questioned was mailing
me one bottle of Insulin at a time, and changed it to three at a time. 
Several large hospital chains have tried to get the government to force
the VA to give them copies of the medical care software they created at
no charge, because it has one of the lowest error rates in the
industry.  The VA developed it to lower their operating costs and the
ones who want it don't want to spend the money to duplicate it.  I think
that the VA should be allowed to license it to outside use, and use that
money on homeless Veterans.

-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Dec 15, 11:46=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> ... the former PM of
> Norway (ref item a, 'authority', above), Brundtland, went
> on public record stating that "it is immoral to question
> the standpoints of IPCC." Such statements leave little
> room for scepticism.
>

Oh yeah, PMs are known for their scientific abilities
and tendency not to make stupid claims in public.
Not.

....and you're claiming that one nutter saying the wrong
thing invalidates the opinions of 97% of the scientists
of the world?

Uhuh.

> =A0 =A0 =A0"(h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."
>
> There are no identifiable
> signs of tentativeness or conditionals, in the
> 'argumnetation' originating from the IPCC side
> of the debate.
>

Rubbish. The opposing arguments have been listened
to and shot down one by one. The deniers have
adjusted their argument accordingly and the only thing
they have left is "it might be some cyclic thing...",
without specifying what that might be or proposing
a mechanism.

> So the IPCC side fails eight out of eight listed
> identifiers of pseudo science.
>

Only in your head.

> Food for thought...?
>

No.

On Dec 17, 4:02=A0am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> How about texting while operating in the OR?

Ick! Cellphones have even more germs than computer
keyboards ...

On 12/17/2011 4:09 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>>     ...
>>
>>>      Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.
>>
>> This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think
>> the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his
>> patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records
>> was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My
>> pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy
>> without consulting a computer.
>
>
>     You haven't said who provides your medical care, but at the VA clinic
> the pharmacy is right across the hall from the Primary Care Physicians
> at the CBOC I am assigned to.

I said I was treated at a local emergency room. My primary care 
physician has sent me there because she believed the wound would require 
stitching.

   ...

> Several large hospital chains have tried to get the government to force
> the VA to give them copies of the medical care software they created at
> no charge, because it has one of the lowest error rates in the
> industry.  The VA developed it to lower their operating costs and the
> ones who want it don't want to spend the money to duplicate it.  I think
> that the VA should be allowed to license it to outside use, and use that
> money on homeless Veterans.

Certainly, but would they then incur an obligation to maintain it?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> On 12/17/2011 4:09 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>
> >>     ...
> >>
> >>>      Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.
> >>
> >> This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think
> >> the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his
> >> patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records
> >> was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My
> >> pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy
> >> without consulting a computer.
> >
> >
> >     You haven't said who provides your medical care, but at the VA clinic
> > the pharmacy is right across the hall from the Primary Care Physicians
> > at the CBOC I am assigned to.
> 
> I said I was treated at a local emergency room. My primary care
> physician has sent me there because she believed the wound would require
> stitching.


   Sorry, I lost that in all the levels in the thread.  The ER is the
worst place to expect anything other than meatball treatment.  They are
overworked and understaffed, so mistakes are more common there than
anywhere else in medicine.


> > Several large hospital chains have tried to get the government to force
> > the VA to give them copies of the medical care software they created at
> > no charge, because it has one of the lowest error rates in the
> > industry.  The VA developed it to lower their operating costs and the
> > ones who want it don't want to spend the money to duplicate it.  I think
> > that the VA should be allowed to license it to outside use, and use that
> > money on homeless Veterans.
> 
> Certainly, but would they then incur an obligation to maintain it?


   Would they provide better maintenance, if they gave it away?  If it
was licensed to outside users they could provide updates to them as
easily as they do their own facilities around the country.


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:09:23 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> ... Several large hospital chains have tried to get the government to
> force the VA to give them copies of the medical care software they
> created at no charge....

Really?  They're dimmer than I'd thought, then.  The VA's codebase is in 
the public domain, always has been. I downloaded a copy to study.

-- 
RLW

On 17 Des, 23:16, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:46=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... the former PM of
> > Norway (ref item a, 'authority', above), Brundtland, went
> > on public record stating that "it is immoral to question
> > the standpoints of IPCC." Such statements leave little
> > room for scepticism.
>
> Oh yeah, PMs are known for their scientific abilities
> and tendency not to make stupid claims in public.
> Not.

Whhatever other differences of opinions we meght have,
here we we certainly agree.

But you *should* contemplate the fact that politicians
(including those at the UN and IPCC) lay the foundations
and framework ougt-to-be-competent scientists have to
relate to in order to recieve funding for their work.

> ...and you're claiming that one nutter saying the wrong
> thing invalidates the opinions of 97% of the scientists
> of the world?
>
> Uhuh.

If it was only that one nutter, you might have a point.
That's the one nutter I hapen to be aware of. Just
read the various statements and communices from
IPCC, and you will easily find similar statements.

As for '97% of scientists of the world' you might
want to read up on, say, eugenics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics was the study of th erelation between human
physical traits (color of skin, shape of skulls,
facial forms,...) and their intelelctual, political
and moral abilities. Really.

In the first few decades of teh 20th century, eugenics
was considered a science: Professorships, departments
at universities, conferences, peer-reviewed jourbals,
the lot.

I am wouldn't be surprised if you, if you asked
academics around, say, 1920, would get the answer
from >90% of scientists (particularly those dabbling
with eugenics themselves...) that eugenics was a
proper science.

As I said in some other post, science is not about
popularity or number of votes.

> > =A0 =A0 =A0"(h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."
>
> > There are no identifiable
> > signs of tentativeness or conditionals, in the
> > 'argumnetation' originating from the IPCC side
> > of the debate.
>
> Rubbish. The opposing arguments have been listened
> to and shot down one by one. The deniers have
> adjusted their argument accordingly and the only thing
> they have left is "it might be some cyclic thing...",
> without specifying what that might be or proposing
> a mechanism.

Those mechanisms were proposed in the early/mid '90s.
Read Svensmark's 'The Chilling Stars'. There you will
also find an account of how his manuscripts were
rejected by several journal editors, on not at all
comprehensable grounds.

> > So the IPCC side fails eight out of eight listed
> > identifiers of pseudo science.
>
> Only in your head.

Im a scientist. I present the premises for the
argument (the page about pseudo science), any
adaptions required (de-emphasise the arguments
specific against religious opponents) and then
the analysis. You are free to show that any
of those are wrong or invalid.

However, if you are *unable* to show glitches
and flaws in my premises, adaptions or arguments,
and still want to portray yourself as discussing
on the basis of science, then you need to accept
my argumentation as valid.

> > Food for thought...?
>
> No.

Rune

On 12 Des, 12:22, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Read Svensmark's 'The Chilling Stars' to get an idea
> of what kinds of mechanisms to look for: Solar radiation
> governs cloud formations, which in turn reflects
> heat away from Earth. Variations of solar activity
> correlates with variations in climate.
>
> Once it has been established that the sun, which
> drives the whole system, also drive the climate
> variations, the whole CO2 issue becomes ridiculous.

In this thread I have referred numerous times to
Svensmark and his work. A quick summary can be
found here:

http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III

Do note the data displayed in figure 6. Those kinds
of co-variations deserve very close scrutiony, which
is what Svensmark and his team has worked on, for the
past 15 years.

Rune

On 12/18/2011 7:48 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 12 Des, 12:22, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no>  wrote:
>
>> Read Svensmark's 'The Chilling Stars' to get an idea
>> of what kinds of mechanisms to look for: Solar radiation
>> governs cloud formations, which in turn reflects
>> heat away from Earth. Variations of solar activity
>> correlates with variations in climate.
>>
>> Once it has been established that the sun, which
>> drives the whole system, also drive the climate
>> variations, the whole CO2 issue becomes ridiculous.
>
> In this thread I have referred numerous times to
> Svensmark and his work. A quick summary can be
> found here:
>
> http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III
>
> Do note the data displayed in figure 6. Those kinds
> of co-variations deserve very close scrutiony, which
> is what Svensmark and his team has worked on, for the
> past 15 years.

Nobody doubts that solar radiation plays a dominant role in establishing 
climate. Is there reason to believe that no other phenomena play any 
role at all? A few degrees above or below the freezing point of water is 
a variation of less than 0.5%. Might not something other than 
irradiation have that much influence?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Dec 18, 6:03=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, PMs are known for their scientific abilities
> > and tendency not to make stupid claims in public.
> > Not.
>
> Whhatever other differences of opinions we meght have,
> here we we certainly agree.
>
> But you *should* contemplate the fact that politicians
> (including those at the UN and IPCC) lay the foundations
> and framework ougt-to-be-competent scientists have to
> relate to in order to recieve funding for their work.
>

That's the basic problem with politics today, yes.

Getting back to climate though, the voices of
scientists are getting through and apparently 97%
of them are saying the current climate change
is very likely to be man made.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=3Dpercent+of+scientists+climate+chang=
e

Even if we assume a few nutters and put the
probability at 80%, 70% if you want...what's
the disadvantage to doing something about it?

Remember:
1) Oil is running out anyway. Expect prices
to go up an order of magnitude in the next
decade.

2) The whole "it will damage the economy"
thing is exaggerated. Besides, oil is running
out anyway.

What do I really think? I think

1) The people are too stupid to act. They imagine
that "doing something" means driving one of those
horrible compact cars, not being able to have their
central heating set to "sauna" and not being able to
leave all their "security lights" switched on 24/7.
What it really means is things like demanding modern
nuclear power stations, but that would require educating
themselves so I'm not holding my breath.

2) The politicians are too weak to order them
into doing something.

3) The momentum of the energy infrastructure
is so great that turning it around at the current
rate will take three or four decades - which we
don't have.

Result: Things will go the the brink of collapse,
the world economy will be wrecked beyond repair
(national debts will have to be discarded and we'll
have to start over), and the same scientists who
we're so busy ignoring will be a) blamed, then
b) called upon to "do something", like dumping
sulfur in the atmosphere*.

Then they'll be ignored again the next time around.

Yeah, it's a cynical viewpoint, but looking around at
the average human's set of priorities I don't think it's
unrealistic.

[*] More... I'm fairly sure that many politicians and
people today secretly expect geoengineering to
magically/cheaply solve the problem after they've
left office so that's why they're not doing anything.

Problem with this thinking: Geoengineering doesn't
solve the looming energy crisis. When oil runs out the
global demand for electricity will double or  even triple
in a single decade. There simply won't be enough of
it to go around and the result will be far worse than
starting to do something today.

On 20 Des, 15:35, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 6:03=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Oh yeah, PMs are known for their scientific abilities
> > > and tendency not to make stupid claims in public.
> > > Not.
>
> > Whhatever other differences of opinions we meght have,
> > here we we certainly agree.
>
> > But you *should* contemplate the fact that politicians
> > (including those at the UN and IPCC) lay the foundations
> > and framework ougt-to-be-competent scientists have to
> > relate to in order to recieve funding for their work.
>
> That's the basic problem with politics today, yes.

Look up the acronyme IPCC. You might get a surprise,
particularly about the 'I'...

> Getting back to climate though, the voices of
> scientists are getting through and apparently 97%
> of them are saying the current climate change
> is very likely to be man made.

It doesn't matter. Science is not about popularity
or number of votes.

> https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=3Dpercent+of+scientists+climate+c..=
..
>
> Even if we assume a few nutters and put the
> probability at 80%, 70% if you want...what's
> the disadvantage to doing something about it?

The disadvantage is in what one does. Whatever
one decides to do, will have a profound impact.
If somebody decides to take physical action,
e.g. by screening sun light from heating the
earth, as some people have suggested (diffusors
or mirrors in space), the action might well be
efficient enough to reduce the sunlight
significantly. If they are wrong, and the
warming is not man-made, one might well kick
the planet into a persistent ice age.

> Remember:
> 1) Oil is running out anyway. Expect prices
> to go up an order of magnitude in the next
> decade.

Sure. But what does that have to do with
global warming?

> 2) The whole "it will damage the economy"
> thing is exaggerated. Besides, oil is running
> out anyway.

The economy is tough enough as it is, with the
credit cruch, half of Europe at the brink of
bankrupcy, inflation finally making itself
felt in China... we don't need any more
taxes or costs than we already have to deal with.

> What do I really think? I think
>
> 1) The people are too stupid to act. They imagine
> that "doing something" means driving one of those
> horrible compact cars, not being able to have their
> central heating set to "sauna" and not being able to
> leave all their "security lights" switched on 24/7.
> What it really means is things like demanding modern
> nuclear power stations, but that would require educating
> themselves so I'm not holding my breath.

Energy economization is a good idea, AGW or not.
It will enforce itself in time.

> 2) The politicians are too weak to order them
> into doing something.

Order who? Ordering people around has been
tested, in Europe some 80 years ago. Not many
lasting successes.

> 3) The momentum of the energy infrastructure
> is so great that turning it around at the current
> rate will take three or four decades - which we
> don't have.

'Don't have'? When energy becomes scarce, people
economize.

> Result: Things will go the the brink of collapse,
> the world economy will be wrecked beyond repair
> (national debts will have to be discarded and we'll
> have to start over), and the same scientists who
> we're so busy ignoring will be a) blamed, then
> b) called upon to "do something", like dumping
> sulfur in the atmosphere*.

Where do you get this from? What energy is concerned,
nuclear power will get a revival. Not because of AGW,
but because of prices and supply of fossile fuels.
Once the going gets really tough, pragmatics will
take over. Nuclear power for basis, fossile fuels
for transport in the short term, synthetic petroleum
(produced based on nucler power and 'poor' raw
materials) in the long term.

> Then they'll be ignored again the next time around.

Who?

> Yeah, it's a cynical viewpoint, but looking around at
> the average human's set of priorities I don't think it's
> unrealistic.
>
> [*] More... I'm fairly sure that many politicians and
> people today secretly expect geoengineering to
> magically/cheaply solve the problem after they've
> left office so that's why they're not doing anything.
>
> Problem with this thinking: Geoengineering doesn't
> solve the looming energy crisis. When oil runs out the
> global demand for electricity will double or =A0even triple
> in a single decade. There simply won't be enough of
> it to go around and the result will be far worse than
> starting to do something today.

While energy management certainly will become a big
issue in a few years, none of this has to do with AWG.

Rune

On Dec 20, 4:14=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > Even if we assume a few nutters and put the
> > probability at 80%, 70% if you want...what's
> > the disadvantage to doing something about it?
>
> The disadvantage is in what one does.

How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?

You don't seem to see that as a possibility.


> If somebody decides to take physical action,
> e.g. by screening sun light from heating the
> earth, as some people have suggested (diffusors
> or mirrors in space), the action might well be
> efficient enough to reduce the sunlight
> significantly. If they are wrong, and the
> warming is not man-made, one might well kick
> the planet into a persistent ice age.
>

Very strange that you would consider doing
that before you'd consider reducing CO2
emissions.

>> 2) The politicians are too weak to order them
>> into doing something.
>
>Order who? Ordering people around has been
>tested, in Europe some 80 years ago. Not many
>lasting successes.

Funny how the exact same politicians
who can't build new-tech power stations
can manage to start wars, give trillions
of dollars to bankers, raise/lower taxes
at will, etc.

The problem is politics, not science.
This is why I believe that nothing will
ever be done until it's to late to avoid
a lot of (unnecessary) suffering.

On Dec 20, 4:14=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> While energy management certainly will become a big
> issue in a few years, none of this has to do with AWG.
>

This is where your 'debate' fails.

Current energy policies are what *causes* AGW. Energy
management is the only solution to the problem.

On 20 Des, 19:11, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:14=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> > If somebody decides to take physical action,
> > e.g. by screening sun light from heating the
> > earth, as some people have suggested (diffusors
> > or mirrors in space), the action might well be
> > efficient enough to reduce the sunlight
> > significantly. If they are wrong, and the
> > warming is not man-made, one might well kick
> > the planet into a persistent ice age.
>
> Very strange that you would consider doing
> that before you'd consider reducing CO2
> emissions.

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming. However,
there are plenty of crusaders out there who
come up with physical 'solutions' for reducing
this (nonexistant) warming effect. Should one
or two of these maniacs get permission and
funding to go ahead, there is a non-vanishing
chance that they might actually succeed, and
reduce influx of heat.

That possibility is the most scary with this
whole thing.

> >> 2) The politicians are too weak to order them
> >> into doing something.
>
> >Order who? Ordering people around has been
> >tested, in Europe some 80 years ago. Not many
> >lasting successes.
>
> Funny how the exact same politicians
> who can't build new-tech power stations
> can manage to start wars,

Sure. *Starting* a war is easy. *Ending* it is
a totally different matter. As has been demonstrated
time and time again.

> give trillions
> of dollars to bankers, raise/lower taxes
> at will, etc.

That's only money. Once you start bossing people
around, it is a totally different game. As has been
demonstrated for the past decade or so in the
near east.

Rune

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:

> On Dec 20, 4:14 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> > Even if we assume a few nutters and put the probability at 80%, 70%
>> > if you want...what's the disadvantage to doing something about it?
>>
>> The disadvantage is in what one does.
> 
> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?

Expensive and unnecessary.  
 
> You don't seem to see that as a possibility.

Lots of things are possible but unwise.  

>> If somebody decides to take physical action, e.g. by screening sun
>> light from heating the earth, as some people have suggested (diffusors
>> or mirrors in space), the action might well be efficient enough to
>> reduce the sunlight significantly. If they are wrong, and the warming
>> is not man-made, one might well kick the planet into a persistent ice
>> age.
>>
>>
> Very strange that you would consider doing that before you'd consider
> reducing CO2 emissions.
> 
>>> 2) The politicians are too weak to order them into doing something.
>>
>>Order who? Ordering people around has been tested, in Europe some 80
>>years ago. Not many lasting successes.
> 
> Funny how the exact same politicians
> who can't build new-tech power stations can manage to start wars, give
> trillions of dollars to bankers, raise/lower taxes at will, etc.
> 
> The problem is politics, not science. This is why I believe that nothing
> will ever be done until it's to late to avoid a lot of (unnecessary)
> suffering.

On Dec 20, 8:40=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
> CO2 has no influence on global warming.

Houston, I think we found the problem.

On Dec 20, 8:54=A0pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>
> > How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>
> Expensive and unnecessary.
>

Have you seen this web site, I think you might
find it interesting:

http://www.duesberg.com/

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:

> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>
>> > How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>
>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>
>>
> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
> 
> http://www.duesberg.com/

It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's 
because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have 
any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures, 
please show it and explain the mechanism involved.   

On Dec 20, 11:25=A0pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.

Just thought you might like a new bandwagon to
ride on. Maybe go over to the AIDS support groups
with it.

> =A0I assume it's
> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer. =A0If you have
> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.

Nah, I'm done here.

On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>
>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>
>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>
>>>
>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>
>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>
> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.

No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as 
some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim 
that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are 
also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that 
the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came 
into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:uG9Iq.33869$_H.16558@newsfe16.iad...
> On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>>
>>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>>
>>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>>
>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
>> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
>> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
>
> No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as 
> some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim that 
> AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or ....

Sounds like he is changing the subject to me.

And to something completely irrelevant.

Just as some people claim that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet, 
there are those who claim that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a 
virus or ....

The subject is definitely not the cause of AIDS, and it has *nothing* to do 
with climate "science".

You Believers never want to discuss the science behind AGW theories, and 
invariably try and change the topic when the scientific basis is challenged. 
I have noticed the same approach used by astrologers and any number of 
people peddling fake scientific theories.


>There are also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who 
>claim that the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe 
>came into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.
>

There are also people, some with credential as scientists, who claim that 
additional CO2 warms the planet.

> Jerry
> -- 

I am sure that you wish that there was evidence that additional CO2 on 
balance warms the planet. If there was, you wouldn't have to try and change 
the subject to the causes of AIDS or the shape of the earth whenever AGW is 
challenged.

In sci.math fungus <openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 8:40?pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
>> CO2 has no influence on global warming.
> 
> Houston, I think we found the problem.


Still not as good as ghg don't exist or the gh effect violates
thermodynamical or stat mech rules that I've seen posted the past couple wereks.

-- 
[Why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas:]
Some people don't understand the laws of gases, where a gas assumes a
uniform temperature and that the heat content of a volume of gas
comprises the sum of the heat contents of the constituent gases. [...]
In the case of CO2, f = 0.00036, making its contribution negligible.
-- Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>, Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:32 -0500

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:17:17 -0800, fungus wrote:

> On Dec 20, 11:25 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.
> 
> Just thought you might like a new bandwagon to ride on. Maybe go over to
> the AIDS support groups with it.

Sorry, not interested.  You're on your own there.

>>  I assume it's
>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
>> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
>> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
> 
> Nah, I'm done here.

Excellent.  Recognizing that is the first step toward recovery.

Good luck in your other group.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>>
>>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>>
>>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>>
>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
>> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
>> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
> 
> No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as
> some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim
> that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are
> also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that
> the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came
> into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.

And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2 to 
measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence you 
can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the subject 
to something you can relate to?

At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost 
quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?    

On 12/20/2011 8:58 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>>>
>>>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>>>
>>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
>>> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
>>> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
>>
>> No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as
>> some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim
>> that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are
>> also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that
>> the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came
>> into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.
>
> And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2 to
> measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence you
> can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the subject
> to something you can relate to?
>
> At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
> quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?

You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that 
pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well 
known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:M1dIq.34247$LO2.32692@newsfe13.iad...
> On 12/20/2011 8:58 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>>>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
>>>> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
>>>> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
>>>
>>> No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as
>>> some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim
>>> that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are
>>> also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that
>>> the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came
>>> into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.
>>
>> And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2 to
>> measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence you
>> can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the subject
>> to something you can relate to?
>>
>> At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
>> quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?
>
> You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that 
> pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well known 
> truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.
>

No.

There is no evidence of any connection between the efficacy of vaccines and 
CO2's effect on climate.

You are simply trying to change the topic away from climate "science" to 
something that can be defended scientifically (immunology). That is because 
climate "science" cannot be defended scientifically. Why you believe a 
physical theory which cannot be defended scientifically is a mystery to me. 
Personally, I use the scientific method to decide what I do and don't 
believe, but then I have never been a religious person.

> Jerry
> -- 
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/20/2011 8:58 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>  
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.duesberg.com/
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>>>> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you
>>>> have any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface
>>>> temperatures, please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
>>>
>>> No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just
>>> as some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who
>>> claim that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or ....
>>> There are also people, some of them with credentials as scientists,
>>> who claim that the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the
>>> universe came into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein
>>> was wrong.
>>
>> And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2
>> to measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence
>> you can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the
>> subject to something you can relate to?
>>
>> At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
>> quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> You too should keep your attributions straight.

What attribution might that be?  Or is that just another way to change 
the subject away from the fact you have no direct evidence that CO2 can 
affect the surface temperature?

> And yes: I think that
> pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well
> known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.

OK, fine.  That confirms your troll status.  If you ever do get any 
evidence that CO2 can affect surface temperature, please post and explain 
it.   Until then, in a.g-w, you're just background noise.

On Dec 21, 6:42=A0am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> OK, fine. =A0That confirms your troll status. =A0If you ever do get any
> evidence that CO2 can affect surface temperature, please post and explain
> it. =A0 Until then, in a.g-w, you're just background noise.

a) Evidence has been provided.

b) The experiments have been done, they work

c) You're in the monority, you're the one making extraordinary
claims. It falls on *you* to providing some evidence to back
up your viewpoint, not us.

On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
> scientist."
>
> wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
> cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

On Dec 21, 6:16=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
> > scientist."
>
> > wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
> > cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> > conversation about ethics.
>
> The point being?
>
> Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.  And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:11:55 -0800, fungus wrote:

> On Dec 21, 6:42 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, fine.  That confirms your troll status.  If you ever do get any
>> evidence that CO2 can affect surface temperature, please post and
>> explain it.   Until then, in a.g-w, you're just background noise.
> 
> a) Evidence has been provided.

I'll consider that a blatant lie unless you post a link to the post where 
you provided it.
 
> b) The experiments have been done, they work

Again, you need a cite, not just an empty claim.
 
> c) You're in the monority, you're the one making extraordinary claims.
> It falls on *you* to providing some evidence to back up your viewpoint,
> not us.

Nope.  It's your claim that CO2 heats the surface, it's up to you to show 
and explain the evidence you believe proves your claim.  Simple lies 
don't carry any weight at all.  They just confirm your desperation, as 
does your snipping.  

Your strategy of attempting to fool those more ignorant than yourself has 
failed because there's no one left in that category.  You stand exposed.

On 12/20/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

   ...

>> You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that
>> pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well
>> known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.
>>
>
> No.
>
> There is no evidence of any connection between the efficacy of vaccines
> and CO2's effect on climate.
>
> You are simply trying to change the topic away from climate "science" to
> something that can be defended scientifically (immunology). That is
> because climate "science" cannot be defended scientifically. Why you
> believe a physical theory which cannot be defended scientifically is a
> mystery to me. Personally, I use the scientific method to decide what I
> do and don't believe, but then I have never been a religious person.

Peter,

Analogies seem to create difficulties for you. I'll try to avoid them.

Saying that a thing is so doesn't make it so.
Saying that a thing is not so doesn't make it not so.
There are many things that have generally been believed to be so that 
are in fact not so.
There are many things that have generally been believed to be not so 
that are in fact so.

It is generally accepted by farmers and scientists alike that the 
interiors of greenhouses in direct sunlight become much warmer than the 
external ambient, even warmer than houses built of opaque materials.

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere 
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse. 
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse 
gasses".

Saying "Not so" won't make the effect go away. I provided examples of 
this behavior related to other subjects. Take those examples for what 
they're worth.

Jerry
-- 
"I view the progress of science as being the slow erosion of the
   tendency to dichotomize."                   Barbara Smuts, U. Mich.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

   ...

>> You too should keep your attributions straight.
>
> What attribution might that be?

It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I 
did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 6:16=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
> > > scientist."
>
> > > wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its =
a
> > > cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> > > conversation about ethics.
>
> > The point being?
>
> > Rune
>
> there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
> using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
> validate your opinion. =A0Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
> they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
> extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

>=A0And no, appealing to your own authority does not
> validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
> point. =A0The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
> of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
> would not be used as a reason for discrimination. =A0So you are equating
> those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
> racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/20/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
>>> You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that
>>> pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well
>>> known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.
>>>
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> There is no evidence of any connection between the efficacy of vaccines
>> and CO2's effect on climate.
>>
>> You are simply trying to change the topic away from climate "science"
>> to something that can be defended scientifically (immunology). That is
>> because climate "science" cannot be defended scientifically. Why you
>> believe a physical theory which cannot be defended scientifically is a
>> mystery to me. Personally, I use the scientific method to decide what I
>> do and don't believe, but then I have never been a religious person.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Analogies seem to create difficulties for you. I'll try to avoid them.
> 
> Saying that a thing is so doesn't make it so. Saying that a thing is not
> so doesn't make it not so. There are many things that have generally
> been believed to be so that are in fact not so.
> There are many things that have generally been believed to be not so
> that are in fact so.
> 
> It is generally accepted by farmers and scientists alike that the
> interiors of greenhouses in direct sunlight become much warmer than the
> external ambient, even warmer than houses built of opaque materials.
> 
> It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
> can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
> Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
> gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading.  Greenhouses trap 
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.  Nothing 
stops convection in the climate system.  Heat is not "trapped", it is 
simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by 
"GHGs". 
 
> Saying "Not so" won't make the effect go away.

Your effect is not there, so it can't "go away".  GHGs have nothing to do 
with greenhouses.  Your analogy is bogus.  You are believing something 
that is "in fact not so".

> I provided examples of this behavior related to other subjects. Take
> those examples for what they're worth.

Don't worry, we will.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
>>> You too should keep your attributions straight.
>>
>> What attribution might that be?
> 
> It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I
> did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Why do you think I attributed that to you?  

On Dec 21, 7:06=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 6:16=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im =
a
> > > > scientist."
>
> > > > wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because it=
s a
> > > > cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> > > > conversation about ethics.
>
> > > The point being?
>
> > > Rune
>
> > there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
> > using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
> > validate your opinion. =A0Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
> > they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
> > extreme example.
>
> What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
> a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?
>
> >=A0And no, appealing to your own authority does not
> > validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
> > point. =A0The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
> > of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
> > would not be used as a reason for discrimination. =A0So you are equatin=
g
> > those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
> > racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.
>
> First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
> every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
> Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
> 'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
> 'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
> The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
> for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.
>
> The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
> like cats and dogs.
>
> So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
> problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
> is severe in their own right:
>
> - Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
> =A0 Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
> =A0 and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
> =A0 disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
> =A0 while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
> =A0 eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
> =A0 screening etc.
>
> - The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
> =A0 like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
> =A0 capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
> =A0 'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
> =A0 relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
> =A0 effect (intelligence or temperature).
>
> Rune- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply.  In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
emotional plea to the reader.  There are many other examples of how to
communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader.  It was a poor
choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
and science.

Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
they are using thier position to provide information for the general
public, and yet you appeal to your own authority.  Scientists
communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
equiped to make value judgements about public policy.  And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact.  Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment.  Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:06=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 6:16=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > > On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" I=
m a
> > > > > scientist."
>
> > > > > wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because =
its a
> > > > > cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> > > > > conversation about ethics.
>
> > > > The point being?
>
> > > > Rune
>
> > > there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
> > > using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
> > > validate your opinion. =A0Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
> > > they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
> > > extreme example.
>
> > What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
> > a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?
>
> > >=A0And no, appealing to your own authority does not
> > > validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
> > > point. =A0The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first pa=
rt
> > > of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
> > > would not be used as a reason for discrimination. =A0So you are equat=
ing
> > > those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
> > > racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.
>
> > First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
> > every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
> > Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
> > 'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
> > 'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
> > The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
> > for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.
>
> > The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
> > like cats and dogs.
>
> > So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
> > problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
> > is severe in their own right:
>
> > - Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
> > =A0 Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
> > =A0 and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
> > =A0 disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
> > =A0 while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
> > =A0 eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
> > =A0 screening etc.
>
> > - The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
> > =A0 like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
> > =A0 capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
> > =A0 'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
> > =A0 relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
> > =A0 effect (intelligence or temperature).
>
> > Rune- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
> sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
> starter reply. =A0In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
> run away from your own words.

The eugenics example is relevant because

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
   CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
   at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
   increase the temperature.
   Selective breeding works.

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

> Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
> simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
> emotional plea to the reader. =A0There are many other examples of how to
> communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
> likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader. =A0It was a poor
> choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
> and science.

Again, less than a century ago, very few people questioned
eugenics, much the same way few people question the present
climate 'research'. And the same way eugenics was at the
core of politics in the '30s, the climate 'research' is at
the core of politics today.

I can hardly think of a better example. If you can suggest
a better one, please do.

> Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
> they are using thier position to provide information for the general
> public, and yet you appeal to your own authority.

Where did I do that? Where did I use *my* authority
as the deciding factor? If anything, I have referred
to the book by Svensmark, whwere the fallacy of
the climate 'research' is described in detail.

> =A0Scientists
> communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
> equiped to make value judgements about public policy.

There are few instances in history where science
and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
of them.

>=A0And yes we are
> getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
> by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
> concerns about human impact. =A0Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
> the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
> in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
> the test/experiment.

There is afundamental difference between medicine and
climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
nations or the world at stake. Sure, the medical test
subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
be limited to that individual. Get the climate debate
wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

>=A0Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
> authority in this matter would understand the differences between
> those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
> to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

> So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
> you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
> matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
> with a lack of objectivity.

I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
experience as argument for not mixing politics and
science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
I will wear such labels with pride.

Rune

On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

   ...

>> It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
>> can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
>> Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
>> gasses".
>
> Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading.  Greenhouses trap
> heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.  Nothing
> stops convection in the climate system.  Heat is not "trapped", it is
> simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
> "GHGs".

I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap 
heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half 
the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface. 
The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism. 
Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive 
by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that 
warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 12/21/2011 10:34 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>     ...
>>
>>>> You too should keep your attributions straight.
>>>
>>> What attribution might that be?
>>
>> It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I
>> did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.
>
> Why do you think I attributed that to you?

Because you addressed your post to me. Here it is:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

 > On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
 >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
 >>
 >>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>  wrote:
 >>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
 >>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
 >>>
 >>> http://www.duesberg.com/
 >> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
 >> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you have
 >> any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
 >> please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
 > No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as
 > some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim
 > that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are
 > also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that
 > the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came
 > into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.
And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2 to
measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence you
can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the subject
to something you can relate to?

At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?


Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Dec 21, 8:31=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 7:06=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 21, 6:16=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 17, 9:03=A0pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:"=
 Im a
> > > > > > scientist."
>
> > > > > > wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah becaus=
e its a
> > > > > > cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> > > > > > conversation about ethics.
>
> > > > > The point being?
>
> > > > > Rune
>
> > > > there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
> > > > using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does n=
ot
> > > > validate your opinion. =A0Yes public opinions are swayed by those w=
ho
> > > > they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such =
an
> > > > extreme example.
>
> > > What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
> > > a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?
>
> > > >=A0And no, appealing to your own authority does not
> > > > validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
> > > > point. =A0The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first =
part
> > > > of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the informati=
on
> > > > would not be used as a reason for discrimination. =A0So you are equ=
ating
> > > > those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who ha=
ve
> > > > racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.
>
> > > First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
> > > every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
> > > Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
> > > 'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
> > > 'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
> > > The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
> > > for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.
>
> > > The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
> > > like cats and dogs.
>
> > > So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
> > > problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
> > > is severe in their own right:
>
> > > - Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
> > > =A0 Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
> > > =A0 and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
> > > =A0 disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
> > > =A0 while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
> > > =A0 eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
> > > =A0 screening etc.
>
> > > - The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
> > > =A0 like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
> > > =A0 capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
> > > =A0 'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
> > > =A0 relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
> > > =A0 effect (intelligence or temperature).
>
> > > Rune- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
> > sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
> > starter reply. =A0In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
> > run away from your own words.
>
> The eugenics example is relevant because

na, and i know in your opinion your opinions are correct, but circular
logic only works with people like you.

>
> 1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
> =A0 =A0CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
> =A0 =A0at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
> =A0 =A0increase the temperature.

Human actions are changing the thermodynamic properties of the
atmosphere.



> =A0 =A0Selective breeding works.
>
> 2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

your use of of eugenics is an example of misunderstanding.


>
> > Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
> > simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
> > emotional plea to the reader. =A0There are many other examples of how t=
o
> > communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
> > likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader. =A0It was a poor
> > choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
> > and science.
>
> Again, less than a century ago, very few people questioned
> eugenics, much the same way few people question the present
> climate 'research'. And the same way eugenics was at the
> core of politics in the '30s, the climate 'research' is at
> the core of politics today.
>
> I can hardly think of a better example. If you can suggest
> a better one, please do.
>
> > Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
> > they are using thier position to provide information for the general
> > public, and yet you appeal to your own authority.
>
> Where did I do that? Where did I use *my* authority
> as the deciding factor? If anything, I have referred
> to the book by Svensmark, whwere the fallacy of
> the climate 'research' is described in detail.
>
> > =A0Scientists
> > communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
> > equiped to make value judgements about public policy.
>
> There are few instances in history where science
> and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
> of them.


you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
your smear.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the national defense=85" With an annual budget of about $6.9
billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
America=92s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
major source of federal backing"



>
> >=A0And yes we are
> > getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
> > by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
> > concerns about human impact. =A0Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
> > the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
> > in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
> > the test/experiment.
>
> There is afundamental difference between medicine and
> climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
> test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
> nations or the world at stake.

You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
you need to.  You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
have a special place based on a false sense of authority.


> Sure, the medical test
> subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
> be limited to that individual.


But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
would you place such a limit now?

>Get the climate debate
> wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
rhetoric.


>
> >=A0Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
> > authority in this matter would understand the differences between
> > those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
> > to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.
>
> I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
> and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.


>
> > So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
> > you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
> > matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
> > with a lack of objectivity.
>
> I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
> experience as argument for not mixing politics and
> science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
> I will wear such labels with pride.
>
> Rune

thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
they are not rational or logical.

On 21 Des, 18:58, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > There are few instances in history where science
> > and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
> > of them.
>
> you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
> your smear.http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
> "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
> agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
> science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
> secure the national defense=85" With an annual budget of about $6.9
> billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
> percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
> America=92s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
> mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
> major source of federal backing"

I have no inisght into what NSF specifically is doing,
but those kinds of institutions are used to govern
'desired' directions of research. The EU have used
research funding programs with politically goverened
goals for several decades already. That's the name
of the game.

> > >=A0And yes we are
> > > getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affecte=
d
> > > by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
> > > concerns about human impact. =A0Now in mentioning eugenics, you negle=
ct
> > > the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
> > > in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
> > > the test/experiment.
>
> > There is afundamental difference between medicine and
> > climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
> > test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
> > nations or the world at stake.
>
> You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
> you need to. =A0You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
> have a special place based on a false sense of authority.

Again, what do you base such claims on?

> > Sure, the medical test
> > subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
> > be limited to that individual.
>
> But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
> would you place such a limit now?

That's the point: *your* comprision with medicine is
invalid, because medicine deals with individuals.
Eugenics and climate 'research' have far wider
consequences: Nations and populations.

> >Get the climate debate
> > wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.
>
> Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
> rhetoric.

Ah, Thanks for the psychology lesson.

> > >=A0Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
> > > authority in this matter would understand the differences between
> > > those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
> > > to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.
>
> > I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
> > and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.
>
> See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.

And so what? How large percentage of their funds have
been piped to non-IPCC researchers? The fraction should
be somewhere in the order 50/50 (in practice maybe 40/60
either way). I suspect the numbers are on the order of
100/0 in favour of IPCC-followers.


> > > So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
> > > you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
> > > matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
> > > with a lack of objectivity.
>
> > I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
> > experience as argument for not mixing politics and
> > science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
> > I will wear such labels with pride.
>
> > Rune
>
> thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
> they are not rational or logical.

We might take that part of the discussion once you
post under your full name.

Rune

On 12/21/2011 11:31 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> 1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
>     CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
>     at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
>     increase the temperature.

Not so. Higher heat capacity (a.k.a specific heat) affects the amount of 
heat that the atmosphere holds without affecting its temperature.

CO2 raises surface temperature because it is relatively transparent at 
the short IR of the sun's radiation and relatively opaque to the long IR 
that a merely warm earth reradiates. It is the nature of CO2's 
absorption/transmission spectrum that makes it a greenhouse gas.

> 2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Dec 21, 10:21=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 21 Des, 18:58, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There are few instances in history where science
> > > and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
> > > of them.
>
> > you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
> > your smear.http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
> > "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
> > agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
> > science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
> > secure the national defense=85" With an annual budget of about $6.9
> > billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
> > percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
> > America=92s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
> > mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
> > major source of federal backing"
>
> I have no inisght into what NSF specifically is doing,
> but those kinds of institutions are used to govern
> 'desired' directions of research. The EU have used
> research funding programs with politically goverened
> goals for several decades already. That's the name
> of the game.

So that would mean when you said " There are few instances in
history", that would be limited by your ignorance, and your fake
appeal to your own authority failed.


> > > >=A0And yes we are
> > > > getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affec=
ted
> > > > by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss t=
he
> > > > concerns about human impact. =A0Now in mentioning eugenics, you neg=
lect
> > > > the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary pu=
t
> > > > in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics =
of
> > > > the test/experiment.
>
> > > There is afundamental difference between medicine and
> > > climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
> > > test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
> > > nations or the world at stake.
>
> > You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
> > you need to. =A0You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
> > have a special place based on a false sense of authority.
>
> Again, what do you base such claims on?

your words, why do you need to run from them by playing stupid?

>
> > > Sure, the medical test
> > > subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
> > > be limited to that individual.
>
> > But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
> > would you place such a limit now?
>
> That's the point: *your* comprision with medicine is
> invalid, because medicine deals with individuals.
> Eugenics and climate 'research' have far wider
> consequences: Nations and populations.

Please take the time to read, as i stated the human genome project,
are you claiming that use of the human genome data is limited to
affecting one person only?  That would be foolish on your part, as you
seem to think your argument is so weak you need to dodge what was
already written by "qualifiers".  Once again, my example was not
limited to the individual nor was yours, so all things being equal why
would you keep your discussion limited to your myopic interpretation
of history as your ignorance is obvious, and your lack of objectivity
has been revealed.

>
> > >Get the climate debate
> > > wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.
>
> > Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
> > rhetoric.
>
> Ah, Thanks for the psychology lesson.

observation.

>
> > > >=A0Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
> > > > authority in this matter would understand the differences between
> > > > those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who wa=
nt
> > > > to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.
>
> > > I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
> > > and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.
>
> > See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.
>
> And so what? How large percentage of their funds have
> been piped to non-IPCC researchers? The fraction should
> be somewhere in the order 50/50 (in practice maybe 40/60
> either way). I suspect the numbers are on the order of
> 100/0 in favour of IPCC-followers.

another smear assertion with no point.


>
> > > > So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of ho=
w
> > > > you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
> > > > matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
> > > > with a lack of objectivity.
>
> > > I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
> > > experience as argument for not mixing politics and
> > > science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
> > > I will wear such labels with pride.
>
> > > Rune
>
> > thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
> > they are not rational or logical.
>
> We might take that part of the discussion once you
> post under your full name.
>
> Rune

that part of the discussion has been completed, and the conclusion is
you are wrong.

In article <JGoIq.1264$lp2.433@newsfe03.iad>,
 Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
> >> It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
> >> can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
> >> Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
> >> gasses".
> >
> > Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading.  Greenhouses trap
> > heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.  Nothing
> > stops convection in the climate system.  Heat is not "trapped", it is
> > simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
> > "GHGs".
> 
> I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap 
> heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half 
> the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface. 
> The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism. 
> Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive 
> by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that 
> warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.
> 
> Jerry

So, according to AGW theory, radiant heat goes from cold (upper 
atmosphere at -65F) to warm (surface air)? Fer shuah!

In article 
<2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
 columbiaaccidentinvestigation 
 <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 17, 9:03�pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
> scientist."
> 
> wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
> cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
> conversation about ethics.

No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW 
proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.

On 12/21/11 9:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> Greenhouses trap
> heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.

   Oops, you got that wrong, Bill.

    CO2 + hν <==> CO2*
    CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
    N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
    H20* ==> H2O + hν

On 12/21/2011 2:56 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article 
> <2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>  columbiaaccidentinvestigation 
>  <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
>> scientist."
>>
>> wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
>> cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
>> conversation about ethics.
> 
> No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW 
> proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.


Scientific Consensus...  is an oxymoron.


Science is NOT a socialist, collectivist group think.




-- 
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>>> It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
>>> can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
>>> Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
>>> gasses".
>>
>> Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading.  Greenhouses trap
>> heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.  Nothing
>> stops convection in the climate system.  Heat is not "trapped", it is
>> simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
>> "GHGs".
>
> I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
> heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
> the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the
> surface. The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying
> mechanism. Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared
> that we receive by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far
> infrared that warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Not many greenhouses use glass any more.  The effect of the
walls on radiative heat transfer is completely secondary to their
effect on convection.  For a short discussion see:

  http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

Real greenhouses are also frequently heated in winter and cooled in
summer, at considerable expense.

-- 

On Dec 21, 11:56=A0am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/809f15083d010d39

like i said, there are many examples one could use, but the choice of
eugenics is a red herring topic meant to crank up the rhetoric.  Its
only frequently used because it a cheap convienent way to cause an
emotional reaction by those who have a myopic view of history.

On Dec 12, 5:00=A0am, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:10=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
> > =A0I think it's foolish to assume that because
> > the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> > the changes
>
> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
> people are burning.
>
> The rest is basic arithmetic.

Show us the math, you phoney.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:44:53 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 11:31 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
>> 1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
>>     CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere at large, so
>>     increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the temperature.
> 
> Not so. Higher heat capacity (a.k.a specific heat) affects the amount of
> heat that the atmosphere holds without affecting its temperature.
> 
> CO2 raises surface temperature because it is relatively transparent at
> the short IR of the sun's radiation and relatively opaque to the long IR
> that a merely warm earth reradiates. It is the nature of CO2's
> absorption/transmission spectrum that makes it a greenhouse gas.

The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem.  The 
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by 
conduction and convection.  The surface radiation affected by GHGs is 
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.  Adding more 
CO2 has little effect, as it simply reduces the distance before the LWIR 
is absorbed.  

Water vapor is clearly the controlling factor in setting the surface 
temperature.  Read the Miskolczi links I posted earlier to see why. 
VanAndel's intro is a good place to start.
 
>> 2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.
> 
> Indeed it does.

Ditto.

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>> 2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.
>> 
>> Indeed it does.
>
> Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change.  There was climate change long before humans appeared.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:28:12 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
>>> It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the
>>> atmosphere can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a
>>> greenhouse. Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it)
>>> "greenhouse gasses".
>>
>> Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading.  Greenhouses trap
>> heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air. 
>> Nothing stops convection in the climate system.  Heat is not "trapped",
>> it is simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away
>> by "GHGs".
> 
> I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
> heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
> the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface.

Actually, the "other half" doesn't.  It can't, because the surface is 
warmer than the radiating altitude.  It never left the surface, because 
the surface is at the same temperature as the air (and GHGs) immediately 
above.

The atmosphere is in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE).  As in all 
radiatively active gases, there are photons constantly exchanged between 
nearby molecules, whose energy spectrum depends on the temperature of the 
gas.  That means any downwelling LWIR at the surface came from just above 
the surface, and the outward bound LWIR originated at a range of 
altitudes where the optical depth to space approaches one and the photons 
begin to escape to space.  You don't need to worry about the LWIR below 
that altitude, because air acts as any other gas in LTE.  The surface 
energy is carried upward by conduction and convection of warmed gas, not 
radiation.

The altitude range is such that half of the outgoing radiation is from WV 
below 6km.  The effective radiating temperature is 255K, as set by 
orbital parameters and the Sun's output. WV radiates broadband, while CO2 
affects only a narrow band at ~15u, at higher altitude and lower 
temperature.

The surface is warmer because of the adiabatic lapse rate down from the 
~255K at 6km, not "back radiation".

> The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism.
> Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive
> by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that
> warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Actually, I do.  I also know that's way oversimplified to the point of 
being misleading. Read the Miskolczi papers for a detailed explanation.

"As simple as possible, *but no simpler*."

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 5:00�am, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:10�pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>>
>> > �I think it's foolish to assume that because
>> > the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
>> > the changes
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
>> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
>> people are burning.
>>
>> The rest is basic arithmetic.
>
>Show us the math, you phoney.

No no no!  Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas, 
then challenge his ideas.  But don't make yourself 
look bad by attacking Eric personally.  Personal 
attacks are for young girls, not grown men.

[-Rick-]
 

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:32:10 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 10:34 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>
>>>>> You too should keep your attributions straight.
>>>>
>>>> What attribution might that be?
>>>
>>> It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS.
>>> I did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.
>>
>> Why do you think I attributed that to you?
> 
> Because you addressed your post to me. Here it is:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
[5) you responded to me]

> 
>  > On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
[4) I responded to fungus re the link]


>  >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:
[3) fungus posted the link]

>  >>
>  >>> On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> 
>  >>> wrote:
[2) My response to the OP]

>  >>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:
[1) The original post]


[fungus 1]
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?

[BW 2]
>  >>>> Expensive and unnecessary.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>

[fungus 3]
>  >>> Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:
>  >>>
>  >>> http://www.duesberg.com/

[BW 4]
>  >> It's interesting that you try to change the subject.  I assume it's
>  >> because you have no response that's relevant to my answer.  If you
>  >> have any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface
>  >> temperatures, please show it and explain the mechanism involved.

[Jerry 5]
>  > No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just
>  > as some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who
>  > claim that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or ....
>  > There are also people, some of them with credentials as scientists,
>  > who claim that the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the
>  > universe came into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein
>  > was wrong.

[BW in response to Jerry 5 (no header in repost)]
> And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2
> to measurably heat the surface of the Earth?  Do you have any evidence
> you can show and explain?  Or are you also just trying to change the
> subject to something you can relate to?
> 
> At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
> quaint.  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> 
> Jerry

Looks OK to me.  My post appears to be in response to fungus, as I 
intended.  What problem do you see?

On 12/21/2011 2:56 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> <2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>   columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>   <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no>  wrote:" Im a
>> scientist."
>>
>> wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
>> cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
>> conversation about ethics.
>
> No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW
> proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.

There is actually some merit to consensus. You must be aware of the 
driver whose wife telephoned him to warn him that the news reported a 
driver going against the traffic on the divided highway he used to go 
home from work. He answered, "What do you mean, _a_ driver? They're 
_all_ going the wrong way!"

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On 12/21/2011 6:19 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com>  wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>>>
>>>>   I think it's foolish to assume that because
>>>> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
>>>> the changes
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
>>> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
>>> people are burning.
>>>
>>> The rest is basic arithmetic.
>>
>> Show us the math, you phoney.
>
> No no no!  Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas,
> then challenge his ideas.  But don't make yourself
> look bad by attacking Eric personally.  Personal
> attacks are for young girls, not grown men.

Amen to that, Rick, This thread has generated too much rancor (mostly 
from who aren't comp.dsp regulars). I expect to bow out.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

REPOST

Regardless of if you believe that the AGW theory is valid or not, the more
important question is what should society do regarding energy.

1) I think we all agree there are many good reasons to seek alternative form
of energy besides fossil fuel even if AGW is not one of them (someone
already said that and I think everyone agrees).
We should invest in research to develop these   Alternative fuel research
YES

2)  I think we all agree it is not a good idea to waste energy in any form
so we should invest in conservation .   YES

3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX.  Who
should get that money and what should it be used for?  If you want to use it
for 1 and 2 above, I might even agree to that. CARBON TAX DEPENDS

4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more money
to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants.  This would be a
total waste of money time and effort.  CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!


My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to take
regarding an energy policy.

Mark

"MarkK" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jcu7p9$in1$1@dont-email.me...
> 3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX.

    You have your semantics mixed up. It's not the AGW folks that want to 
levy that tax, it's our aggressive CAT (cap and trade) politicians. (they're 
the ones that 'never met a tax they didn't like') Said CAT politicians are 
masquerading in AGW clothing.

> Who should get that money and what should it be used for?

    We all know that it goes into the General Fund to fuel government 
growth... the Cookie Monster.

> 4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more 
> money
> to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants.  This would be 
> a
> total waste of money time and effort.  CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!

    You got that one right. You can gauge the stupidity of  sequestration 
proponents by the amount of time it takes for them to realize that said 
sequestration is a bad hoax. Listen to and read the words of your 
Representative and your Senators.

> My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

    Correct, but the public and most politicians are very slow learners when 
it comes to scientific facts. Tax politicians could already taste and smell 
the CAT money. It's been snatched from their mouth at the last moment. They 
will be nasty and mean spirited for some time to come. Lord only knows what 
they will come up with to replace that "lost" revenue.

> The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to 
> take
> regarding an energy policy.

    Produce and conserve... about like food.

        Ange. 

Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/2011 6:19 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:59 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> > <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus<openglMYSO...@artlum.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>   I think it's foolish to assume that because
> >>>> the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
> >>>> the changes
> >>>
> >>> I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
> >>> composition of the air and how much oil/coal
> >>> people are burning.
> >>>
> >>> The rest is basic arithmetic.
> >>
> >> Show us the math, you phoney.
> >
> > No no no!  Claudius, if you don't like Eric's ideas,
> > then challenge his ideas.  But don't make yourself
> > look bad by attacking Eric personally.  Personal
> > attacks are for young girls, not grown men.
> 
> Amen to that, Rick, This thread has generated too much rancor (mostly
> from who aren't comp.dsp regulars). I expect to bow out.


    A lot of people are tired of Cahill's trolling unrelated newsgroups:
:alt.global-warming, sci.physics, comp.dsp, sci.electronics.basics,
sci.math and are also tired of the trolls that pile on when he does.




-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Dec 14, 11:15=A0pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

(snip)

> Actually, it doesn't. Even though the annual probability of an Earth
> Life Ending (ELE) impact is on the order of 1e-8, the very fact that
> such an event can occur and that its outcome is so catastrophic, means
> that we need to devote significant effort toward its solution.

(snip)

ELE =3D Extinction Level Event

Dave

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem.  The 
> surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by 
> conduction and convection.  The surface radiation affected by GHGs is 
> already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I suspect you
might be going wrong. 

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed
in a few meters?