Hi all. 

Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted 
to science and research, 

http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06

that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming. 
Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a 
UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document 
from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the 
processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the 
writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article
presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the 
foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document.

Unfortunately, the web page is written in Norwegian but there are two 
figures that show the original temperature data as well as a comparision 
of the first and second interpretation of the temperature data. At the 
very bottom of the page there are links to other (English) articles and 
documents where the discussion is continued.

My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that 
once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you, 
you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying 
"I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes". 

Which is a very dangerous attitude.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

> Hi all. 
> 
> Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted 
> to science and research, 
> 
> http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06
> 
> that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming. 
> Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a 
> UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document 
> from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the 
> processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the 
> writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article
> presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the 
> foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document.
> 
> Unfortunately, the web page is written in Norwegian but there are two 
> figures that show the original temperature data as well as a comparision 
> of the first and second interpretation of the temperature data. At the 
> very bottom of the page there are links to other (English) articles and 
> documents where the discussion is continued.
> 
> My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that 
> once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you, 
> you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying 
> "I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes". 
> 
> Which is a very dangerous attitude.
> 
> Rune

I remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's 
dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses.
Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting.
Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed
like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer.

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

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:bogcjs$2ll$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>
> I remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's
> dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses.
> Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting.
> Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed
> like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer.

Hello Jerry,

I remember that a lot of the issue with Wegoner's theory was that he was a
meteorologist and therefore what could he possibly know about geology.
Sometimes you just have to be a member of the club to be taken seriously.
Fortunately Wegoner stuck to his guns and as technology developed,
substantial findings were made that backed his theory. Most of this was
within 2 to 3 decades time - which is certainly short as you mentioned. Of
course now the theory is well accepted. In California laser interferometers
are used to monitor the crust's slow creep along the fault lines. I remember
when the petroleum companies looked at putting South America and Africa
together (aligning the continental shelves) and using the correspondence to
associate oil fields between the two continents. Since even Wegoner had
matched up fossils and rock strata between the two, so why not fossil fuels?

Clay




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

"Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<TRPqb.47307$SV2.21498@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:bogcjs$2ll$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >>
> > I remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's
> > dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses.
> > Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting.
> > Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed
> > like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer.

I was more concerned about the impact that first "hockey-stick curve"
had from a political point of view. That was elaborated in the text 
(in Norwegian) and the author of the web page makes a point that if the 
last analysis is correct, it may have severe political consequences. 
I get instantly suspicious when people say "it's true because UN said 
so", when they (in my opinion) should say "current analyses of available 
data suggest that..." If you download the critical article from 

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf

the main critique is data handling, interpolation, truncation and 
data quality control in general. The conclusion is pretty devastating 
for the original analysis (which is refered to as MBH98):

     "Without endorsing the MBH98 methodology or choice of source data,
      we were able to apply the MBH98 methodology to a database with 
      improved quality control and found that their own method, carefully 
      applied to their own intended source data, yielded a Northern 
      Hemisphere temperature index which in the late 20th century is 
      unexceptional compared to previous centuries, displaying neither 
      unusually high mean values nor variability."

I don't know who is right or who is wrong, but I certainly prefer 
whatever political decisions following this, to be based on valid 
arguments.

> I remember that a lot of the issue with Wegoner's theory was that he was a
> meteorologist and therefore what could he possibly know about geology.
> Sometimes you just have to be a member of the club to be taken seriously.
> Fortunately Wegoner stuck to his guns and as technology developed,
> substantial findings were made that backed his theory. Most of this was
> within 2 to 3 decades time - which is certainly short as you mentioned. Of
> course now the theory is well accepted. In California laser interferometers
> are used to monitor the crust's slow creep along the fault lines. I remember
> when the petroleum companies looked at putting South America and Africa
> together (aligning the continental shelves) and using the correspondence to
> associate oil fields between the two continents. Since even Wegoner had
> matched up fossils and rock strata between the two, so why not fossil fuels?

Could you remind me about how that theory was developed? I think I have 
seen an account somewhere where Wegoner suggested continental drift as 
a phenomenon some time around 1919-20. Apparently, he based his suggestion 
on similarities in geology as well as shapes of landforms across the 
Atlantic ocean. At first he was labeled a Crackpot, since he could not 
explain the mechanisms of continental drift, but when a mechanism at last 
was found (around 1950?) all the pieces fell in place and everybody 
accepted his theory.

Rune

"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:f56893ae.0311071441.2bb0f34c@posting.google.com...

Hello Rune,
It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983
Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me
hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many
popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about
geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s.

According to Alfred Wegener (sorry I had it mispelled earlier), he was in
the Marburg library browsing in 1911 and picked up a paper describing a land
bridge. He read the paper which cited many connections between South America
and Africa. He became so intrigued that he did a lot more research, and soon
decided the commonality between distant lands was that they were once one
and drifted apart rather than being joined by a simple land bridge. He first
publicly anounced his theory in Jan 6, 1912. Later he would write a book
called "The Origin of Continents and Oceans." In its 3rd edition (1922),
Wegener had combined all of the continents to create Pangaea. Just about all
scientists at the time rejected his ideas, and Wegener died on an expedition
in Greenland in 1930. So he didn't get to see his theory proved right.


Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory:

Echo sounding of the ocean floor revealed much thinner layers of sediment
than expected.

Discovery of deep ocean trenches.

Continents were made of granite (less dense) and the ocean floor is made of
basalt (more dense). So the continents literally float about.

Midatlantic rift is discovered whose position evenly splits the distance
between the continents.

Discovery of guyots.  Guyots are volcanic mountians that have had their tops
weathered flat. The furthur a guyot is from the midocean ridge, the deeper
its top is below the ocean's surface. The accepted theory is that as the
ocean floor moves away from the spreading center, the rock cools and
contracts. There is a near linear relation between the ocean floor depth and
the distance from the mid ocean ridge.

Lack of ocean floor rocks over 600 million years old whereas the continents
have rocks billions (10^9) of years old. Old seafloor gets sucked into the
subduction zones and is replaced with new seafloor from the midocean ridges.
This functions like a conveyer belt that drags the continents along.

Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge.
When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic
field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded
in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges.

3-D plots of earthquakes correspond with midocean ridges and known fault
lines and island chains. In fact worldwide plots clearly show the outlines
of the tecktonic plates.

Many island chains are parts of circular arcs. When rigid motion is
attempted on a sphere, something must give along the edges and this spawns
volcanos. And this motion will be along circular arcs. For example look at
the Tonga, Marianas, and Aleutian Islands. A quick look at a globe and
thinking about the ring of fire makes it easy to see the Pacific plate.

Starting with the main island in Hawaii, each succesive island in the chain
is older than the one before. This fits the model that the crust is moving
over a hot spot which pushes up new volcanos every so often. This chain
extends 1500 miles to the Midway islands.

There are many other examples, but I think these outline the major points.
The early echo soundings were done during the 1940s and the good siesmic
plots and paleomagnetic surveys were done in the 1960s and 1970s.

Clay











>
> Could you remind me about how that theory was developed? I think I have
> seen an account somewhere where Wegoner suggested continental drift as
> a phenomenon some time around 1919-20. Apparently, he based his suggestion
> on similarities in geology as well as shapes of landforms across the
> Atlantic ocean. At first he was labeled a Crackpot, since he could not
> explain the mechanisms of continental drift, but when a mechanism at last
> was found (around 1950?) all the pieces fell in place and everybody
> accepted his theory.
>
> Rune

"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:f56893ae.0311070500.7b559538@posting.google.com...
> Hi all.
>
> Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted
> to science and research,
>
> http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06
>
> that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming.
> Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a
> UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document
> from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the
> processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the
> writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article
> presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the
> foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document.

(snip)

> My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that
> once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you,
> you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying
> "I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes".

On the other hand, it seems that the cancer and 60Hz magnetic field
association was based on faked data.  It took a lot of experiments and
statistical analysis before that was discovered.

I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources and
sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.

-- glen

"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53>...

> I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
> there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
> measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources and
> sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.

Exactly. I think the debate (the political, not the scientific although 
the difference is not always clear) has been too simplistic. What are 
the effects of variable activity on the sun, which ultimately fuels the
climate system? My impression is that one can expect at least two 
eruptions of the Mt St Helens type per decade. What are the effects of 
such vulcanic activity on the atmosphere? How reliable are historic data? 
Sure, I certainly share the concern for climate variation, thirty years 
ago there came as much snow in one week as came the whole last winter. 
Still, I believe the trick to finding out what's going on is to keep 
a cool head and clear mind, and analyze the data available in an as 
scientific (as opposed to emotional) way as possible.

Rune

"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53...
>
> I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
> there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
> measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources
and
> sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.

Hello Glen, Rune et. al.,

You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very
small signal in something that has a lot of noise.
And to make matters worse, a good model for the Earth's temperature includes
very long term variations. Some of these variations are well understood,
have astronomical orgins, and correspond with known ice ages. But as Rune
has pointed out, other things such as volcanism can create multiyear impacts
on temperture. I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in
Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese
actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date
corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa
region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to
be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at
the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere
that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark.
But the issue of drifts in the Earth's temperature across a period of
several centuries, I believe, is still largely difficult to measure and
harder yet, be able to say what's its cause. Certainly cloroflourocarbons
and cow farts (methane which is reputed to be a worse greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide) potentially have environmental impacts. Measurements of CO2
from Hawaii certainly show the increase of the gas in the atmosphere. The
graphs very importantly show the yearly variation which gives an estimate
for how well the flora can consume the CO2.

Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in that
we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or we
can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a
solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to
get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the
politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and
the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general, tend
to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in analyzing
the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or
break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to make
the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects
this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that if
your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment.  The latest
trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide
lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has
been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small.

Clay





>
> -- glen
>
>

Clay S. Turner wrote:

   ...

> Hello Rune,
> It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983
> Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me
> hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many
> popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about
> geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s.

   ...

Many texts are out of date, even when published. A generation of physics
texts showed a picture, copied from one to the next, of water issuing
from holes in the side of a container at three distances below the water
surface. The purpose was to illustrate the variation of pressure with
depth, but the stream trajectories weren't physically realizable. People
still design PID control systems despite a better way's having been
published in 1977 by Richard Phelan.

> Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory:
> 
> Echo sounding ...  deep ocean trenches.

[Much else snipped]

> Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge.
> When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic
> field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded
> in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges.

In the late 40s and up to the mid 50s, these findings, mostly from
Columbia University's Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, were
regularly written up by the researchers themselves in Scientific
American, where I read of them. No mention of drift was in the reports,
just the findings. Drift was obvious even to me, a naive reader, as at
least the likely explanation of all the findings. Still, they spent
years erecting a robust framework to support the idea before it was ever
explicitly, if tentatively, mentioned. You can imagine the intellectual
climate!

   ...

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

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:30:03 -0500, "Clay S. Turner"
<physics@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53...
>>
>> I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
>> there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
>> measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources
>and
>> sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.
>
>Hello Glen, Rune et. al.,
>
>You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very
>small signal in something that has a lot of noise.
>And to make matters worse, a good model for the Earth's temperature includes
>very long term variations. Some of these variations are well understood,
>have astronomical orgins, and correspond with known ice ages. But as Rune
>has pointed out, other things such as volcanism can create multiyear impacts
>on temperture. I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in
>Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese
>actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date
>corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa
>region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to
>be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at
>the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere
>that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark.
>But the issue of drifts in the Earth's temperature across a period of
>several centuries, I believe, is still largely difficult to measure and
>harder yet, be able to say what's its cause. Certainly cloroflourocarbons
>and cow farts (methane which is reputed to be a worse greenhouse gas than
>carbon dioxide) potentially have environmental impacts. Measurements of CO2
>from Hawaii certainly show the increase of the gas in the atmosphere. The
>graphs very importantly show the yearly variation which gives an estimate
>for how well the flora can consume the CO2.
>
>Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in that
>we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or we
>can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a
>solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to
>get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the
>politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and
>the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general, tend
>to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in analyzing
>the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or
>break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to make
>the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects
>this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that if
>your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment.  The latest
>trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide
>lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has
>been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small.
>
>Clay

Hi Clay and all the other guys,


   Neat. What an interesting thread!!!

Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me 
that automobiles are causing global warming and 
that we're all gonna die, I ask them:

   "If that's true, what caused the global warming 
    20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age'
    when there were no automobiles?  In case you 
    didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, 
    Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were 
    *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 
    years ago!!!"

Ha ha.

[-Rick-]



 
   

"Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rR8rb.46753$ns.7306@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53...
> >
> > I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
> > there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
> > measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources
> and
> > sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.
>
> Hello Glen, Rune et. al.,
>
> You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very
> small signal in something that has a lot of noise.

(snip)

> Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in
that
> we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or
we
> can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a
> solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to
> get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the
> politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and
> the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general,
tend
> to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in
analyzing
> the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or
> break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to
make
> the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects
> this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that
if
> your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment.  The
latest
> trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide
> lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has
> been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small.

A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and
natural gas we have.  While there is still more to find, we will still run
out in the not so distant future.   Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel
usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.

Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should
wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it.

-- glen

Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> "Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rR8rb.46753$ns.7306@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> 
>>"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53...
>>
>>>I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because
>>>there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather.  It takes many
>>>measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant.  The sources
>>
>>and
>>
>>>sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.
>>
>>Hello Glen, Rune et. al.,
>>
>>You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very
>>small signal in something that has a lot of noise.
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> 
>>Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in
> 
> that
> 
>>we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or
> 
> we
> 
>>can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a
>>solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to
>>get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the
>>politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and
>>the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general,
> 
> tend
> 
>>to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in
> 
> analyzing
> 
>>the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or
>>break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to
> 
> make
> 
>>the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects
>>this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that
> 
> if
> 
>>your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment.  The
> 
> latest
> 
>>trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide
>>lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has
>>been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small.
> 
> 
> A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and
> natural gas we have.  While there is still more to find, we will still run
> out in the not so distant future.   Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel
> usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.
> 
> Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should
> wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it.
> 
> -- glen

We are surely warming. Only the cause can be debated, not the trend. The
weather pattern is buried in a lot of noise, but statistics can dig it
out. If the variations were purely random, there ought to be no
correlations among the dates of high-temperature records. It's not
unusual or particularly significant when a record high is set on a
particular date. It is significant that the previous record had been
established relatively recently. We see that more and more now.

In very cold climates, the major symptoms of warming is the melting of
ice sheets and glaciers. Where I live, about 40 degrees north on the
Atlantic coast, ponds and lakes froze over regularly as recently as 30.
Ice skating every winter was the norm. After a brief period of thin ice
warnings, they became unnecessary. For ten years or so, there has been
no ice at all that would stop a rowboat.

We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure,
however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see a
man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait to be
sure he's really drowning.

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

In article <bokg0d$6bk$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, jya@ieee.org wrote:

>We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure,
>however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see a
>man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait to be
>sure he's really drowning.
>
>Jerry

You have to realize that five or so billion people will die in the reversal of 
the situation.  Probably more than will die by global warming, if it gets as 
bad as predicted.  

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bojtmv$27i$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> Clay S. Turner wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
> > Hello Rune,
> > It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983
> > Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me
> > hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many
> > popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about
> > geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s.
> 
>    ...
> 
> Many texts are out of date, even when published. A generation of physics
> texts showed a picture, copied from one to the next, of water issuing
> from holes in the side of a container at three distances below the water
> surface. The purpose was to illustrate the variation of pressure with
> depth, but the stream trajectories weren't physically realizable. People
> still design PID control systems despite a better way's having been
> published in 1977 by Richard Phelan.
> 
> > Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory:
> > 
> > Echo sounding ...  deep ocean trenches.
> 
> [Much else snipped]
> 
> > Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge.
> > When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic
> > field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded
> > in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges.
> 
> In the late 40s and up to the mid 50s, these findings, mostly from
> Columbia University's Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, were
> regularly written up by the researchers themselves in Scientific
> American, where I read of them. No mention of drift was in the reports,
> just the findings. Drift was obvious even to me, a naive reader, as at
> least the likely explanation of all the findings. Still, they spent
> years erecting a robust framework to support the idea before it was ever
> explicitly, if tentatively, mentioned. You can imagine the intellectual
> climate!

After some "on-the-shelf archaeology" (book shelf, that is) I found a 
book on plate tectonics I had forgotten that I bought ("Global Tectonics"
by Kearey and Vine). In the first chapter they give a historical summary
and I was quite amazed to see that the term "tectonics" date no longer 
back than 1968! Still, it appears that Clay's account is essentially 
correct, there were just so many facts pointing in the direction of 
continental drift that it seems as when the magnetic "fingerprint" in 
the sea floor was discovered in the 1960-70ies, everybody accepted 
the idea, based on the "sea floor conveyor belt" as the driving 
mechanism behind the drift. 

Of course, research is a full contact sport, so I can imagine tehre were 
some bruises and perhapse even some casualties before then.

Rune

"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<IKirb.106428$mZ5.719451@attbi_s54>...
> A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and
> natural gas we have.  While there is still more to find, we will still run
> out in the not so distant future.   Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel
> usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.

You may or may not be aware of this, but I wrote a PhD thesis on processing 
of seismic data. The work was funded by an oil company. I am also actively 
working to find a job in the oil business. Just for your information.

There are many good arguments in favour of reducing the use of fossile 
fuels. Some types of fossile fules (coal) both disperse dust and chemicals 
not related to the hydrocarbons themselves (various components causing acid
rain) but that emanate from the rocks or soil where the hydrocarbons are 
embedded. The finite amount of hydrocarbons available suggest that we 
should try to find other uses for these resources than merely burning them.
One alternative could be to use them as bases for chemical products. Still, 
there is the question about alternative energy sources. I think the one 
alternative likely to make an impact would be the fusion nuclear reactor, 
if it ever gets developed. 
 
> Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should
> wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it.

Eh... I don't follow that argument. In my naive world, quite a few criteria
need to be met to implement any sort of corrective action:

- The goal to be achieved by the action must be defined in advance.
- The system to be acted upon must be defined. By this I mean the general 
  and *complete* description of *all* relevant causes and effects must 
  be known sufficiently well. I am not at all sure if present climate 
  research would stand to scrutiny from this point of view.
 
  DISCALIMER: I'm only a layman what climate research and metheorology 
  is concerned.

- The "control action" must be shown to actually be a significant (actually, 
  the most significant) parameter in controling the output parameter. 
- The output parameter must be measurable
- The impact by adjusting the "control parameter" must be measurable
  as well as identifiable

To do *something* feels good. However, unless the action is justified by 
the above criteria, it's not going to be more efficient than voodoo. 
In some cases unjustified "feel-good" actions can cause unnecessary 
discomfort or even exacerbate the problem that was to be solved in the 
first place. 

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> After some "on-the-shelf archaeology" (book shelf, that is) I found a 
> book on plate tectonics I had forgotten that I bought ("Global Tectonics"
> by Kearey and Vine). In the first chapter they give a historical summary
> and I was quite amazed to see that the term "tectonics" date no longer 
> back than 1968! Still, it appears that Clay's account is essentially 
> correct, there were just so many facts pointing in the direction of 
> continental drift that it seems as when the magnetic "fingerprint" in 
> the sea floor was discovered in the 1960-70ies, everybody accepted 
> the idea, based on the "sea floor conveyor belt" as the driving 
> mechanism behind the drift. 

   ...

I checked too, and it's clear that my chronology was off by about a 
decade. Oops!

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

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick
Lyons) wrote:

   (snipped)
>
>
>   Neat. What an interesting thread!!!
>
>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me 
>that automobiles are causing global warming and 
>that we're all gonna die, I ask them:
>
>   "If that's true, what caused the global warming 
>    20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age'
>    when there were no automobiles?  In case you 
>    didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, 
>    Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were 
>    *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 
>    years ago!!!"
>

Hey guys, 
    isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post?

Shoot!

[-Rick-]

Clay S. Turner wrote:
 > I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in
> Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese
> actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date
> corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa
> region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to
> be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at
> the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere
> that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark.

PBS ran a program on that a few years ago, which is how I became aware 
of it.  I found the evidence very compelling.  More info here:

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm

A book I'm in the middle of reading now[1] says that when Krakatoa blew 
in 1883, the shock wave went around the world seven times!  It was 
recorded on gas meters (for gas lamps) in London as well as in other 
places.

[1] Krakatoa / Simon Winchester, HarperCollins  /  01 April, 2003  / 
0066212855

-- 
Jim Thomas            Principal Applications Engineer  Bittware, Inc
jthomas@bittware.com  http://www.bittware.com          (703) 779-7770
Air conditioning may have destroyed the ozone layer - but it's been 
worth it!

Rick Lyons wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick
> Lyons) wrote:
> 
>    (snipped)
> 
>>
>>  Neat. What an interesting thread!!!
>>
>>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me 
>>that automobiles are causing global warming and 
>>that we're all gonna die, I ask them:
>>
>>  "If that's true, what caused the global warming 
>>   20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age'
>>   when there were no automobiles?  In case you 
>>   didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, 
>>   Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were 
>>   *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 
>>   years ago!!!"
>>
> 
> 
> Hey guys, 
>     isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post?
> 
> Shoot!
> 
> [-Rick-]

I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke.
Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork?
Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time
to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a
president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic
layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock
makers and all that.

It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had
supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil
fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all.

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

"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:IKirb.106428$mZ5.719451@attbi_s54...

> A separate question from greenhouse gases is the finite amount of oil and
> natural gas we have.  While there is still more to find, we will still run
> out in the not so distant future.   Making efforts to reduce fossil fuel
> usage, and reduce pollution in general still seems a good idea to me.

Glen,
I agree with you on this point and I believe to problem will be self solving
even without political intervention. I read a great article in Scientific
American magazine a couple of years ago about the petroleum industry in that
the peak production of easy to obtain oil will occur right around 2010. The
author is a chief scientist at a major petroleum company. He presents neat
models for estimating oil field production, rate of discovery of new fields,
and most importantly the world oil reserve. After the peak production year,
the cost of extraction will climb and thus the prices we pay at the pump.
Well there's nothing like high energy cost to encourage people to practice
conservation. Right now in the U.S. with cheap petroleum, people are buying
huge fuel inefficient cars (announced this year is the fact that the U.S.
fleet's average fuel economy is worse than it was 5 years ago.) But in terms
of totally running out, there is good evidence that shale rock reserves can
fuel the world (at current rates of consumption) for several centuries.
However, the cost of extraction from this kind of rock will be $5 or more
per U.S. gallon. So we will have to recycle our SUVs and push hard into
alternative technologies.

In the U.K. during the industrial revolution when a large amount of coal was
being used without any method of reducing the smoke, an interesting
consequence of polution was seen  where a native moth species which existed
in both black and white versions actually changed in a decade from
predominantely white to predominantely black. White both genotypes existed
in the genepool, strong selection effects swapped the demonant phenotype.
Since the local trees, whose bark was light in color, became stained black
from the soot, the moths which exhibited a high contrast against the trees
were picked off by the birds. Certainly our high use of fossil fuels will
affect the environment, and some of those ways a hard to predict. The
question is can we reduce mankind's dependence on fossil fuels and does the
planet's biota have enough genetic diversity built in to survive changes
effected by the current and future use of such fuels?

Clay






>
> Just because global warming is hard to measure doesn't mean that we should
> wait until something bad happens before doing anything about it.
>
> -- glen
>
>

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:31:39 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Rick Lyons wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick
>> Lyons) wrote:
>> 
>>    (snipped)
>> 
>>>
>>>  Neat. What an interesting thread!!!
>>>
>>>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me 
>>>that automobiles are causing global warming and 
>>>that we're all gonna die, I ask them:
>>>
>>>  "If that's true, what caused the global warming 
>>>   20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age'
>>>   when there were no automobiles?  In case you 
>>>   didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, 
>>>   Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were 
>>>   *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 
>>>   years ago!!!"
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Hey guys, 
>>     isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post?
>> 
>> Shoot!
>> 
>> [-Rick-]
>
>I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke.
>Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork?
>Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time
>to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a
>president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic
>layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock
>makers and all that.
>
>It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had
>supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil
>fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all.
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Hi Jer,
  I didn't see any other post from you (just 
this one).  If you had to make your other post 
"delicate", then I must have rubbed you the wrong 
way.  I didn't really mean to.

I sure agree with your sentiments in the 
words above.  I just don't trust anything I 
read in the newspaper or hear on the boob tube.
The news media's *far* too biased to report 
global warming information in a balanced way.

See ya',
[-Rick-]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:45:28 -0500, Jim Thomas <jthomas@bittware.com>
wrote:

>Clay S. Turner wrote:
> > I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in
>> Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese
>> actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date
>> corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa
>> region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to
>> be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at
>> the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere
>> that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark.
>
>PBS ran a program on that a few years ago, which is how I became aware 
>of it.  I found the evidence very compelling.  More info here:
>
>http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm
>

Hi Jim,
  Wow!  What great webpage.  Thanks 

Jerry ought to check out:

  http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/index.html

[-Rick-]

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<booeic$4ds$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...

> It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had
> supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil
> fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all.

I am not saying that there are no problems with fossile fuels. Anyone 
who have seen a city with severe smog problems would know that such 
problems exist. My point is that we must get an as precise understanding 
as possible about what's going on before we start preaching the end of 
the world. As an apropos, I found this link 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html

The case made is quite consistent with what I have seen during my years 
in and around the oil business: The "age of the huge finds" is over, now 
everybody targets the marginal fields, those who previously were just too 
small or just too deep to provide any economical return of exploring them. 

But then, there may be a bias in my interests here. I don't think there 
are, but...

Rune

Rick Lyons wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:31:39 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Rick Lyons wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick
>>>Lyons) wrote:
>>>
>>>   (snipped)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neat. What an interesting thread!!!
>>>>
>>>>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me 
>>>>that automobiles are causing global warming and 
>>>>that we're all gonna die, I ask them:
>>>>
>>>> "If that's true, what caused the global warming 
>>>>  20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age'
>>>>  when there were no automobiles?  In case you 
>>>>  didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, 
>>>>  Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were 
>>>>  *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 
>>>>  years ago!!!"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey guys, 
>>>    isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post?
>>>
>>>Shoot!
>>>
>>>[-Rick-]
>>
>>I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke.
>>Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork?
>>Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time
>>to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a
>>president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic
>>layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock
>>makers and all that.
>>
>>It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had
>>supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil
>>fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all.
>>
>>Jerry
>>-- 
>>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>�����������������������������������������������������������������������
> 
> 
> Hi Jer,
>   I didn't see any other post from you (just 
> this one).  If you had to make your other post 
> "delicate", then I must have rubbed you the wrong 
> way.  I didn't really mean to.
> 
> I sure agree with your sentiments in the 
> words above.  I just don't trust anything I 
> read in the newspaper or hear on the boob tube.
> The news media's *far* too biased to report 
> global warming information in a balanced way.
> 
> See ya',
> [-Rick-]

Rick,

You didn't step over any lines I know of, and you have enough credit to
be let off even it you had. :-)  I put what I had to say delicately
because while I enjoy discussing facts and what they mean, I don't want
to argue politics here. That can be a fine distinction that's easy to
stumble over.

I extracted my words that you didn't see:

    We are surely warming. Only the cause can be debated, not the trend.
    The weather pattern is buried in a lot of noise, but statistics can
    dig it out. If the variations were purely random, there ought to be
    no correlations among the dates of high-temperature records. It's not
    unusual or particularly significant when a record high is set on a
    particular date. It is significant that the previous record had been
    established relatively recently. We see that more and more now.

    In very cold climates, the major symptoms of warming is the melting
    of ice sheets and glaciers. Where I live, about 40 degrees north on
    the Atlantic coast, ponds and lakes froze over regularly as recently
    as 30 [years ago]. Ice skating every winter was the norm. After a
    brief period of thin ice warnings, they became unnecessary. For ten
    years or so, there has been no ice at all that would stop a rowboat.

    We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure,
    however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see
    a man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait
    to be sure he's really drowning.

Jerry

P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in
these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day
wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but
the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't
depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way.
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

> Hey guys,
>     isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post?
>
> Shoot!
>
> [-Rick-]


Hehehe. Rabble rouser!





Rick Armstrong
note: reply address is bogus; please reply to group

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

  (snipped)
>
>P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in
>these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day
>wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but
>the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't
>depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way.

Ah ha.  Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern
California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at 
2:00 PM.  A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the 
temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!!

Weather sure is unpredictable, huh?
[Almost as unpredictable as women.  :-) ]

[-Rick-]

Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>   (snipped)
> 
>>P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in
>>these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day
>>wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but
>>the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't
>>depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way.
> 
> 
> Ah ha.  Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern
> California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at 
> 2:00 PM.  A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the 
> temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!!
> 
> Weather sure is unpredictable, huh?
> [Almost as unpredictable as women.  :-) ]
> 
> [-Rick-]
> 
> 

The above statement says something about the variability of weather, not 
  the ability to predict weather.  Was the forecast accurate?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:13:17 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<stanp@nospam_mitre.org> wrote:

>Rick Lyons wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>> 
>>   (snipped)
>> 
>>>P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in
>>>these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day
>>>wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but
>>>the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't
>>>depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way.
>> 
>> 
>> Ah ha.  Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern
>> California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at 
>> 2:00 PM.  A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the 
>> temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!!
>> 
>> Weather sure is unpredictable, huh?
>> [Almost as unpredictable as women.  :-) ]
>> 
>> [-Rick-]
>> 
>> 
>
>The above statement says something about the variability of weather, not 
>  the ability to predict weather.  Was the forecast accurate?

Hi Stan,

  ah, you're right.
I don't remember hearing a forecast.

[-Rick-]