"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten


This is a good point, forcing the world to change one variable
is not the answer. The biosphere is far too complex, non-linear
and unpredictable in behavior for the sort of approach with
Kyoto. Which is to force the world to change this one 'thing'
that is the problem now. By the time that 'thing' is accomplished
the problem will have moved out from under your feet and
that solution will no longer be valid. While new problems
pop-up that are ignored.



I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.


What is inevitable is disaster on a global scale anytime the
few believe they can micromanage such a complex dynamic
system as a society or a biosphere. That arrogant and foolish
belief system is the source of all evil, just look at the last
century.

Instead of forcing a specific change world-wide, we should work
to create a more adaptive and resilient system....world-wide.

As man-made changes are reactionary in nature, happening
only after a problem has long since sailed. Natural or market
systems anticipate problems and are ready for them.

This is the difference in principle between the European approach
and American. One is foolish and repeats the mistakes of
history and classical science. The other creates a system that
can run on auto-pilot while creating a better future
....world-wide.

Don't worry so much about this issue, America has reached a
level of complexity and organization such that it's already running
on auto. Which means we'll continue to go our own way
while leading the world in the wisest path.

I fear the future not in the least, quite the contrary, and for
good reasons.


Jonathan


s




Cheers, Alastair.

Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an artefact of
scientific intimidation:

Excellent point. Science used to be a "good" thing because it told us what
is true or put us on the course toward it. Now much of science is "bad"
because it interferes with what we WANT to believe. I think overall we WANT
to believe that man is destroying the planet because it proves to us that
man CAN destroy the planet. And if man can destroy the planet, man can SAVE
the planet.

God, what a proud and stiff-necked people we are.

I've researched connections in solar activity, which I think has been a
major player since the last ice age set in (not a major player to Earth, but
to us). I also like those volcano things. Talk about your ultimate polutant.
Uh oh, I guess volcanoes are natural so they don't pollute. Anyhow, I
digress. My chief scientific "gripe" is that the IPCC fixed solar power as a
constant in climate modelling, not a variable. The sun does not change.
What's next? The Earth is still flat?

I recall Vice President Gore bemoaning the Red River Valley floods a couple
of years ago and how we obviously needed a new tax on carbon products in
order to fend off the effects of anthropogenic global warming. And there is
just the problem; blaming ourselves is good politics.

"Joshua Halpern" skrev i en meddelelse
news:9gNud.4648$Qp.4123@trnddc01...
Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" skrev i en meddelelse

Snip

Thanks. I've grown to realize that since I posted.
Elifritz is right in the sense that I'm rather unfamiliar with the set
of
problems that has focus in the climate debate. It doesn't prevent me
participating though. One question has come up while reading: The low
frequency window that is somewhat central in the wavefrequences where
Earth
surface has maximum irradiance seems to be the only radiation conduite
through which Earth irradiates energy - or the only one that seems to be
calculated on. I havn't had much success in finding sources on
irradiation
in the transparant parts of the spectrum - and possible mechanisms of
transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation.
I'll take a look at the links that Graham P. Davis sent.

Here is another, rather simple one. Basically any search on "radiative
balance" Earth will toss up lost of pages.

I did. As to Charles Hawtrey's question about transparancy, the following
link should indicate what I talk about

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~owen/CHPI/IMAGES/emisss.html

Consider the strong will to do politics based on dobious science, as this
example shows (Cornholio):

http://groups.google.dk/groups?dq=&h...=4tOud.115 70

eo.geology&lr=&hl=da

If I should exhibit the same will to oppose, I could ask, if the radiative
energy on earth surface wouldn't migrate to other wavelengths that has a
clear path?

I find it generally remarkable, that the climate models has been busy trying
to find feed-back mechanisms to enhance the result/sensitivity of the models
(I wonder weather they remember to let the feed-back be a two-way street
that enhances the return to 'normal' as well). On top of that, the following
link

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/42752.pdf

Is the closest thing I've come to a direct measurement of the radiation
budget. If I get it right, the measurements too are lower than what the
models predicts - and they are busy trying to calibrate the results/methods.

It's sofisticated science, it's not easy to follow the validity of it all,
and it's hard to argue against a model of radiative ballance and the central
position that CO2 may have. But there is an awful lot of stuff to keep a
track of.


Carsten

"Flaugher" wrote in message
...

Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an artefact of
scientific intimidation:

Excellent point. Science used to be a "good" thing because it told us what
is true or put us on the course toward it. Now much of science is "bad"
because it interferes with what we WANT to believe. I think overall we
WANT
to believe that man is destroying the planet because it proves to us that
man CAN destroy the planet. And if man can destroy the planet, man can
SAVE
the planet.

God, what a proud and stiff-necked people we are.

I've researched connections in solar activity, which I think has been a
major player since the last ice age set in (not a major player to Earth,
but
to us). I also like those volcano things. Talk about your ultimate
polutant.
Uh oh, I guess volcanoes are natural so they don't pollute. Anyhow, I
digress. My chief scientific "gripe" is that the IPCC fixed solar power as
a
constant in climate modelling, not a variable. The sun does not change.
What's next? The Earth is still flat?

I recall Vice President Gore bemoaning the Red River Valley floods a
couple
of years ago and how we obviously needed a new tax on carbon products in
order to fend off the effects of anthropogenic global warming. And there
is
just the problem; blaming ourselves is good politics.

Ignoring problems is also very human. Perhaps you WANT to believe that man
CAN'T damage the planet (so you can be one who's SAVED us from dangerous
lefties and eco freaks I expect?)?

Why is it a problem to run models to try and discovery how humanities
actions might effect the climate? Of course solar output both varies and
effects weather and climate, that's not in question (though the magnitude of
the effect is). What is in question is how big an effect our actions will
have. Lets try to find out rather than trying to find a way of excusing our
actions, or making assumption about what is causing what ever change, or
rubbishing attempts to find out the answers to such questions. If you don't
want to find out what effect we are having on climate you're another type of
flat earther. The 'we CAN'T effect the climate' type. Wake up, we CAN!

Peter

Peter Peter Peter, your not finding and evaluating the right
information, your only listening to the political rubbish handed out by
those trying to effect change with smoke and mirrors. Follow the money
peter. Politically created grant money, the staple of scientific
research has fueled researchers to investigate any hint that man is
responsible for global warming. Finding the slightest clue that
suggests mans possible participation happily results more grant money
for the researcher.

The Kyoto political farce is about the transfer of wealth (another name
for money) by the now known UN crooks lead by Kofi Annan, along with
our European friends (sic.) and their billion dollar oil for food
scandal. Don't forget these are the same rogues that are pushing the
Kyoto Accord on us.

Peter, something else that might interest you is that according to new
findings by researcher by S. Perkins, Science News, 160: 150, 2001 it
seems that the Antarctic was warm and dry only 2000 years ago. This was
evidenced by droppings from melted ice on the ocean floor originating
from the rocky debris that was scraped from the mainland during the ice
pack's slide to the sea. Radiocarbon dating revealed biological
components in the debris that had been imbedded in glacial ice and
released after melting. Don't you think that it seems unlikely that
men had anything to do with the global warming that happened2000 years
ago?