.... drove my Chevy to the levee, but
the levee was dry ... whiskey and rye.

"earthlink" is still tied to a Scientologist?


Atty (Mother Nature tears herself a new one,
but blames a man, again :-)

wrote:
The Gaia theory of Earth is a fakery and a ludricous theory and any
scientist who claims themselves as a scientist should never accept the
Gaia theory. And I should not be starting a discussion of serious
science by starting it with the Gaia theory, but the reason I do so is
because, if the Gaia theory had any truth to it-- it would now be
saying that the planet Earth would be increasing in cloud formation all
over the globe and thus decreasing Global-Warming. But reality shows us
otherwise that as Global Warming increases that this planet cloud cover
is decreasing.

If anything, that proves the opposite. If the biosphere is a borganism
with a collective intelligence or even sentience, then right now it's
got a serious irritant, border on cancer (humans), and the natural
thing for it to do would be is to fry it into oblivion, and remove the
source of the irritant, and thus correct the problem.

Uh. Yeh.

In sci.physics, Attila the Bum

wrote
on 10 Sep 2005 11:42:46 -0700
. com:
... drove my Chevy to the levee, but
the levee was dry ... whiskey and rye.

"earthlink" is still tied to a Scientologist?

I wouldn't know, offhand; the closest I personally am
to Scientology is that I pass by one of their centers
(church? instructional school?) on my way to a friend's
place occasionally. :-P In any event, E-meters sound
slightly fraudulent to me, though I should note that
this is second-hand info, courtesy of Martin Gardner's
_Fads and Fallacies In The Name Of Science_. I don't
plan on learning firsthand.

I can also tell you that Sky T. Dayton holds 5.6M shares of
ELNK (out of 133.29M) and is a director thereof. Whether
Sky T. Dayton is a Scientologist I for one have no idea.
Google did cough up some articles suggesting such; one of them
is at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2015/

Draw your own conclusions. I prefer independent thinking, when
I have that option. :-)

Followups to sci.skeptic.



Atty (Mother Nature tears herself a new one,
but blames a man, again :-)


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Attila the Bum wrote:
Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J"

#1 The human population curve has been exponential since at least the
1300's.
#2 It is NOT expoential, and not even concave up. It's curving down,
it has been since 1989. In fact, it's an S curve, with an exact 180
degree symmetry about 1989 satisfying the equation
P(1989-t)+P(1989+t)=10.39 billion within +/- 5 million; and an upper
limit of 7.8 billion.
#3

So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

It doesn't matter. The only relevant fact is that it exists, and the
predicted consequences of it are already past tense.

If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity.

Simplistic reasoning of a mere human is no substitute for detailed
climatological models. Leave the extrapolation to the professionals.

The net effects that are known a increased severity and frequency of
storms (particularly with the greater heat in the oceans as a driving
force). That's present, with 2004 and 2005 each being record years for
hurricanes. It's probably also the case for tornadoes.

In fact, just a month ago, the entire Milwaukee metro area barely
missed being completely trashed by the simultaneous occurrence of 28
tornadoes. The devastation looked like a war zone, as bad as New
Orleans; debris and other remains of personal belongings, property
being found as far as 70 miles away. Had the storm kept on the ground
for another 20 miles further to the East, instead of the destruction
being of the sparsely distributed and populated rural regions, it would
have been of the metro area and what happened in New Orleans wouldn't
even be a blip on the radar. In recent times, there has even been
tornadoes in the winter.

The summertime Arctic ice cover has broken up for the first time in
recorded history; and is no, for the first time, no longer traversible.
A new Northwest passage has started opening up. Major chunks of the
Antarctic ice sheet have split off (including one recent occurrence of
a breakoff the size of Rhode Island). The continential glaciers on
Greenland are in severe decline, to the point where this too has made
the news in recent days; the glaciers in Alaska, likewise, are in
severe decline. The snow cover on Mount Kilomonjaro is nearly gone for
the first time.

Is the Gobi or Sahara growing or
shrinking?

The Gobi and Sahara are growing, and have been for a very long time.
I'm not aware of this having any connection with global warming as
being a consequence of it -- though obviously, it has a connection in
the other direction of being an exacerbation of it. The dust storms in
the Gobi now reach all the way to Beijing, which is probably direct in
the path of the growing desert. In some cases, the dust storms of both
deserts are now reaching as far as North America: the Gobi had one in
2001 that got all the way to the Great Lakes in the midwest, the Sahara
had one a few weeks ago that got to Florida (and has ones, now more
frequently occurring, going across the Mediterranean into Europe).

Solar intensity has been continually monitored at various stations
throughout the planet. In recent years, the level of solar radiation
has spiked at various points throughout the world. This is called the
"solar brightening" problem and is also a predicted consequence of the
whole global warming phenomenon.

The continential glaciers (particularly those of Greenland), after
being lost, will raise the ocean levels; the ocean levels are already
known to be rising. But even without the glaciers, the ocean levels
will rise simply due to thermal expansion, which is not insignificant
either.

And understand, when stuff goes under, it's not some kind of gradual
thing of a few inches of lost land per year. Things tend to happen at
once -- e.g. a bad storm hits, flooding an entire area, breaking
levees, and the flood never fully goes away and the ongoing and
increasingly futile effort of damming the water away is just abandoned,
after the 20th breach or so. When a place goes under, it will tend to
go under overnight and stay that way; nobody will go back to re-dam the
water after event #20.

New Orleans is just the beginning. Given what's to come, by the time
even THIS year is over, it's quite possible nobody will even remember
New Orleans, compared to what they will remember next. Maybe you'll
luck out in 2005, and not have a repeat of the 1-2-3-4 punch of 2004,
but then there's 2006... But 2005 is only 1/2 way through.

In article .com,
says...
Attila the Bum wrote:
Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J"

#1 The human population curve has been exponential since at least the
1300's.
#2 It is NOT expoential, and not even concave up. It's curving down,
it has been since 1989. In fact, it's an S curve, with an exact 180
degree symmetry about 1989 satisfying the equation
P(1989-t)+P(1989+t)=10.39 billion within +/- 5 million; and an upper
limit of 7.8 billion.
#3

So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

It doesn't matter. The only relevant fact is that it exists, and the
predicted consequences of it are already past tense.

If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity.

Simplistic reasoning of a mere human is no substitute for detailed
climatological models. Leave the extrapolation to the professionals.

The net effects that are known a increased severity and frequency of
storms (particularly with the greater heat in the oceans as a driving
force). That's present, with 2004 and 2005 each being record years for
hurricanes. It's probably also the case for tornadoes.

Adjusting tornado reports for the long-term increase in reporting of
weak tornadoes (we report short-lived, weak tornadoes better than in the
past, but strong tornado reports don't show the same kind of changes),
2005 is in the lower 10% of years, more than 200 tornadoes behind the
normal to date of ~1070. 2004 had the most tornado reports on record.


In fact, just a month ago, the entire Milwaukee metro area barely
missed being completely trashed by the simultaneous occurrence of 28
tornadoes. The devastation looked like a war zone, as bad as New
Orleans; debris and other remains of personal belongings, property
being found as far as 70 miles away. Had the storm kept on the ground
for another 20 miles further to the East, instead of the destruction
being of the sparsely distributed and populated rural regions, it would
have been of the metro area and what happened in New Orleans wouldn't
even be a blip on the radar. In recent times, there has even been
tornadoes in the winter.

There have been tornadoes in the US in winter as far back as we records.
Wisconsin was part of the 24 January 1967 and 1 December 1970 outbreaks.

It is exceedingly unlikely that the tornadoes could have caused as much
damage as the hurricane did, even in a worst-case scenario. Adjusted
for inflation and national wealth, the costliest tornado is US history
(1896 St. Louis) would be $3B in today's dollars. Put an outbreak like
the 1974 outbreak (148 tornadoes) with an 1896-like event and you won't
top $20B.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com

Mark delivered a very sad green song in
oups.com...
Attila the Bum wrote:
Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J"

[Mark]
#1 The human population curve has been exponential since at least the
1300's.
#2 It is NOT expoential, and not even concave up. It's curving down,
it has been since 1989. In fact, it's an S curve, with an exact 180
degree symmetry about 1989 satisfying the equation
P(1989-t)+P(1989+t)=10.39 billion within +/- 5 million; and an upper
limit of 7.8 billion.
#3 ....[????.... what, what, what? Did you get ahead of yourself?]

[Atty]
So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

[Mark]
It doesn't matter. The only relevant fact is that it exists, and the
predicted consequences of it are already past tense.

[Atty]
If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity.

[Mark]
Simplistic reasoning of a mere human is no substitute for detailed
climatological models. Leave the extrapolation to the professionals.

The net effects that are known a increased severity and frequency of
storms (particularly with the greater heat in the oceans as a driving
force). That's present, with 2004 and 2005 each being record years for
hurricanes. It's probably also the case for tornadoes.

In fact, just a month ago, the entire Milwaukee metro area barely
missed being completely trashed by the simultaneous occurrence of 28
tornadoes. The devastation looked like a war zone, as bad as New
Orleans; debris and other remains of personal belongings, property
being found as far as 70 miles away. Had the storm kept on the ground
for another 20 miles further to the East, instead of the destruction
being of the sparsely distributed and populated rural regions, it would
have been of the metro area and what happened in New Orleans wouldn't
even be a blip on the radar. In recent times, there has even been
tornadoes in the winter.

The summertime Arctic ice cover has broken up for the first time in
recorded history; and is no, for the first time, no longer traversible.
A new Northwest passage has started opening up. Major chunks of the
Antarctic ice sheet have split off (including one recent occurrence of
a breakoff the size of Rhode Island). The continential glaciers on
Greenland are in severe decline, to the point where this too has made
the news in recent days; the glaciers in Alaska, likewise, are in
severe decline. The snow cover on Mount Kilomonjaro is nearly gone for
the first time.

[Atty]
Is the Gobi or Sahara growing or
shrinking?

[Mark]
The Gobi and Sahara are growing, and have been for a very long time.
I'm not aware of this having any connection with global warming as
being a consequence of it -- though obviously, it has a connection in
the other direction of being an exacerbation of it. The dust storms in
the Gobi now reach all the way to Beijing, which is probably direct in
the path of the growing desert. In some cases, the dust storms of both
deserts are now reaching as far as North America: the Gobi had one in
2001 that got all the way to the Great Lakes in the midwest, the Sahara
had one a few weeks ago that got to Florida (and has ones, now more
frequently occurring, going across the Mediterranean into Europe).

Solar intensity has been continually monitored at various stations
throughout the planet. In recent years, the level of solar radiation
has spiked at various points throughout the world. This is called the
"solar brightening" problem and is also a predicted consequence of the
whole global warming phenomenon.

The continential glaciers (particularly those of Greenland), after
being lost, will raise the ocean levels; the ocean levels are already
known to be rising. But even without the glaciers, the ocean levels
will rise simply due to thermal expansion, which is not insignificant
either.

And understand, when stuff goes under, it's not some kind of gradual
thing of a few inches of lost land per year. Things tend to happen at
once -- e.g. a bad storm hits, flooding an entire area, breaking
levees, and the flood never fully goes away and the ongoing and
increasingly futile effort of damming the water away is just abandoned,
after the 20th breach or so. When a place goes under, it will tend to
go under overnight and stay that way; nobody will go back to re-dam the
water after event #20.

New Orleans is just the beginning. Given what's to come, by the time
even THIS year is over, it's quite possible nobody will even remember
New Orleans, compared to what they will remember next. Maybe you'll
luck out in 2005, and not have a repeat of the 1-2-3-4 punch of 2004,
but then there's 2006... But 2005 is only 1/2 way through.

[hanson]
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... and what are all those green crocodile
tears supposed to do, Mark?... The name of the game is simply to
ADAPT... because CHANGES will occur whether you like it or not.
Actually-1: The only thing that never changes is change itself, and
Actually-2: The ones that have elegantly adapted to these changes
are interestingly enough the enviros, class 1 and 2 by sponging and
leaching off the rest of us and class 3 using it as their cult/religion
to ameliorate their anxieties.... as can bee seen here by/in:

== Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
= Class (1)
= Green ****(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote,
= support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges,
= the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax,
= all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!,
= and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
= Class (2)
= Green turd(s): ...are the ones who are recipients and
= beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
= Class (3)
= Little green idiot(s): .... are the unpaid, well-meaning ones
= who think they do something for the "environment", when in
= fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who
= are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted.

ahahaha... ahahanson

PS: For added green intellectual input/entertainment I have added
sci. enviro with its tainted speculists, the hordes of class 3 enviros.

Once again, some deep thoughts from ahahahahahanson. True enough,
Native Americans were managing their environment (and were killing off
the mastadons) since the last Ice Age and when they first came to North
America from China. In fact, as pointed out in the non-fictional
footnotes of M. Crichton's thriller "State of Fear", the entire Great
Plains were in some ways a giant open-range farm, 'managed' by the
Plains Indians.

The same thing happened (mass extinctions) when North and South America
'came together' (they were seperated) when the isthmus of Panama was
formed (allowing sabre tooth cats from North America to wipe out the
marsupials of South America).

And even today the Gobi and Sahara deserts are getting bigger--and
Africa is moving into Europe and will soon displace the Mediterranean
sea. Life goes on though...


The only change is change itself.

RL


hanson wrote:
Mark delivered a very sad green song in
oups.com...
Attila the Bum wrote:

[hanson]
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... and what are all those green crocodile
tears supposed to do, Mark?... The name of the game is simply to
ADAPT... because CHANGES will occur whether you like it or not.
Actually-1: The only thing that never changes is change itself, and
Actually-2: The ones that have elegantly adapted to these changes
are interestingly enough the enviros, class 1 and 2 by sponging and
leaching off the rest of us and class 3 using it as their cult/religion
to ameliorate their anxieties.... as can bee seen here by/in:

== Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
= Class (1)
= Green ****(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote,
= support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges,
= the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax,
= all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!,
= and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
= Class (2)
= Green turd(s): ...are the ones who are recipients and
= beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
= Class (3)
= Little green idiot(s): .... are the unpaid, well-meaning ones
= who think they do something for the "environment", when in
= fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who
= are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted.

ahahaha... ahahanson

PS: For added green intellectual input/entertainment I have added
sci. enviro with its tainted speculists, the hordes of class 3 enviros.

wrote:
[big snip]
In fact, just a month ago, the entire Milwaukee metro area barely
missed being completely trashed by the simultaneous occurrence of 28
tornadoes.


That's a fairly generous definition of "barely". In
reality, Milwaukee completely missed that outbreak --
a more accurate statement might have been that the Madison
metro area just missed them.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/document/tor/081805.php

Scott

wrote:



If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity.

Simplistic reasoning of a mere human is no substitute for detailed
climatological models. Leave the extrapolation to the professionals.


True, but this was the reasoning of professionals some forty or more years
ago and made them worry that clearing the Arctic Ocean of ice would trigger
a new ice age. It was one of the reasons why the USA decided not to
progress with experiments for clearing the ice. I agree that, at the
moment, computer models do not agree that this scenario is possible.


The summertime Arctic ice cover has broken up for the first time in
recorded history; and is no, for the first time, no longer traversible.

Both statements in this sentence, as I understand it, are untrue. It can be
corrected by removing both instances of the phrase "for the first time".

A new Northwest passage has started opening up.

So? A new NW passage as opposed to the old one? Even if you mean the NW
Passage is almost open this Summer - so what? I can remember the odd
occasion in the sixties when it opened up. I can also remember the NE
passage opening during that period. What is now different is that they are
both close to being open during the same year. In the past, if the USSR
coastline was ice-free, that of Canada and Alaska would have the pack-ice
close onshore, and vice versa.


Graham Davis.