The below is an example of GIGO and the absurdity of modeling climate.
If we are to believe the press release, the albedo effect of planting
more trees will increase earth temperatures by 2F, or even 6F at
certain lattitudes.

Comment: this proves that even nature can "globally warm" the earth.
If there were no humans, then more trees would exist and these would
raise earth tempratures by 2-6F. So what are we so worried about? But
for man, the earth would already be 2-6F hotter.

Then the press release makes the claim "But after several decades,
carbon dioxide would begin diffusing from the ocean into the
atmosphere, diminishing the cooling effect and warming the Earth in the
long term."

Comment: if this is not a typo (and it might be) this presumes that
the ocean is saturated with CO2 and this CO2 will diffuse into the
atmosphere once atmospheric CO2 is removed. This, if true, shows that
even if we magically removed all CO2 from the atmosphere, the partial
pressures would be such that the atmosphere would fill up again with
the same concentration of CO2. Like trying to bail out a sinking
oceanliner with a bucket.

Conclusion: indeed, as Main Street and Wall Street have implicitly
agreed, as has Europe and Japan who signed the Kyoto Treaty and are not
even meeting it have implicitly agreed, the best strategy for combating
GW is a "wait and see" attitude, to see how things actually play out,
rather than depending on bogus and contrdictory "computer simulations"
from some geek's basement.

RL

http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html

Monday December 5, 2005

Carnegie Contact: Dr. Ken Caldeira;


Or (650) 704-7212

For images see http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/temperateforests/

Study: Temperate Forests Could Worsen Global Warming

STANFORD, CA - Growing a forest might sound like a good idea to combat
global warming, since trees draw carbon dioxide from the air and
release cool water from their leaves. But they also absorb sunlight,
warming the air in the process. According to a new study from the
Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, planting forests at certain latitudes
could make the Earth warmer. Carnegie's Ken Caldeira will present the
work at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco on
December 7, 2005.

The researchers used complex climate modeling software to simulate
changes in forest cover and then examined the effects on global
climate. Their results were surprising. "We were hoping to find that
growing forests in the United States would help slow global warming,"
Caldeira said. "But if we are not careful, growing forests could make
global warming even worse."

The researchers found that while tropical forests help keep Earth cool
by evaporating a great deal of water, northern forests tend to warm the
Earth because they absorb a lot of sunlight without losing much
moisture. In one simulation, the researchers covered much of the
northern hemisphere (above 20° latitude) with forests and saw a jump
in surface air temperature of more than 6° F. Covering the entire
planet's land mass with trees led to a more modest increase of about
2° F.

When the scientists restricted the simulation to middle latitudes such
as the continental United States, the picture was not quite so clear.
At first, cooling due to the uptake of carbon dioxide would offset
warming from sunlight absorption. But after several decades, carbon
dioxide would begin diffusing from the ocean into the atmosphere,
diminishing the cooling effect and warming the Earth in the long term.

Caldeira warns against planting forests on abandoned croplands as a
strategy to combat global warming, which some have recommended. But he
also recognizes the importance of forests.

"I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals,
and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly
careful to preserve them," Caldeira commented. "But in terms of
climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really
make a difference, like improving efficiency and developing new sources
of clean energy."

The study, authored by Seran Gibbard,* Ken Caldeira, Govindasamy Bala,*
Thomas J. Phillips,* and Michael Wickett,* will be published online
under the title "Climate effects of global land cover change" in
the journal Geophysical Research Letters on December 8, 2005.

Photo caption:

Ray - Ray, I don't understand this post at all.

A week or two ago, you were issuing posts that denounced Roger Coppock
and other greens in here as moral hypocrites for NOT investing in tree
planting schemes, for NOT "putting your money where your mouth is" in
taking "real" action to counter global climate change.

You also wrote proudly that you'd invested your hard-earned money in
tree planting schemes, so that you were supposedly more ecologically
virtuous than we in the Green lobby are.

Now you post this, indicating that tree-planting is not a panacea.
Which would suggest to me that your tree-planting investment dollars
may be doing more harm than good -- or that they're irrelevant. But
again, your message is that "therefore" anyone who's seriously worried
about GW is some kind of fool or knave.

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

If you're trying to make the point that we still don't know a lot of
the details about how the climate system works, and that we're going to
need to learn a hell of a lot of detail about this subject in order to
come up with ways to fix it -- well, that's a good point.

But one clear implication to be drawn from your current post on the
possible limits to the CO2 benefits from tree-planting schemes is that
Roger C. and others like him are correct in calling for SHARP
REDUCTIONS in CO2 emissions by global industry as
virtually the only way to be SURE that we're coping with the climate
challenge.

Thanks for making our point for us, I suppose.

But no thanks for your persistent efforts to sow confusion in this talk
group.

Is there anything that you actually believe, Ray?

And BTW, do you actually know anything about global climate?
Or are you just screwing around in here for the fun of it?
And do you actually have a planetary death wish, when it comes to
global climate change? Or does it just seem like it?

------------------
"The boys throw stones at the storks in fun, but the storks die in
earnest."
-- Ancient Greek poet [whose name I forget at the
moment].

raylopez99 wrote:
The below is an example of GIGO and the absurdity of modeling climate.
If we are to believe the press release, the albedo effect of planting
more trees will increase earth temperatures by 2F, or even 6F at
certain lattitudes.

Comment: this proves that even nature can "globally warm" the earth.
If there were no humans, then more trees would exist and these would
raise earth tempratures by 2-6F. So what are we so worried about? But
for man, the earth would already be 2-6F hotter.

Then the press release makes the claim "But after several decades,
carbon dioxide would begin diffusing from the ocean into the
atmosphere, diminishing the cooling effect and warming the Earth in the
long term."

Comment: if this is not a typo (and it might be) this presumes that
the ocean is saturated with CO2 and this CO2 will diffuse into the
atmosphere once atmospheric CO2 is removed. This, if true, shows that
even if we magically removed all CO2 from the atmosphere, the partial
pressures would be such that the atmosphere would fill up again with
the same concentration of CO2. Like trying to bail out a sinking
oceanliner with a bucket.

Conclusion: indeed, as Main Street and Wall Street have implicitly
agreed, as has Europe and Japan who signed the Kyoto Treaty and are not
even meeting it have implicitly agreed, the best strategy for combating
GW is a "wait and see" attitude, to see how things actually play out,
rather than depending on bogus and contrdictory "computer simulations"
from some geek's basement.

RL

http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html

Monday December 5, 2005

Carnegie Contact: Dr. Ken Caldeira;


Or (650) 704-7212

For images see http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/temperateforests/

Study: Temperate Forests Could Worsen Global Warming

STANFORD, CA - Growing a forest might sound like a good idea to combat
global warming, since trees draw carbon dioxide from the air and
release cool water from their leaves. But they also absorb sunlight,
warming the air in the process. According to a new study from the
Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, planting forests at certain latitudes
could make the Earth warmer. Carnegie's Ken Caldeira will present the
work at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco on
December 7, 2005.

The researchers used complex climate modeling software to simulate
changes in forest cover and then examined the effects on global
climate. Their results were surprising. "We were hoping to find that
growing forests in the United States would help slow global warming,"
Caldeira said. "But if we are not careful, growing forests could make
global warming even worse."

The researchers found that while tropical forests help keep Earth cool
by evaporating a great deal of water, northern forests tend to warm the
Earth because they absorb a lot of sunlight without losing much
moisture. In one simulation, the researchers covered much of the
northern hemisphere (above 20° latitude) with forests and saw a jump
in surface air temperature of more than 6° F. Covering the entire
planet's land mass with trees led to a more modest increase of about
2° F.

When the scientists restricted the simulation to middle latitudes such
as the continental United States, the picture was not quite so clear.
At first, cooling due to the uptake of carbon dioxide would offset
warming from sunlight absorption. But after several decades, carbon
dioxide would begin diffusing from the ocean into the atmosphere,
diminishing the cooling effect and warming the Earth in the long term.

Caldeira warns against planting forests on abandoned croplands as a
strategy to combat global warming, which some have recommended. But he
also recognizes the importance of forests.

"I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals,
and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly
careful to preserve them," Caldeira commented. "But in terms of
climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really
make a difference, like improving efficiency and developing new sources
of clean energy."

The study, authored by Seran Gibbard,* Ken Caldeira, Govindasamy Bala,*
Thomas J. Phillips,* and Michael Wickett,* will be published online
under the title "Climate effects of global land cover change" in
the journal Geophysical Research Letters on December 8, 2005.

Photo caption:

"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

"I am just an ignorant troll"
-- Ray Lopez

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

"I am just an ignorant troll"
-- Ray Lopez

If he was being truthful, then an obvious solution is to do what all
Usenet FAQs recommend: "Don't feed the troll"

John - I hear what you're saying.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep hoping we can pay the troll to dance for
us.

In the case of Ray, this particular troll recently posted a message
arguing that tree-planting could easily take care of excessive US
carbon emissions, if "only" Americans would replant 3 million hectares
of land annually with around 3 billion trees annually.

In other words, Ray offered statistics suggesting that to cure the
extra CO2 emissions of American society through tree-planting schemes
alone, this nation would need to devote at least 32 percent of its
total land area to the creation of new forests, over the course of the
next century.

I think that's actually a great argument for cutting back on CO2
emissions now. Since there's no way in God's green earth that this
amount of American reforestation is going to happen.

In the post that leads off this string of messages, Ray is now casting
doubt of the utility of tree-planting schemes.

To me, anyway, it seems that he's providing new evidence to suggest
that Roger Coppock et al. are right. But maybe it would be better to
simply ignore his inconsistent posts, which often inadvertently support
the environmentalist position on global climate change. I don't know.
I hope I'm not making things worse for other people by responding to
him in the wrong way.


John M. wrote:
Coby Beck wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

"I am just an ignorant troll"
-- Ray Lopez

If he was being truthful, then an obvious solution is to do what all
Usenet FAQs recommend: "Don't feed the troll"

john fernbach wrote:
Ray - Ray, I don't understand this post at all.

You kan't even read you f-ing hobo!


A week or two ago, you were issuing posts that denounced Roger Coppock
and other greens in here as moral hypocrites for NOT investing in tree
planting schemes, for NOT "putting your money where your mouth is" in
taking "real" action to counter global climate change.

You also wrote proudly that you'd invested your hard-earned money in
tree planting schemes, so that you were supposedly more ecologically
virtuous than we in the Green lobby are.

Right! Right on brother!


Now you post this, indicating that tree-planting is not a panacea.
Which would suggest to me that your tree-planting investment dollars
may be doing more harm than good -- or that they're irrelevant. But
again, your message is that "therefore" anyone who's seriously worried
about GW is some kind of fool or knave.

IDIOT! Read the f-ing post fool! I'm criticising the programmer, and
then saying if his program is right, we have nothing to worry about for
AGW, since Mother Nature would have warmed the earth anyway! Mother
Nature, Mother F-er!

BLAH BLAH BLAH. And you were a writer? A failed writer.


------------------
"The boys throw stones at the storks in fun, but the storks die in
earnest."
-- Ancient Greek poet [whose name I forget at the
moment].


Lesbo? I mean Sappho?

RL

I never said that fool. I said that I troll, but my troll posts are
thought provoking and good.

I've said that in my real capacity I believe GW is a long term
problem--maybe--as nobody wants 4" sea level rise over the next 100
years, no matter how trivial that may ultimately prove to be.

What are you, a registered Green, you queen?

RL


Coby Beck wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

"I am just an ignorant troll"
-- Ray Lopez

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

raylopez99 wrote:
I never said that fool. I said that I troll,

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am

So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...44c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm

CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am

Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see
what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...be8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a

You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm

Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am

But I am a troll.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm

Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm

and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...b1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am

I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm

Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am

Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

On 22 Jul 2006 04:54:48 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:

The below is an example of GIGO and the absurdity of modeling climate.
If we are to believe the press release, the albedo effect of planting
more trees will increase earth temperatures by 2F, or even 6F at
certain lattitudes.

Comment: this proves that even nature can "globally warm" the earth.
If there were no humans, then more trees would exist and these would
raise earth tempratures by 2-6F. So what are we so worried about? But
for man, the earth would already be 2-6F hotter.


http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html


You quote this study's result that planting trees in certain areas will warm
the globe by 2 to 6 degrees F. Then you call it an example of the absurdity
of modelling climate.

But the study is based on modelling climate: "The researchers used complex
climate modeling software to simulate changes in forest cover and then
examined the effects on global climate."

So which is it? Climate models good? Climate models bad? So which is it?

A. Because it messes up the order for reading
Q. Why?
A. Top posting.
Q. What should ignorant trolls avoid doing on usenet?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")


"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
I never said that fool. I said that I troll, but my troll posts are
thought provoking and good.

I've said that in my real capacity I believe GW is a long term
problem--maybe--as nobody wants 4" sea level rise over the next 100
years, no matter how trivial that may ultimately prove to be.

What are you, a registered Green, you queen?

RL


Coby Beck wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why don't you care at all for your own intellectual consistency, Ray?
Or at least for your own track record?

"I am just an ignorant troll"
-- Ray Lopez

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")