Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
wrote:
TheDisgustingGuffy wrote:
The DisgustingGuffy would prefer no data instead of proxy data, or he
would hop into his time machine and go get the actual data rather than
infer anthing from proxy data.

You mean scientists can't gather proxy data from current samples and
compare them to older proxy data?

You sound like Hamilton!

Neither I nor this poster are the ones who deny that proxy data will
work just fine. As a matter of fact you just dismissed the graph that
used the proxy data, and refused to discuss the ideas at all.

Tracy P. Hamilton

What discussion? The one where I just said compare proxy to proxy, Not
proxy to actual?

There is no discussing that graph, it's biased slant is self
explainatory.
If you want to discuss something, then why did he end a 1.3 million
year graph with a 130 year stretch that takes up the last 8th of the
map?

The answer is because if he showed the graph in the same time context
as it was mostly presented in, then no one would believe his dog and
pony show.

All you GWer's do is misrepresent facts and expect others to believe
them without question. I'm smarter than that and I'm smarter then you!

Get used to it Hamilton!

john wrote:
[ . . . ]
The scientists are more correct than they are wrong.

My experience is that this is true only for formally published
statements. Statements made by scientists in other forums
and at other times are less accurate.


Those without the education and training in these fields would do well
not to show their foolishness of exhibiting their declarations that the
Scientists are the one that lack any knowledge or expertise because they
are out of step with the Government of Globalist Big Business.

How true.

wrote in ups.com:



Karl Rove's Dad abandoned his family to go live an openly fag life in Palm
Springs, and his mom committed sucide. Which of these RePIGlican Family
Values do you aspire most?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The Speculations Vindicated (1950-1960)
The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a
problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly
observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold
War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American
scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from
military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic
questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military
needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be
important for national security. Among the first products were new data
for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to
weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23)

The early studies sending radiation through gases in a tube had an
unsuspected logical flaw — they were measuring bands of the spectrum at
sea-level pressure and temperature. Fundamental physics theory, and a few
measurements made at low pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid
and rarified upper atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change.
The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral
lines, all smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter
Elsasser during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the
war and after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into
a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between
the lines where radiation would get through.(24)

The Speculations Vindicated (1950-1960) TOP OF PAGE
The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a
problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly
observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold
War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American
scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from
military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic
questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military
needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be
important for national security. Among the first products were new data
for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to
weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23)

The early studies sending radiation through gases in a tube had an
unsuspected logical flaw — they were measuring bands of the spectrum at
sea-level pressure and temperature. Fundamental physics theory, and a few
measurements made at low pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid
and rarified upper atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change.
The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral
lines, all smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter
Elsasser during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the
war and after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into
a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between
the lines where radiation would get through.(24)

24. Martin and Baker (1932); for review, see Smith et al. (1968), pp.
476-483.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#1407

Martin, P.E., and E.F. Baker (1932). "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum
of Carbon Dioxide." Physical Review 41: 291-303

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#614

Smith, R.N., et al. (1968). Detection and Measurement of Infra-Red
Radiation. Oxford: Clarendon.

These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to
grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed
that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak.
Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers,
changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, precise
laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2 absorption lines
did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two
overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for
radiation to slip through.(25)

25. Kaplan (1952); for other workers see, e.g., Möller (1951), pp. 46-47
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#615

Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat
Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

Kaplan, Lewis D. (1959). "Inference of Atmospheric Structure from
Remote Radiation Measurements." Journal of the Optical Society of
America 49: 1004-7

Kaplan, Lewis D. (1960). "The Influence of Carbon Dioxide Variation on
the Atmospheric Heat Balance." Tellus 12: 204-208.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#616

Möller, Fritz (1935). "Die Warmquellen in Der Freien Atmosphäre."
Meteorologische Zeitschrift 52 L: 408-412.

Möller, Fritz (1951). "Long-Wave Radiation." In Compendium of
Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 34-49. Boston, MA:
American Meteorological Society.

Möller, Fritz (1957). "Strahlung in Der Unteren Atmosphäre." In
Geophysik II (Vol. 48 of Handbuch Der Physik), edited by J. Bartels,
pp. 155-253. Berlin: Springer.

Möller, Fritz (1963). "On the Influence of Changes in the CO2
Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth's Surface
and on the Climate." J. Geophysical Research 68: 3877-86.




And you are a lying little **** that has never been out of clasroom and
lives your pitiful little mental existence in the fantasy that you are
an intelligent being while you suck up to the other idiots that promote
the bull**** superstition of CO2 causing global warming that was
invented by poor little schoolboys like you that needed a thesis, and
then once they have their lie, they stick to it, partly because they
have squandered their mental abilities and have no understanding of
actual physics or science.

You describe your own pathetic lack of accomplishments and squandered
lifetime mental masterbation, while smearing **** on your betters who
worked to acquire the instruments and the kills to use the.

The links above are presrved in world premier science libraries while your
words are preserved in alt.kook on google groups archive


That's right idiot, ignore the fact I've pointed out that you are not
considering the heat developed within the earth from lost kinetic
motion. Refer me to some schoolboy idiot then that will deny this. I
was taught proper astophysics, entirely based on proper physics and the
law of conservation of energy and matter.

Kent Deatherage

Funny how you are so ashamed of your "teacher" that you never once mention
his name and accomplishments.


wrote in
s.com:


A scientist would give us results of labratory experiment. You must
give us data on experiments in which a certain quantity of air, (with
humidity closley monitored), with specific concentration of CO2 in the
air, and the exact readings of the FINAL TEMPERATURE the gases reach.
The time it takes to reach final temperature and any other pertinent
dat such as pressure. These experiments can involve general heating, or
induction of specific frequencies that you claim cause "warming" if CO2
is present.

Kent Deatherage

The proper place to view these are the scientific literature, papers and
books. They are too long to reprint every time some lazy @sshole demands
them here, and many are copyrighted by the author or magazine so they
cannot be copied verbaitum here -- that means lengthy retyping to satisfy
some lazy @sshole.

Usually a citation to such papers are given. Then YOU, Mr. @sshole, do
your burden of trotting to the library and reading.

An ENTIRE BOOK has been made freely readable on the internet, detailing
the history of Global Warming Science, and this BOOK has been placed in
front of you several times THIS WEEK. You have not read the book or looked
up the links.

The Discovery of Global Warming
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

WHO PUBLISHED THE BOOK? The American Institute of Physics did.

WHO is the AIP? The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is a 501(c)(3)
membership corporation chartered in New York State in 1931 for the purpose
of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and
its application to human welfare.

It is the mission of the Institute to serve physics, astronomy, and
related fields of science and technology by serving its Member Societies
and their associates, individual scientists, educators, R&D leaders, and
the general public with programs, services and publications - Information
that matters.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
Bibliography

This bibliography may seem long (more than 1800 items), but it has a great
many omissions. See the discussion of sources. There is a bibliography by
year.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bibdate.htm
Bibliography by year

Unlike the bibliography by author, the following list includes works not
used in the main text. Some are trivial, some are items I have not seen.



========== The short version from wikipedia =========

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

Greenhouse effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The greenhouse effect, first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and
first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, is the
process in which the absorption of infrared radiation by an atmosphere
warms a planet. Without these greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would
be up to 30 °C cooler. The name comes from an incorrect analogy with the
way in which greenhouses are heated by the sun in order to facilitate
plant growth. In addition to the Earth, Mars, Venus and other celestial
bodies with atmospheres (such as Titan) have greenhouse effects.

In common parlance, the term greenhouse effect may be used to refer either
to the natural greenhouse effect, due to naturally occuring greenhouse
gases, or to the enhanced (anthropogenic) greenhouse effect, which results
from gases emitted as a result of human activities (see also global
warming, scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent
climate change).

Contents
* 1 The Basic Mechanism
* 2 The greenhouse gases
* 3 Runaway greenhouse
* 4 Anthropogenic greenhouse effect
* 5 Real greenhouses
* 6 See also
* 7 References


The Basic Mechanism

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. To the
extent that the Earth is in a steady state, the energy stored in the
atmosphere and ocean does not change in time, so energy equal to the
incident solar radiation must be radiated back to space. Radiation leaving
the Earth takes two forms: reflected solar radiation and emitted thermal
infrared radiation. The Earth reflects about 30% of the incident solar
flux; the remaining 70% is absorbed, warms the land, atmosphere and
oceans, and powers life on this planet. Eventually this energy is
reradiated to space as infrared photons. This thermal, infrared radiation
increases with increasing temperature. One can think of the Earth's
temperature as being determined by the requirement that it produce the
infrared flux needed to balance the absorbed solar flux.


The key to the greenhouse effect is the fact that the atmosphere is
relatively transparent to visible solar radiation but strongly absorbing
at the wavelengths of the thermal infrared radiation emitted by the
surface and the atmosphere. The visible solar radiation heats the surface,
not the atmosphere. Whereas most of the infrared radiation escaping to
space is being emitted from the upper atmosphere, not the surface. The
infrared photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed by the
atmosphere and do not escape directly to space.

The reason that this results in a warming of the surface is most easily
understood by starting with a model of a purely radiative greenhouse
effect, in which one ignores the fact that a large part of the energy
transfer in the atmosphere is not in fact radiative, but associated with
1) convection, (sensible heat transport), and 2) the evaporation and
condensation of water vapor, or latent heat transport. In this purely
radiative case, one can think of the atmosphere as emitting infrared
radiation both upwards and downwards. The upward infrared flux emitted by
the surface must balance not only the absorbed solar flux but also this
downward infrared flux emitted by the atmosphere. The surface temperature
must rise until the surface generates enough thermal radiation to balance
the sum of these two incident radiation streams.

A more realistic picture taking into account the convective and latent
heat fluxes is somewhat more complex. But the following simple model
captures the essence. The starting point is to note that the opacity of
the atmosphere to infrared radiation determines the height in the
atmosphere from which most of the photons emitted to space are emitted. If
the atmosphere is more opaque, the typical photon escaping to space will
be emitted from higher in the atmosphere, because one then has to go to
higher altitudes to see out to space in the infrared. Since the emission
of infrared radiation is a function of temperature, it is the temperature
of the atmosphere at this emission level that is effectively determined by
the requirement that the emitted flux balance the absorbed solar flux.

But the temperature of the atmosphere generally decreases with height
above the surface, at a rate of roughly 6.5 °C per kilometer on average,
until one reaches the stratosphere 10-15 km above the surface. (Most
infrared photons escaping to space are emitted by the troposphere, the
region bounded by the surface and the stratosphere, so we can ignore the
stratosphere in this simple picture.) A very simple model, but one that
proves to be remarkably useful, involves the assumption that this
temperature profile is simply fixed, by the non-radiative energy fluxes.
Given the temperature at the emission level of the infrared flux escaping
to space, one then computes the surface temperature by increasing
temperatues at the rate of 6.5 °C per kilometer, the environmental lapse
rate, until one reaches the surface. The more opaque the atmosphere, and
the higher the emission level of the escaping infrared radiation, the
warmer the surface, since one then needs to follow this lapse rate over a
larger distance in the vertical. While less intuitive than the purely
radiative greenhouse effect, this less familiar radiative-convective
picture is the starting point for most discussions of the greenhouse
effect in the climate modeling literature.

The term "greenhouse effect" is a source of confusion in that actual
greenhouses do not warm by this same mechanism (e.g. [1]).

The greenhouse gases

Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions
between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the
frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of
the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and
rotation of the molecule. (The electronic excitations are generally not
relevant for infrared radiation, as they require energy larger than that
in an infrared photon.)

The width of a spectral line is an important element in understanding its
importance for the absorption of radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere
these spectral widths are primarily determined by “pressure broadening”,
which is the distortion of the spectrum due to the collision with another
molecule. Most of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere can be thought
of as occurring while two molecules are colliding. The absorption due to a
photon interacting with a lone molecule is relatively small. This
three-body aspect of the problem, one photon and two molecules, makes
direct quantum mechanical computation for molecules of interest more
challenging. Careful laboratory spectroscopic measurements, rather than ab
initio quantum mechanical computations, provide the basis for most of the
radiative transfer calculations used in studies of the atmosphere.

The molecules/atoms that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere; oxygen
(O2), nitrogen (N2) and argon; do not interact with infrared radiation
significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate,
because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient
charge separation that enhances the interaction with radiation. In the
Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor,
carbon dioxide, and ozone, these molecules being “floppier” so that their
rotation/vibration modes are more easily excited. For example, carbon
dioxide is a linear molecule, but it has an important vibrational mode in
which the molecule bends with the carbon in the middle moving one way and
the oxygens on the ends moving the other way, creating some charge
separation, a dipole moment. A substantial part of the greenhouse effect
due to carbon dioxide exists because this vibration is easily excited by
infrared radiation. Clouds are also very important infrared absorbers.
Therefore, water has multiple effects of infrared radiation, through its
vapor phase and through its condensed phases. Other absorbers of
significance include methane, nitrous oxide and the chlorofluorocarbons.

Discussion of the relative importance of different infrared absorbers are
confused by the overlap between the spectral lines due to different gases,
widened by pressure broadening. As a result, the absorption due to one gas
cannot be thought of as independent of the presence of other gases. One
convenient approach is to remove the chosen constituent, leaving all other
absorbers, and the temperatures, untouched, and monitoring the infrared
radiation escaping to space. The reduction in infrared absorption is then
a measure of the importance of that constituent. More precisely, define
the greenhouse effect (GE) to be the difference between the infrared
radiation that the surface would radiate to space if there were no
atmosphere and the actual infrared radiation escaping to space. Then
compute the percentage reduction in GE when a consituent is removed. The
table below is computed by this method, using a particular 1-dimensional
model of the atmosphere. More recent 3D computations lead to similar
results.

Gas removed
percent reduction in GE
H2O 36%
CO2 12%
O3 3%

(Source: Ramanathan and Coakley, Rev. Geophys and Space Phys., 16 465
(1978)); see also [2].

By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36%
of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 12%, but the effect of
removal of both of these constituents will be greater than 48%. An
additional proviso is that these numbers are computed holding the cloud
distribution fixed. But removing water vapor from the atmosphere while
holding clouds fixed is not likely to be physically relevant. In addition,
the effects of a given gas are typically nonlinear in the amount of that
gas, since the absorprtion by the gas at one level in the atmosphere can
remove photons that would otherwise interact with the gas at another
altitude. The kinds of estimates presented in the table, while often
encountered in the controversies surrounding global warming, must be
treated with caution. Different estimates found in different sources
typically result from different definitions and do not reflect
uncertainties in the underlying radiative transfer.

Runaway greenhouse

The strength of the greenhouse effect is dependent on the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the planetary atmosphere. The deep and carbon
dioxide-rich atmosphere of Venus (combined with an orbit closer to the sun
than that of Earth) causes surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead,
the atmosphere of Earth creates habitable temperatures, and the thin
atmosphere of Mars causes a minimal greenhouse effect.

When the concentration of a greenhouse gas (A) is itself a function of
temperature, there is a positive feedback from the increase in another
greenhouse gas (B), whereby increase in B increases the temperature which,
in turn, increases the concentration of A, which increases temperatures
further. Water vapor is thought to provide a positive feedback of this
type in response to increase in carbon dioxide. If a change in temperature
of 1 degree causes an increase in water vapor by an amount that, in
isolation, caused a further increase in temperature of x degrees, then the
final warming will be enhanced by the factor 1/(1-x) = 1 +x +x2 +x3 + ....
.. If x is larger than unity, this series diverges and temperatures
increase until the source of the gas is exhausted or some other
nonlinearity intervenes. On Earth, x for water vapor is thought to lie in
the range 0.3-0.4, so the Earth is far from this runaway condition, as is
also self-evident from the stability of the climate through geological
time.

A runaway greenhouse effect may, however, have occurred on Venus. On Venus
today there is little water vapor in the atmosphere. If water vapor did
contribute to the warmth of Venus at one time, this water is thought to
have escaped to space. Venus is sufficiently strongly heated by the Sun
that water vapour can rise much higher in the atmosphere and is split into
hydrogen and oxygen by ultraviolet light. The hydrogen can then escape
from the atmosphere and the oxygen recombines. Carbon dioxide, the
dominant greenhouse gas in the current Venusian atmosphere, likely owes
its larger concentration to the weakness of carbon recycling as compared
to Earth, where the carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes is efficiently
subducted into the Earth by plate tectonics on geologic time scales.
[3],[4].

Anthropogenic greenhouse effect

CO2 production from increased industrial activity (fossil fuel burning)
and other human activities such as cement production and tropical
deforestation has increased the CO2concentrations in the atmosphere.
Measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show
that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to
about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the
geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J.,
Climatic Change, 68, 269, 2005 ISSN 0165-0009).

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global
mean temperature. There has been an observed global average temperature
increase of about 0.5oC since 1960 (Science 308, 1431, 2005), .
Quantitative understanding of climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration
remains elusive due to uncertainties in a variety of feedbacks, especially
those related to clouds, but there is little doubt that a substantial
portion of the warming in the last half century was caused by the
incresase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Over the past 800,000 years [5], ice core data shows unambiguously that
carbon dixoide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million
(ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm [6]. Paleoclimatogists
consider variations in carbon dioxide to be a fundamental factor in
controlling climate variations over this time scale.

Real greenhouses

The term 'greenhouse effect' originally came from the greenhouses used for
gardening, but it is a misnomer since greenhouses operate differently [7]
[8]. A greenhouse is built of glass; it heats up primarily because the Sun
warms the ground inside it, which warms the air near the ground, and this
air is prevented from rising and flowing away. The warming inside a
greenhouse thus occurs by suppressing convection and turbulent mixing.
This can be demonstrated by opening a small window near the roof of a
greenhouse: the temperature will drop considerably. It has also been
demonstrated experimentally (Wood, 1909): a "greenhouse" built of rock
salt (which is transparent to IR) heats up just as one built of glass
does. Greenhouses thus work primarily by preventing convection; the
greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss, not convection. It is
quite common, however, to find sources (e.g. [9] [10]) that make the
"greenhouse" analogy. Although the primary mechanism for warming
greenhouses is the prevention of mixing with the free atmosphere, the
radiative properties of the glazing can still be important to commercial
growers. With the modern development of new plastic surfaces and glazings
for greenhouses, this has permitted construction of greenhouses which
selectively control radiation transmittance in order to better control the
growing environment [11].


References

* Earth Radiation Budget,
http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/educat.../yuri/erb.html

* Fleagle, RG and Businger, JA: An introduction to atmospheric
physics, 2nd edition, 1980

* Fraser, Alistair B., Bad Greenhouse
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html

* Giacomelli, Gene A. and William J. Roberts1, Greenhouse Covering
Systems, Rutgers University, downloaded from:
http://ag.arizona.edu/ceac/research/...ortGlazing.pdf on
3-30-2005.

* Ann Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie, K: A climate modelling primer
(quote: Greenhouse effect: the effect of the atmosphere in
re-readiating longwave radiation back to the surface of the Earth. It
has nothing to do with glasshouses, which trap warm air at the
surface).

* Kiehl, J.T., and Trenberth, K. (1997). Earth's annual mean global
energy budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2),
197–208.

* Piexoto, JP and Oort, AH: Physics of Climate, American Institute of
Physics, 1992 (quote: ...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is
actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to
the reduction of convection)

* Wood, R.W. (1909). Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse,
Philosophical Magazine 17, p319–320. For the text of this online, see
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html * IPCC assessment
reports, see http://www.ipcc.ch/



WHO ARE YOU?

Soot factor for R-12? Never heard of that one.

Some R-12 may be in production. If it is, it is unlikely to be a lot. Any
it is pretty expensive so most folks have switched to HCFCs or HFCs. It may
have a value similar to silver.

You can look up the global warming potentials for CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs to
see which are the worst actors. Also, sulfur hexafluoride.

But overall the main bad actors are CO2 and CH4.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:d74b5b27292ea7aaaa86e52b6aa7946d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Question Quigley" wrote in message
news:GnlSg.3219$Kw1.2715@trnddc05

Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on
freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30
years
has something to do with it?)

That freon of R-12 is a mere drop in our global warming bucket that's
not exactly helping, but it's not the primary cause by any long shot
(there's not exactly a big soot factor with R-12). Actually the
conversion from R-12 to the alternatives was much worse for our
environment, and it was another damn spendy (multi billion dollar)
effort. Just printing all of that loot created far more physical
pollution than the R-12 it supposedly got rid of.

BTW; how much global R-12 is still being produced, and of how much is
still in use?

What other than R-12 is getting produced that's much worse off for our
environment?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say; So what's the difference? It's only going to go all the way,
and that's even if all of humanity left Earth for another planet or
moon, and we took all of our farting cows along with us.

Without us humans and our cows, it would have simply taken a few extra
centuries, or possibly a few extra thousands of years, but otherwise
because of our locally orbiting mascon and resulting tidal friction plus
the extra IR/FIR worth of our moon, that which has only been with us
since the last ice age, plus our badly failing magnetosphere might
suggest that it doesn't really matter, or does it?

Is there some remaining question that Earth is getting much hotter? (I
don't think so)

Is there any question that our magnetosphere has been failing us? (I
don't think so)

Why not focus our best talents and the few remaining resources on
surviving these ongoing trends without having to prematurely expirer, or
would you much rather die as is for not trying (as though dumbfounded)?

Since mother Earth is never going to cool off, I have a few terrestrial
energy producing solutions that are 100% renewable (meaning zero CO2,
zero NOx and absolutely zilch worth of soot), as I'm certain others like
yourself will equally share and share alike if you'll help such others
to focus their supposed talents and resources that'll get the job done.
I also have R-1024 insulation that's as structural as you'd like to make
it, compared to the wussy stuff that's currently available is by itself
a win-win for the old global warming gipper.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Question Quigley wrote:
Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30 years
has something to do with it?)

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!
.
This is how Hansen arrives at his conclusion
"He takes a proxy record whose most recent reading is approximately
4320 BP (and there's hair on that age estimate) and compares that to
instrumental records in the 20th century, using the 1870-1900"(Clmate
Audit)
One womders how he could know what tne temperature really was 4230
years ago.

wrote in
oups.com:

Question Quigley wrote:
Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on
freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30
years has something to do with it?)

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!
.
This is how Hansen arrives at his conclusion
"He takes a proxy record whose most recent reading is approximately
4320 BP (and there's hair on that age estimate) and compares that to
instrumental records in the 20th century, using the 1870-1900"(Clmate
Audit)
One womders how he could know what tne temperature really was 4230
years ago.


I'm sure you "womber" lots of things, like how to spell, but unfortunately
you were born with honesty genes or hard-work genes so you can never
really put in the effort to find out. You'll just have to be satisfied
with quotes from racketeer-controlled websites and eternal wombering.

In article ,
"El Guapo" wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
El Guapo wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!

AP article
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...5global001.cfm

The actual article in PNAS currently free to the public.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1

[Note the highly unusual inclusion of political references in
this scientific paper. I haven't exhaustively surveyed the
history of PNAS, but l doubt the the reviewers at PNAS would
have allowed this before. Science has taken the gloves off!]

Global surface temperature has increased

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of
human-made pollution," Hansen said in a statement. "If further global
warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that
make Earth a different planet than the one we know. The last time it was
that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when sea
level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than
today," Hansen said.

So, if the planet wasn't getting warmer, would it be getting cooler?
Wouldn't that also make it a "different planet than the one we know?" Or
does Hansen believe that the climate would just stay the same forever, if
we would just stop adding greenhouse gases? If so, has he not looked at
his own charts?

You are imagining an ice age that is no longer going to happen. Some of us
like to stick with reality, the hydrocarbon combustion, the warming.

First of all, you obviously missed the point. If we somehow stopped all
sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then would it magically stop the
climate from ever changing? Would the planet never change, as Hansen would
apparently like us to believe?

If you found a cure for cancer, would everybody live forever? If not, why try
to find a cure?


Secondly, how do you know that an ice age is not going to happen?

Uh, the earth is warming?

Perhaps
you can explain to me exactly what causes an ice age in the first place.
Feel free to cite any scientific sources you might have. Also, if you argue
that a drop in greenhouse gases is the cause, then please explain what
caused the drop in greenhouse gases in the first place.

I think that's what bugs me the most about people like Hansen. If the
global temperature was falling instead of rising, he would still be
crying about how we were sliding into a new ice age, and the government
was doing nothing to stop it.

The government and corporations have already stopped the ice age.

That little reality thing, remember? Reality on Earth is like a powered
rocket with no inertial control. Inertial control is clearly possible.

Science is what makes inertial control possible. That's reality.

So, no, are you still having problems with reality?

Wow. Ummm... I'm not, but clearly somebody else is.

In article lgate.org,
"Brad Guth" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message


That freon of R-12 is a mere drop in our global warming bucket that's
not exactly helping, but it's not the primary cause by any long shot
(there's not exactly a big soot factor with R-12). Actually the
conversion from R-12 to the alternatives was much worse for our
environment,

No it wasn't, but you're loco anyway.

We see that you utilize the proven Arthur Andersen and those ENRON

Do you hear voices in your head?


formulas of geophysics book keeping, that which doesn't have to include
any such honest birth to grave accounting, and we also see that you
haven't taken any steps to answer my questions because you're nothing
but another wuss of a status quo or bust liar.

It takes a great deal of energy to create the likes of R-12 or even more
of such energy in order to create those other freon altertnatives.

Prove it.

Besides, what do we suppose actually happens to the surplus of replaced
R-12 that has become so frealing artificially valuable to a global
market?


What surplus? Existing stocks have been used up.

I also totally agree with the regular laws of physics, in that a dark
and wavy zones of ice free water is always going to absorb and retain
one heck of a lot more solar energy than snow and ice as taken at the
same angle. I do believe the ratio is a good 10:1, if not greater.

Where's the truth in Usenet? All I ever see is another variation of a
Third Reich status quo that's 100% Skull and Bones, or bust. Obviously
there are a few too many tonnes of Usenet bad guys for every gram of us
good guys. What we good guys need is a serious cash of WMDs that we can
deploy against those (mostly Jewish) controlling rusemasters and of
their born-again resident LLPOF warlords that have not shown a speck of
remorse for their past or ongoing actions.


So you have a "Final Solution" too?

As per ususal, my warm and fuzzy though honest topics about Venus or
that of our nearby orbiting mascon of a physically dark and somewhat
salty moon that's offering secondary IR/FIR and via tidal friction
that's roasting us to death, as well as having been radiating us with
extra gamma and hard-X-rays, though oddly as an honest topic isn't
hardly going anywhere because, obviously others and myself are more than
sufficiently right. As such, here's another related sub-topic that's
worth tossing into this Usenet naysay ring of fire.

What's all this I'm hearing from our Roger Coppock? The hell you folks
are saying that our own government and those nifty energy corporations
are liars. My God and Christ almighty on another stick, what is this
pagan global warming world of your's coming to?

Obviously some of us snookered village idiots have been thinking outside
the status quo box, that it's already too late, as they tend to perceive
we're remaining as too addictive to the sorts of energy that's being
extracted and otherwise produced via some of the dirtiest known and
otherwise soot, NOx plus many other toxin producing methods. I
personally think we're just downright greedy little perverted *******s
that don't have a stitch of remorse, and as such really don't give a
tinkers damn about others or that of our failing environment, that's
only about to get yet another slap of extra cosmic and solar radiation
in the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad our DNA isn't
sufficiently evolving towards getting rad-hard at the same rate that
some of our Republican offshore tax avoidance bank accounts are getting
fat.

The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including
yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with
our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon
enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing
in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in
the dirty past that's killing us and stressing out most every other
living thing on Earth. At least thus fare there's little if any
evidence that we've made any improvement in the quality of life for
other than whatever's on behalf of the wealthiest species of human life.

I do believe this one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger
Coppock dumbfounded past the point of no return, thinking that it's all
the fault of humanity, rather than primarily the matter of our somewhat
recently obtained moon as having caused most of the last thaw via
gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to
boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't quite manage to think
inside or much less outside the cozy little box that has been
orchestrated as though carefully constructed around our dumb and dumber
mindsets, in that we have to believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or
MI/NSA~NASA certified, and nothing else matters.

"Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages"
wrote in message

HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...585b1a8da131d8
808e3ebda.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...d/98e67584c65b
1a1d/b24eeb1ff70466f1?hl=en#b24eeb1ff70466f1

: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
: has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting.
: In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The
: battery has been charged.
The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
refreezing could occur.

The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted
to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen.

The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
calories of heat energy released to the air.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules

In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
Joules)...

... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
kinetics as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
" This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. "

I say that's absolutely impressive, and I'd also have to totally agree
that it's all about to explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant
and greedy little fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, and
that's not to mention the discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and
other deep geophysical energy resources that's now extensively into our
surface environment along with all of the megatonnes/year worth of NOx
from hell.

It's so bad off that even fish are drowning (leaving lots more room for
jellyfish), yet the mainstream status quo is absolutely hell bent upon
staying the course of those thousand soot and NOx producing lights.

Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded by those folks having "the right
stuff", as to even so much as realize how totally snookered and
summarily dumfounded into denial we all are, and how soon some of us are
going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a direct
result.

The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while
turning out a hefty and essentially tax-free offshore profit at the
ongoing demise of others.

There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much
less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has
to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy
isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application
has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling
alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very
same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because,
apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable
without hardly a stitch of repercussions.

Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd
care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another
taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our
failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely
compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or
by way of better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any
viable combination (including h2o2/biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll
represent a near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any NOx
because, the mostly nitrogen atmosphere itself isn't getting consumed.

God forbid that we should ever have a surplus of such environmentally
clean energy for putting into the makings, storage and distributions of
such nifty products as LH2 or h2o2, and of subsequently making the
consumption of damn near everything else under the sun so much more
efficient and so much cleaner, not to mention biologically and
environmentally so much end-user friendly.
-
Brad Guth



Man, your medication needs to be stronger!

"Question Quigley" wrote in message
news:YkFSg.10513$KK.1199@trnddc08

Soot factor for R-12? Never heard of that one.
That's because R-12 dosen't generally represent a soot factor.

Some R-12 may be in production. If it is, it is unlikely to be a lot. Any
it is pretty expensive so most folks have switched to HCFCs or HFCs. It may
have a value similar to silver.
True, though it actually cost less to produce, package and distribute
R-12 than of it's replacements. All the other cost factors upon using
R-12 are those related to being artificially taxed to death, plus good
old all American know-how greed.

You can look up the global warming potentials for CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs to
see which are the worst actors. Also, sulfur hexafluoride.

But overall the main bad actors are CO2 and CH4.

Most freons and similar CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs are not dark elements nor
being intentionally consumed by fire, thus involving little if any
optical nor soot factor.

Clear CO2 and CH4 are also non soot factors, thus whatever global albedo
dimming is primarly that being created by the process of artificially
producing, storing, packaging and distributing such elements.

BTW; besides using plain old air, CO2 is actually another terrifically
effective replacement gas for refrigeration and air conditioning. Of
course air and CO2 are each essentially free elements, that which our
modern chemical industry can't hardly make another dishonest buck at
marketing.

Besides, our moon is most likely representing as much as 90% of our
ongoing fiasco with global warming, and our ongoing raping and pollution
of mother Earth for all she's worth is picking up the 10% slack. At
worse, we could be contributing 25% to our global warming demise, which
really doesn't matter because of the failing magnetosphere is going to
start nailing each and every butt within the next thousand years, by
which time a barrel of crude should be going for at least $1000/barrel
while the majority of humanity could be earning less than $10/day unless
they're into selling off their body parts.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Tom_Booger e wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

Question Quigley wrote:
Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on
freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30
years has something to do with it?)

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!
.
This is how Hansen arrives at his conclusion
"He takes a proxy record whose most recent reading is approximately
4320 BP (and there's hair on that age estimate) and compares that to
instrumental records in the 20th century, using the 1870-1900"(Clmate
Audit)
One womders how he could know what tne temperature really was 4230
years ago.


I'm sure you "womber" lots of things, like how to spell, but unfortunately
you were born with honesty genes or hard-work genes so you can never
really put in the effort to find out. You'll just have to be satisfied
with quotes from racketeer-controlled websites and eternal wombering.


There's nothing worse than a Grammer Nazi that doesn't check their own
grammer!

1. He said "womder" not "womber". If you are going to make fun of
someones spelling then you could at least correctly spell the word they
spelled incorrectly.

2. Yes, it is very unfortunate he WAS born with honesty and hardwork
genes, unlike you! Yes, you said he was born WITH them.