wrote:
Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:

How can the fact that the proxy data is accurate to 1 degree C be
known, except by comparison to temperature measurements? Using the
proxy data for the modern era would introduce a great deal of noise.
What else do you think would happen?


Using proxy data from the modern era would introduce accuracy of facts.

??? The accuracy of the proxy data has been demonstrated. The
accuracy of the insturment record has been demonstrated. There is no
significant difference between the two. Using only proxy data only
would not introduce any more accuracy, and less precision.

Biased toward using the best temperature estimates available for each
time period. How terrible!


And comparing proxy to actual instead of proxy to proxy.

There would be no substantial difference.

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?

Because the Ice ages cover long periods of time, and AGW doesn't.
Because the past record has low resolution, recent records do not.

What would change about the conclusions if it was plotted on a linear
or log scale?
Nothing. All that Hansen was doing was comparing the maxima during
interglacials to those in modern times.


Therein lies the crux, if there is no AGW then his graph represents an
alarmist overblowing a general warming trend.

Hmm, no answer to how the heights of the maxima (y values) would be
affected by changing the x scale. There is no answer of course, so the
only recourse is continued bluster.

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.

???

Tracy P. Hamilton


It's quite simple Tracy, if you condense his 130 year stretch into the
time frame he established for the rest of his graph, it won't be as
"alarming" as he leads others to believe.

It would be straight up! I can imagine the complaints about misleading
plots, to make it seem as if the temperature was rising at a near
infinite rate...

Tracy P. hamilton

Even though Roger Coppock and the likes of most others seem a little
dumbfounded, our somewhat salty and most likely icy proto-moon of 4000
km may have been somewhat Sedna like, and simply affected by some other
impacting arrival or greater mascon encounter as having a sufficient
influence, that would have caused the orbital diversion that brought us
together, such as via the Sirius star/solar system which I believe gets
visited by our solar system roughly every 105,000 years (more frequently
in the distent past). Sedna itself gets to within 76 AU as is, and as
such it would not take all that much of an impact in order to cause that
icy orb to head directly our way, whereas if being dragged along and/or
intentionally deployed by a greater mascon is only better yet.

Obviously something if not several extremely large items had impacted
our moon, and quite possibly there's at least one such impact that may
have left it's mark in Earth as perhaps representing the arctic ocean
basin, as our arriving moon delivered a glancing blow.

All that I can say with any reasonable certainty is that our moon wasn't
with us as of prior to 10,500 BC. I'd be very interested to narrow that
down to a specific decade or even a century, although if Earth had been
impacted by the arrival of such an icy moon, chances are that most
intelligent life on Earth went as deep as possible into hiding, as I
would have, and I'd suppose that the climate of Earth would have
remained as somewhat nasty and clouded over for a few centuries
thereafter, which might further explain as to why it took so long before
that moon became noticed for what it was.
-

Our moon is geophysically via tidal friction warming Earth as of the
last ice age. As to what exact extent these gravitational forces of
such mascon induced tidal currents above and below the surface are being
converted into thermal energy may be a little fuzzy, but never the less
it's an ongoing global warming factor of such fuzzy logic that's telling
us what's perfectly real and happening to us, that's well above and
beyond the ongoing impact of humanity that's adding further trauma to
our environment.

Up until this last ice age, Earth's environment simply didn't have to
contend with that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC, just that of
our 100,000 and some odd year orbit of Sirius. If there were a moon
prior to 10,500 BC, as such it would have been included in many of the
artistic renderings of those tens of centuries of talented artistic and
otherwise serious records of those ice age and prior times.

Here's my two ballpark estimates of mascon/tidal warming between 0.01%
and 0.1%. It could be a little greater, but it most certainly isn't
anything less than the 0.01% mark.

0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

Total change in greenhouse forcing from 1985 to 2004, we get 9.35 w/m2.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...under-the-sun/

Current Man-made Greenhouse Forcing to be 2.4 - 4.3 W/m2, Compared with
7.5 - 10 W/m2 Needed for Change of Seasons

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.p...62&Itemi d=27

Of course the really big guns of G8 remains in total denial, other than
insisting it's all the fault of Muslims. There's lots of other data
that's nicely compiled by wikipedia.org, such as the 11 year solar cycle
that's worth +/- 0.05% or possibly at most +/- 0.1% of solar irradiance,
which pretty much eliminates that source of being the problem. Whereas
the global dimming via soot and particle factors may be the ultimate
culprit that diminishes our global albedo to a sufficient extent that
can be directly measured from space on a year by year basis, and best
yet as measured from our moon's L1 or alternately via ACE that's halo
parked in Earth's L1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Therefore, on behalf of global warming, I'm giving humanity as little as
10% responsibility, and that nasty moon of ours gets the other 90% which
seems more than likely, especially since the energy cycle of having made
warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is so freaking
horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes of said ice and
frozen tundra into account.

At the very most I'd be giving humanity 25% responsibility for the
ongoing global warming, although either way of being 25% or as little as
10% is still worth our doing something about, such as cutting that
artificial impact in half seems perfectly doable, and as such it's way
more than beneficial in so many other positive ways, other than
moderating our fair share of this never ending cycle of global warming,
that is unless you're perfectly good with your next 'Happy Meal' being a
McJellyfish sandwich.
-
Brad Guth


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

But it is the part of Earth's history that is most meaningful to us.

"rick++" wrote in message
oups.com...

Thats about .0002% of Earth's history.
Insignificant.

In article 1sGTg.14303$gF3.11453@trnddc02, "Question Quigley" wrote:
But it is the part of Earth's history that is most meaningful to us.

Yeah, but you're unlikely to last even 1% of 12,000 years, so just put
it down to bad luck that you're here now. ;-)

"rick++" wrote in message
roups.com...

Thats about .0002% of Earth's history.
Insignificant.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Brad Guth wrote:
Even though Roger Coppock and the likes of most others seem a little
dumbfounded, our somewhat salty and most likely icy proto-moon of 4000
km may have been somewhat Sedna like, and simply affected by some other
impacting arrival or greater mascon encounter as having a sufficient
influence, that would have caused the orbital diversion that brought us
together, such as via the Sirius star/solar system which I believe gets
visited by our solar system roughly every 105,000 years (more frequently
in the distent past). Sedna itself gets to within 76 AU as is, and as
such it would not take all that much of an impact in order to cause that
icy orb to head directly our way, whereas if being dragged along and/or
intentionally deployed by a greater mascon is only better yet.

Obviously something if not several extremely large items had impacted
our moon, and quite possibly there's at least one such impact that may
have left it's mark in Earth as perhaps representing the arctic ocean
basin, as our arriving moon delivered a glancing blow.

All that I can say with any reasonable certainty is that our moon wasn't
with us as of prior to 10,500 BC. I'd be very interested to narrow that
down to a specific decade or even a century, although if Earth had been
impacted by the arrival of such an icy moon, chances are that most
intelligent life on Earth went as deep as possible into hiding, as I
would have, and I'd suppose that the climate of Earth would have
remained as somewhat nasty and clouded over for a few centuries
thereafter, which might further explain as to why it took so long before
that moon became noticed for what it was.
-

Our moon is geophysically via tidal friction warming Earth as of the
last ice age. As to what exact extent these gravitational forces of
such mascon induced tidal currents above and below the surface are being
converted into thermal energy may be a little fuzzy, but never the less
it's an ongoing global warming factor of such fuzzy logic that's telling
us what's perfectly real and happening to us, that's well above and
beyond the ongoing impact of humanity that's adding further trauma to
our environment.

Up until this last ice age, Earth's environment simply didn't have to
contend with that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC, just that of
our 100,000 and some odd year orbit of Sirius. If there were a moon
prior to 10,500 BC, as such it would have been included in many of the
artistic renderings of those tens of centuries of talented artistic and
otherwise serious records of those ice age and prior times.

Here's my two ballpark estimates of mascon/tidal warming between 0.01%
and 0.1%. It could be a little greater, but it most certainly isn't
anything less than the 0.01% mark.

0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

Total change in greenhouse forcing from 1985 to 2004, we get 9.35 w/m2.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...under-the-sun/

Current Man-made Greenhouse Forcing to be 2.4 - 4.3 W/m2, Compared with
7.5 - 10 W/m2 Needed for Change of Seasons

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.p...62&Itemi d=27

Of course the really big guns of G8 remains in total denial, other than
insisting it's all the fault of Muslims. There's lots of other data
that's nicely compiled by wikipedia.org, such as the 11 year solar cycle
that's worth +/- 0.05% or possibly at most +/- 0.1% of solar irradiance,
which pretty much eliminates that source of being the problem. Whereas
the global dimming via soot and particle factors may be the ultimate
culprit that diminishes our global albedo to a sufficient extent that
can be directly measured from space on a year by year basis, and best
yet as measured from our moon's L1 or alternately via ACE that's halo
parked in Earth's L1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Therefore, on behalf of global warming, I'm giving humanity as little as
10% responsibility, and that nasty moon of ours gets the other 90% which
seems more than likely, especially since the energy cycle of having made
warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is so freaking
horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes of said ice and
frozen tundra into account.

At the very most I'd be giving humanity 25% responsibility for the
ongoing global warming, although either way of being 25% or as little as
10% is still worth our doing something about, such as cutting that
artificial impact in half seems perfectly doable, and as such it's way
more than beneficial in so many other positive ways, other than
moderating our fair share of this never ending cycle of global warming,
that is unless you're perfectly good with your next 'Happy Meal' being a
McJellyfish sandwich.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Sorry,but brad looks as though he is in la-la land to me as well

In article . com, writes:
The raw SSTs published in 1985 show 1870 as warm as 1980
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT ALL HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE
2005 was the first year in the last 20 that anyone could have sailed as
far North as Nansen did in 1896

I have not seen any comments to this claim.

Nansen did not sail far north in 1896. He deliberately let his ship freeze in the ice
The ice and the ship followed the ocean current across the Arctic ocean.


Øyvind Seland

It's a lost cause guys, at the current growth rates, we'll reach
CO2 thermal saturation (around 600 ppm) long before any measures we
instituted today could possibly have their effects. and that's
assuming that everyone cooperated.
Global warming is happening, and it's going to happen to
completion, and there's nothing we can do about it. We need to start
building our cities on the assumption that cretatious conditions will
be coming back.
What we need to be worrying about now is reducing CO2 emissions to
a level that will allow the air to still be breathable in a few hundred
years.

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


In article lgate.org,
"Brad Guth" wrote:
Earth simply didn't have that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC


Yeah, the Enterprise-D tractored it into position.

Don't be silly.

Mote my eye, beam yours.


More than likely something via the Sirius encounter
that happens every some odd 100,000 years (perhaps encounters at
something less than 0.086 light year seems perfectly doable), whereas
ever since the last ice age that's as of something roughly 10,000 BC
there's but no other sign of Earth's environment having that nearby,
physically dark and salty mascon of such a tidal causing moon of our.

Or, it could have been nothing but absolute natural happenstance of
various stuff smacking into one another, which by the way still happens
all the time.

As a matter of fact, I'll have to keep asking if you have much of
anything to offer that's prior to 2000 BC, that's depicting or telling
us of any moon god, or in any way otherwise recorded as per Earth's pre
last ice age environment and of those early artistic and otherwise
survival intelligent inhabitance having that extremely nifty moonshine
to work with?

The Dropas/Dzopas seem to have depicted upon stone as to offering
something that's quite possibly moon like as of their 10,000 BC arrival,
but that depiction of their's could also have merely represented their
own mother spaceplane/craft that got them smart little ET wizards here
in the first place.
-
Brad Guth

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message


In article lgate.org,
"Brad Guth" wrote:
Earth simply didn't have that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC


Yeah, the Enterprise-D tractored it into position.

Don't be silly. More than likely something via the Sirius encounter
that happens every some odd 100,000 years (perhaps encounters at
something less than 0.086 light year seems perfectly doable), whereas
ever since the last ice age that's as of something roughly 10,000 BC
there's but no other sign of Earth's environment having that nearby,
physically dark and salty mascon of such a tidal causing moon of our.

Or, it could have been nothing but absolute natural happenstance of
various stuff smacking into one another, which by the way still happens
all the time.

As a matter of fact, I'll have to keep asking if you have much of
anything to offer that's prior to 2000 BC, that's depicting or telling
us of any moon god, or in any way otherwise recorded as per Earth's pre
last ice age environment and of those early artistic and otherwise
survival intelligent inhabitance having that extremely nifty moonshine
to work with?

The Dropas/Dzopas seem to have depicted upon stone as to offering
something that's quite possibly moon like as of their 10,000 BC arrival,
but that depiction of their's could also have merely represented their
own mother spaceplane/craft that got them smart little ET wizards here
in the first place.
-
Brad Guth


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

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


Mote my eye, beam yours.

OK, I'll bite. What the hell does that mean?
-
Brad Guth


That for you to call others silly or stupid or crazy is like Jesus's story,
tend to the beam in your eye before worrying about the mote in mine.