On 30 Jan 2007 11:19:09 -0800, "Frank Palmer"
wrote:

On Jan 24, 7:30 pm, Bob Brown . wrote:
If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

If not, then I have my answer.

If Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, then how did the previous
presidents die?

I think you're answering question I raised Before I began to accept
many of the people here's scientific explanations. That post, and many
others, were posted before I began to accept things.

I guess it's the problem with threads received by different people at
different times. Sorry for the confusion.

On Feb 1, 10:15 pm, Bob Brown . wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:35:36 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

So, for your last question as to magnitude/contribution of volcanoes:
The volcanic CO2 effect is vastly smaller than the anthropogenic CO2
effect. It, correspondingly, needs vastly longer in order to accumulate
to a point of having comparable effect to anthropogenic (there are
also other processes which make the volcanoes a less effective source than
human for changing atmospheric CO2 levels).

The ash effect (possibly more one of ejected sulphur being converted
to aerosols in the stratosphere) is strictly one of cooling. The
magnitude of that is order 0.5 C for Pinatubo (a VEI eruption on order of 6).
(Note that this doesn't scale linearly; a VEI of 7 doesn't necessarily
mean a 5 C cooling, and certainly not VEI of 8 giving 50 C.) The
ash and aerosols, however, fall out over a period of months to 2-3 years.

In terms of understanding the few months to few years dips in the
global mean temperature over the last 100+ years, we need to (and do)
consider the volcanoes. The warming side, though, is strictly other
things.

Isn't the global ash coverage in the upper atmosphere a process that
also traps heat? If so, doesn't it deserve as much credit as fossil
fuel contributed global warming?

Ash and aerosols in the upper atmosphere reflect sunlight and make the
Earth slightly cooler in the short term (until they wash out). This
has been observed historically with every large scale (usually
explosive) vulcanism. Notably Krakatoa(1884), Tamborra(1816) year
without a summer and the huge fissure eruption at Laki (1793-5). The
latter being well documented as causing havoc with weather and
agriculture in mainland Europe (and utterly devastating to Iceland).

I've heard/read many people who experience ONE above normal temp
summer or ONE above normal hurricane season declare it as being
absolute proof of man-made global warming. If this is the litmus test
for the non-experts then isn't the BELOW normal temps and lack of
hurricanes also non-expert proof of not having any man-made global
warming?

Understand that 99% of the public who are on the GW bandwagon do not
read scientific journals and simply base their opinion on movie stars
and politicians. If you understand what I am getting at?

WTF don't the "general public" in the US listen to their scientists
instead of lying dittohead politicians then?

Hells bells!! The current US administration has been caught redhanded
gagging NASA and NAOO scientists to stop them telling the truth to the
general public. What more evidence do you want? Oilmen run the US for
the benefit of other oilmen. The scientific view will eventually
prevail as nature is not "faith based". No matter how much you don't
believe in global warming it will still occur.


Recall Katrina. This event received far more attention than it
deserved. If it were not for the fact that a Hurricane hit a city
surrounded by a lake with a levee and this city was below sea level
then it would have had far less impact. If the same size and strength
hurricane as katrina were to have hit the eastern coastline it would
have been a small story and would have received little attention.

We need a few more Cat 5 hurricanes to hit major populated centres on
the East coast before this US adminstration will finally get the
message that the climate is changing and that warmer oceans have the
potential to power stronger storms. Another one taking out the Gulf
Coast oil refineries within the next 5 years would be a pretty
effective wake up call.

Failing that we have to wait until the grain farmers all get upset
about persistent droughts.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:35:36 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

So, for your last question as to magnitude/contribution of volcanoes:
The volcanic CO2 effect is vastly smaller than the anthropogenic CO2
effect. It, correspondingly, needs vastly longer in order to accumulate
to a point of having comparable effect to anthropogenic (there are
also other processes which make the volcanoes a less effective source than
human for changing atmospheric CO2 levels).

The ash effect (possibly more one of ejected sulphur being converted
to aerosols in the stratosphere) is strictly one of cooling. The
magnitude of that is order 0.5 C for Pinatubo (a VEI eruption on order of 6).
(Note that this doesn't scale linearly; a VEI of 7 doesn't necessarily
mean a 5 C cooling, and certainly not VEI of 8 giving 50 C.) The
ash and aerosols, however, fall out over a period of months to 2-3 years.

In terms of understanding the few months to few years dips in the
global mean temperature over the last 100+ years, we need to (and do)
consider the volcanoes. The warming side, though, is strictly other
things.


Isn't the global ash coverage in the upper atmosphere a process that
also traps heat? If so, doesn't it deserve as much credit as fossil
fuel contributed global warming?

It doesn't, so it doesn't, respectively.

The heat absorbed by the ash is absorbed in the stratosphere and, on
balance, stays there. So, though there is energy absorption by the
ash, it leads to surface cooling. You need to be careful about location,
as well (as I was mentioning before) time scales and times.


For the rest, about how 'people' talk ...

Can't do much about that. I can (and, as you see, do) try to
get better information out there regarding what the science is,
including the matter of making global statements from a single
local event. (n.b.: This is far from special to climate. People
do this in all areas. 'I raced better the week after I had a bout
of flu, so before my next race, I'll try to get flu a week before.')

Whether people pay attention to the science is their choice. There
are a ton of people who deny that humans have affected atmospheric
CO2 levels, for instance, even though the science has lead to that
conclusion for 50-70 years, and it's been expected for over 100.
In that vein, are you still one of those people?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:16:33 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

For the rest, about how 'people' talk ...

Can't do much about that. I can (and, as you see, do) try to
get better information out there regarding what the science is,
including the matter of making global statements from a single
local event. (n.b.: This is far from special to climate. People
do this in all areas. 'I raced better the week after I had a bout
of flu, so before my next race, I'll try to get flu a week before.')

Whether people pay attention to the science is their choice. There
are a ton of people who deny that humans have affected atmospheric
CO2 levels, for instance, even though the science has lead to that
conclusion for 50-70 years, and it's been expected for over 100.
In that vein, are you still one of those people?

No, but I did love your FLU example, I was ROFL.

I also can't stand the people who damn medications, the ones who take
1,200 pills from those home-health stores. They make wild claims about
how X cures cancer and the pharmaceutical corps won't tell you because
they will lose money. The VEGANS who tell us meat is the root of all
disease even though humans have a round, not elongated, stomach like
cows.

I have met people who SWEAR that if they go to work after smoking
marijuana that they "work better" and "drive better", they always say
stuff like "I do better when I'm high." I laugh and they think I am
being an oppressive conservative just because I think they're stupid.

However, alcohol has a special ability to make ugly women look very
sexy for several hours. Maybe one day science can capture this in pill
form?

Oh yeah, thanks for setting me straight on the climate thing. And
thanks for not doing the usual name-calling when explaining things.

You'd be surprised, in some newsgroups you can question a topic and
the first 12 replies will be "You bigoil nazi ****KER!!!!!!!", and
then the debate goes into who can tell better jokes.

Anyway, thanks again,.

ps. Those webpages are bookmarked.

"Bob Brown" . wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:16:33 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

For the rest, about how 'people' talk ...

Can't do much about that. I can (and, as you see, do) try to
get better information out there regarding what the science is,
including the matter of making global statements from a single
local event. (n.b.: This is far from special to climate. People
do this in all areas. 'I raced better the week after I had a bout
of flu, so before my next race, I'll try to get flu a week before.')

Whether people pay attention to the science is their choice. There
are a ton of people who deny that humans have affected atmospheric
CO2 levels, for instance, even though the science has lead to that
conclusion for 50-70 years, and it's been expected for over 100.
In that vein, are you still one of those people?

No, but I did love your FLU example, I was ROFL.

I also can't stand the people who damn medications, the ones who take
1,200 pills from those home-health stores. They make wild claims about
how X cures cancer and the pharmaceutical corps won't tell you because
they will lose money. The VEGANS who tell us meat is the root of all
disease even though humans have a round, not elongated, stomach like
cows.

I have met people who SWEAR that if they go to work after smoking
marijuana that they "work better" and "drive better", they always say
stuff like "I do better when I'm high." I laugh and they think I am
being an oppressive conservative just because I think they're stupid.

However, alcohol has a special ability to make ugly women look very
sexy for several hours. Maybe one day science can capture this in pill
form?
It already has and the then the guv'ment made the pill illegal



Oh yeah, thanks for setting me straight on the climate thing. And
thanks for not doing the usual name-calling when explaining things.

You'd be surprised, in some newsgroups you can question a topic and
the first 12 replies will be "You bigoil nazi ****KER!!!!!!!", and
then the debate goes into who can tell better jokes.

Anyway, thanks again,.

ps. Those webpages are bookmarked.

"Bob Brown" . wrote in message
...
If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

If not, then I have my answer.




1) Continental drift and the uplift of continental blocks.

2) Reduction of certain gases in the atmosphere.

3) Variations in the earth's orbit.

4) Variations in the earth's tilt.

5) Changes in the sun's energy output.

6) Combinations of the above.

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:16:33 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

For the rest, about how 'people' talk ...

Can't do much about that. I can (and, as you see, do) try to
get better information out there regarding what the science is,
including the matter of making global statements from a single
local event. (n.b.: This is far from special to climate. People
do this in all areas. 'I raced better the week after I had a bout
of flu, so before my next race, I'll try to get flu a week before.')

Whether people pay attention to the science is their choice. There
are a ton of people who deny that humans have affected atmospheric
CO2 levels, for instance, even though the science has lead to that
conclusion for 50-70 years, and it's been expected for over 100.
In that vein, are you still one of those people?

No, but I did love your FLU example, I was ROFL.

It's close to a quote. There's a spectacular example of it working --
Emil Zatopek. He's the only runner to win the 5k, 10k, and
marathon in the Olympics. He did so in 1952, set Olympic
records for each race, and had never previously run the marathon.
Before the Olympics, though, he couldn't run due to illness.
The 'Zatopek effect' comes about, not because of the beneficial
effects of the flu, but because of the benefit of taking it easier
the last week or two before a big race. These days, racers 'taper'
the last 1-3 weeks before big races (longer taper for longer races).

[trim]

Oh yeah, thanks for setting me straight on the climate thing. And
thanks for not doing the usual name-calling when explaining things.

You'd be surprised, in some newsgroups you can question a topic and
the first 12 replies will be "You bigoil nazi ****KER!!!!!!!", and
then the debate goes into who can tell better jokes.

Wouldn't be at all surprised. I've been around the net for a
long time.


Anyway, thanks again,.

ps. Those webpages are bookmarked.

Do take a look, and pursue things into the scientific literature.
IPCC reports are available online, and Science and Nature are
usually available in libraries. One of the good things Jan Schloerer
did in writing up the FAQs of his I host was to cite scientific
literature, or good summaries, which would be available to
nonprofessionals.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences